From the MLJ Archive

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: Most of you, I'm sure, will remember that we are considering at the present time the first seven verses in the 13th chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, beginning with the words, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation," and so on.

Now, we've reached the point in our study of this most important and vital statement at which we are dealing with the relationship between the church and the state. Obviously, what the apostle is dealing with here is the relationship of the Christian to the state, the powers that be. Having considered that from the standpoint of the individual Christian, we are proceeding to study it from the standpoint of the church, a gathering of such Christian persons.

We've been doing it in an historical manner. It seemed to me that that was the best way of approaching this. It's played such a great part in the history of the Christian church. Even wars have been fought over this, and as I've been able to show you, ever since the time when Constantine, the Roman emperor, announced that he had become a Christian and took the Roman Empire into the Christian church roundabout 325 AD, this really has been a very great question and problem.

You can't begin to understand the history of the Roman Catholic Church, can't even understand the history of Protestantism in its various branches and ramifications, unless you know something about this history. Now, we've finished with our historical review, and I trust we all have been able to see that this has indeed occupied a very prominent place, not only in the story of the history of the Christian church, but also in the story of various countries, and particularly the British Isles.

Now, the question that obviously must arise in everybody's mind at this point is this: how has all this ever come to pass? Where has all that history come from? On what is it based? That must be a question that occurs to all of us, and as Christian people, we must ask this question: what relationship has all that great history to do with the teaching of the scriptures? We believe in testing everything by the scriptures.

It's right that we should do so. This is a great Protestant principle, and not only a Protestant principle; it is surely a principle that is taught in the Bible itself. So, having looked at that great history—great in the sense of being voluminous, not suggesting it's great in the other sense of the term, but it's great in the prominence that it's had—we ask this question: how has all this ever come to pass?

So, we turn to the scriptures, and when we do so, this is what we find: that there is nothing of all that at all in the New Testament, nothing at all. I mean by that all this question of the unity of the church and the state, in the case of Rome, the church dominating the state, or in Erastianism, the state dominating the church. I say it is just not to be found at all in the New Testament.

Take this passage we are examining. Take the passage I read at the beginning, 1 Timothy 2. Take the passage in 1 Peter chapter 2, from verse 13 onwards. And you just don't find this at all. What these passages teach is the attitude of the individual believer to the state. That is all that they deal with. There's nothing else in this passage that we're looking at at all. It is simply an exhortation to the individual Christians, members of the church at Rome, and therefore individual Christians, members of any church anywhere, to be subject to the higher powers and to obey them for the reasons that the apostle gives.

But there is nothing whatsoever beyond that. And it's the same, I say, with the other two passages which are always quoted when this subject is being dealt with. Now, that, of course, was quite inevitable at that time, because it was a time when most of these people were subject to the government of the Roman power, which was a pagan power. Not only believing in many religions, but even at that time, the whole notion of emperor worship was coming in, and these people were being called upon to say that Caesar is Lord.

So that it is quite unthinkable that there should be any suggestion whatsoever of any unity between church and state, or even any alliance between church and state, or even any association between church and state. These people were people who, having been born again, met together in little groups in different parts of the great Roman Empire. There is no suggestion whatsoever of the state playing any part at all in the life of the church, or the church as such playing any part at all in the life of the state.

Not only is there no direct evidence of that, there is nothing here which even opens the door to that, none at all. It is possible with other subjects that, though there is no direct teaching, the principle, as it were, is dealt with, and one can see quite easily how it was developed afterwards. But there is nothing here which in any way at all even prepares the mind for what we've been seeing in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, or in the case of Protestantism for the first hundred or 150 years of its story.

Now, that, I think, is something which no one can dispute at all. That is what we find in the New Testament. And as I told you at the beginning of that historical review, the position remained like that until Constantine and the Roman Empire came into the church in the early part of the fourth century. Well then, how has all this, I say, ever come to pass? Well, now, the answer is this: historically, of course, it all began with Constantine and what happened, and it developed from that.

But clearly, Christian people in the church sought for a biblical justification for what they were doing. The men we've been quoting, particularly the great Protestant names, these men were biblical men, and they would never content themselves with doing anything unless they believed that they'd got some biblical warrant for doing what they did. This applies particularly to the people I was referring to last Friday night.

Well now, then, what is their argument? And the answer is this: they claim the justification for their view of the relationship between the state and the church—they claim that it is based on the teaching of the Old Testament. Now, this is a very important point. Let me demonstrate what I'm saying to you. You may recall that I read out to you the chapter, chapter 23, in the Westminster Confession of Faith, where it deals with the question of the civil magistrate. And you remember what we saw there.

But it's most interesting to notice at the bottom of the page the biblical references are given. That's a characteristic of the Westminster Confession; they were not merely making statements, they were giving their biblical references to show that it was deduced from the teaching of the Bible. But what is really interesting is this: that when you come to examine the references that they quote, you will find that they start, of course, with Romans 13:1, 2, 3, and 4, what we are considering. They also quote 1 Peter 2:13 and 14.

Then the chapter deals first of all with the duties of Christians to be obedient to these higher powers, and they give the appropriate scriptures. But when they come to deal with the duty of the magistrate to interfere in these matters, which is the third section of this 23rd chapter—you remember that what we were told was this: that the civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and Sacrament, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, yet he hath authority, and it is his duty to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire.

This is all the duty of the magistrate, remember: that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, and corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. Now then, we're referred here to the scriptures, but let me read to you the scriptures that they quote: Isaiah 49:23, Psalm 122:9, Ezra 7:23, 25, 26, 27, 28, Leviticus 24:16, Deuteronomy 13:5, 6, 12, 2 Kings 18:4, 1 Chronicles 13:1 to 9, 2 Kings 23:1 to 26, 2 Chronicles 34:33 and 15:12 and 13, 2 Chronicles 19:8, 9, 10, and 11.

And finally, one and only one New Testament reference to justify what they've been teaching about the duty of the magistrates in the preservation of doctrine and purity of the Word and so on. One New Testament reference only, and it is Matthew 2:4 and 5. You will be interested to know what we read in Matthew 2, verses 4 and 5. Well, here it is: it's the account, you remember, of what happened just after the birth of our Lord. You remember that the wise men came to Herod the King, and verse 3 says, "When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him."

Then verses 4 and 5: "And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it is written by the prophet." That was all they could find. And if you can argue from that, as they satisfied themselves that they could do, that magistrates and the state are allowed to interfere in the way that they described in the working of the Christian church and the purity of the doctrine and preaching and so on, well then, I'm afraid we must agree to differ. I can't imagine anything so weak.

In other words, the Westminster Confession of Faith itself has to admit that it cannot find any basis for this teaching at all in the New Testament, and it has to go right back to the Old Testament. And then you remember I read to you out of the Belgic Confession, a most excellent confession. Now, I noticed there's been a book published recently which contains the reformed confessions of the 16th century. It's a good book because you can find there all these reformed confessions of the 16th century gathered together.

A footnote says over this point in the relevant section, which was section 36: "This section, like all the corresponding sections in other reformed confessions, is framed on the theory of union of church and state." And that, of course, is the simple truth. They all approach this problem with this in their minds: that there was a union between church and state. And again, all the references are references to Old Testament passages of scripture.

And those today who believe in a state church or this association between the state and the church, they, of course, are compelled to do exactly the same thing. I remember reading an article by a man whom I know well personally and who's a fine evangelical Christian. He was writing an article on these matters, and he actually used these words. He said, "Of course, we wouldn't expect the New Testament to deal with this subject." Now, what a statement.

Here you see Christian people in the 20th century facing this whole problem of the relationship between the church and the state, wondering what is the truth about it. Here is a man who says, "Of course, we wouldn't expect the New Testament to deal with that." The New Testament doesn't help you. He says that is because, of course, of the Roman Empire. But then he says, once Constantine came in, the position again reverted to the Old Testament position.

And there is one fairly well-known writer on these matters, a layman who takes great interest in these things in the Church Assembly, he virtually says that he thanks God for the coming in of Constantine so that now we can go back to the Old Testament relationship between the church and the state. Now, such statements, of course, can only be made without realizing their implications. What is really being said is this: that our Lord and the apostles have nothing to say about this at all, no help to us.

But thank God, Constantine and the Roman Empire came into the church so we can go back again to the Old Testament position. Now, this is a very interesting and important subject, not only with regard to this matter that we are considering. I mean by that the use that we are to make of the Old Testament. This applies not only to the question of church and state, it applies to the whole matter of infant baptism. That's something that is based mainly upon Old Testament teaching in terms of the covenant.

It's the same with the introduction of ceremonies and vestments into the service of the church as you get it in the Roman Catholic Church and in Episcopal types of churches where they put on various forms of dress. There's nothing about that in the New Testament at all. Of course, there's a great deal about it in the Old Testament with the priest, the garments of the priest and the high priests and so on, and the only justification for that kind of thing is to be found in the Old Testament. Nothing in the New whatsoever.

And it's exactly the same, of course, with whether you should sing hymns or not or only sing psalms. That's something that's entirely based upon the Old Testament. So you see, a principle is involved here which covers quite a variety of subjects. Now then, what we are concerned about is this: that the only biblical argument that can be put forward at all with regard to the association between the church and the state is that which is found in the Old Testament.

What is being said, you see, is that the case of Israel demonstrates this, and that the kings in Israel were in this relationship. Now, what is the answer to this? Well, the answer, it seems to me, can be put something like this: that in the case of Israel, the Old Testament, the people of God in the Old Testament, the children of Israel, it is, of course, a fact that the church and the state were consisted of the same people. The nation of Israel is referred to by Stephen in his address to the Sanhedrin in Acts 7 as "the church in the wilderness."

There is no doubt the same people there were the state and the church. This is something, of course, about which there is no difficulty whatsoever; everybody agrees about this. But we must notice that even there, in their case, there was a very definite distinction between the officers of the church and the officers of the state. There is a distinction between the secular and the religious in a very definite manner. Though the people are the same, there are two spheres, and you get that maintained right the way through.

There are instances of kings who took it upon themselves, for instance, to go into the temple to do a thing and were punished in a very terrible manner and so on, showing that there was a distinction even there. But, of course, our real argument about this must be put in this form: that the case of Israel was quite a unique one. There God calls out and makes a people for himself, starting with Abraham and going on. They are God's people; they're his people. They are a nation as well as his worshipping people. The two things are there one.

But it surely is perfectly plain when you come to the New Testament that this no longer obtains, that that was for the time being, that that was preparatory. But now we have come to the fulfillment in Christ, and that no longer obtains. Now, there is one verse which states this, of course, quite plainly and categorically, namely Matthew 21:43, where our Lord himself, speaking, says, "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

There is his verdict upon the nation: that the kingdom of God is going to be taken from them and to be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And that, as the whole of the New Testament makes perfectly clear, is none other than the Christian church. The Christian church is now God's nation. It was the physical nation of Israel; it is no longer so. It is the Christian church. What does the Christian church consist of? Well, the Christian church, you see, differing from the church in the Old dispensation, consists of people who've been called out of all nations and tongues and tribes.

No longer confined to one nation, no longer identified with a particular natural people, but individual people called out of all the nations and brought into this new body, this new nation which is the Christian church. Now, this is the, of course, the essential New Testament picture. And as you have these people gathered out in the various nations and separated from them, it is clear that from this point onwards, you cannot think of the church in any national terms whatsoever. What you've got now is churches in all the nations. In all the nations, there are these gatherings, these groups of people who are churches.

So that it is surely to do violence to the scripture to go back to the Old Testament where you have something unique in the nation of Israel and transfer that to the Christian churches in the New Testament, or if you prefer it, in the New Testament dispensation. It is not only to cause confusion, it is surely to do violence to the scripture itself. You simply cannot transfer the Old Testament to the New in that particular way. That had its function; that had its purpose. It was, ultimately, to produce the Messiah, that he should be born of the seed of David according to the flesh, but the moment he has come, here is this new principle working, and you get churches in all the various nations of the world.

Well now, this is something, of course, that one can show in many ways in the New Testament teaching. I'm establishing the point that since the coming of our Lord and his perfect work, that union between the church and the state which you did have in the Old Testament has ceased to be. So you get our Lord teaching things like this: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, but unto God the things that are God's." You see, you remember they came to him with a coin and they said, "Whose is this image and superscription?" He said to them, rather, they asked him, "Should we pay tribute to Caesar or not?" That was the question.

So he said, "Show me a penny," and they produced the coin. And he said, "Whose is this image and superscription?" They say unto him, "Caesar's." "Very well," he said, "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." That's what you do with the money; this is what you do with your soul. Two different realms. But he is even more explicit than that. In John 18:36, these words are spoken by our Lord to Pontius Pilate or recorded: "My kingdom is not of this world."

Now, that's quite plain. "Art thou a king?" That was the matter. And our Lord's reply is, "My kingdom is not of this world." And then you've got a statement in the 20th chapter of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, in verses 25 and 28. Jesus called them unto him and said, "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

Indeed, all our Lord's teaching about his kingdom, the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God, establishes this essential difference. You can't identify it any longer with the national state. Now, one, you see, became a member of the church in the Old Testament, the nation of Israel, by natural birth. You were born a Jew, and you were circumcised for that reason. But now we are in an entirely different realm. You enter into the kingdom of God not as the result of belonging to a particular nation, not as the result of natural birth, not even because your parents may have been Christians. You enter the kingdom of God by a rebirth.

You remember our Lord puts it so plainly to Nicodemus: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." This is something entirely spiritual. So that the whole of the kingdom is something that has a spiritual character.

And as we've got abundant teaching to show us, it is governed by its own officers. Now, I read to you chapters 2 and 3 of Paul's first Epistle to Timothy in order that you might see that contrast. He starts in chapter 2 telling us to pray for kings and all who are in authority and so on. That's the state. Then in the next chapter, he comes to deal with the officers in the church, altogether different, no relationship at all.

And therefore, these matters are to be thought of and to be dealt with in a spiritual manner. You remember how in 1 Corinthians chapter 6, the apostle upbraids the Corinthians because they were taking their own personal disputes to the public courts. He says they shouldn't even do that. They should find, he says, somebody in the church, even if necessary the lowliest person in the church, to deal with these things.

Listen: "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that ye shall—that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame."

Now, you see, this is the argument. If we are not even to take private, personal matters of dispute between us as Christian people to the public courts, how much less are we to take matters like prayer books or matters of doctrine to the public courts? You see, the thing is really entirely contrary to the whole teaching and spirit of the New Testament.

Now, the teaching of the apostle Paul is quite explicit on this matter, surely, as I've shown you the teaching of our Lord is. Let me give you further examples of Paul's teaching. The apostle Paul teaches about the god of this world. He says, "If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not." And that's 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Then you remember how he puts it in Ephesians at the beginning of chapter 2: "You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." Now, there is the life of the unregenerate person in contradistinction to the life of this regenerate person. Those who've become citizens of the kingdom of God, they enter a different realm which is entirely different from the realm of the state.

But, of course, at the end of Philippians 3, there is this tremendous statement in verses 20 and 21: "For our conversation"—which means our citizenship—"is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour." He writes as a Roman citizen, but he says, "Our real citizenship is in heaven." Now, that's Paul in the realm of the church; the citizenship is in heaven, not on earth, though he belongs to an earthly kingdom. The other is his most essential citizenship.

That's the distinction which is drawn then right the way through. You don't think of the church as being one with the state; you don't think of it as consisting of the same people and being coterminous, as it were. No, no. These are people who are gathered out. They're the called-out ones. He says in at the beginning of his Epistle to the Galatians: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has delivered us from this present evil world." Now, that's the whole atmosphere of the New Testament.

And, of course, when you come on to the last book of the Bible, the book of Revelation, this is to be seen still more clearly. Take, for instance, chapters 13, 17, and 18 of the book of Revelation. And there you see this great contrast, the kingdom of God, the church, and you see the states, the world's states, on the other side over and against.

And in chapter 13, surely, there is a wonderful picture there of this very confusion between church and state about the beast and the image of the beast and so on—the secular power, and the secular power giving its power to the spiritual power, to the church, which becomes the image of the beast, exercising the same sort of authority and power and so on. Surely a very perfect description of what we have been seeing in the case of the Church of Rome and at times of degeneracy even in Protestantism.

But in chapters 17 and 18, this great contrast is again painted for us, and you see how it all ends in a great clash. Now, the argument I'm trying to develop is this: that not only particular statements in the New Testament contradict completely the kind of teaching that was current amongst Roman Catholics and for the first 150, 160 years of Protestantism, but the whole spirit of the New Testament is entirely opposed to this. In the New Testament, you've always got this contrast between the natural and the spiritual, and all along, regeneration is something that is absolutely vital.

And that is why you can never have such a thing as a state church if you are guided by the New Testament. The idea of taking church matters, church doctrine, such as the prayer book as I say, to a secular parliament where the majority are not Christians, may even be Jews or infidels, and allowing them to decide is something, I say, which is surely quite unthinkable if you are truly governed by the teaching of the New Testament.

Their only way of trying to justify it is to quote various passages from the Old Testament. No, no. The unbeliever cannot understand spiritual things. He is totally incompetent to express an opinion on them. No man, however learned, however great he may be, can express an opinion on spiritual matters. You must be born again to understand these. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned." The princes of this world did not recognize our Lord when he was here, otherwise they would never have crucified him.

So I say there is no room whatsoever for a state church or a Christian nation. But you may say, what about this idea that some of the Protestants had about the Christian prince or the Christian ruler? Well, all right, let's grant that a ruler, a king, or a prince, or a president, or whatever you like, may happen to be a Christian himself. That is a possibility; it's often happened, thank God. But he is still only a Christian as an individual. He is not Christian as the head of the state; that is an entirely different function.

And if he uses his power and position and prerogative as the head of the state to influence his position and that of others in the Christian church, he is violating what I read to you just now from the 20th chapter of Matthew, verses 25 to 28. Our Lord says everything here is entirely different from what it is in the state. There the great man rules over the others, but here it is the servant who counts, and you become great by being a servant.

So if a king should come in and demand a special position in the Christian church because he's a king, it is the duty of the church to tell him that he's got to take his place like everybody else in the Christian church. All divisions and distinctions that are recognized outside must not be recognized inside. That is why James in the second chapter of his epistle tells us not to make a difference between the man who comes in with a gold ring and the man who comes in badly clad. You're not to make such distinctions. You're in a different realm.

So you see, all this goes to show how this whole notion of union between the church and the state, or even an alliance between them or association between them, runs quite contrary to the plain teaching of the New Testament. And I want to drive this argument home furthermore by putting it to you like this: there is a very important practical argument which we can deduce from history to support this teaching which is so plain in the New Testament.

Did you observe what happens when you cease to be governed by the New Testament teaching? Well, I was able to show it to you. You had first of all the terrible tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church. There has never been a greater tyranny than the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages and even today where they can safely do so. There has never been a greater tyranny. The tyranny of communism is no greater; it's the same type of tyranny exactly. So you see, if you once adopt this teaching about the union of the two and give this power to the church, that is what it results in.

But then take this further argument. I was able to point out to you, to remind you, that Henry VIII really never became a true Protestant. He died a Roman Catholic. But the change he did make was to make himself the supreme governor of the church as well as of the state. And his servants, even people like Cranmer and others, were ready to submit to this. They should never have done so, and I'm prepared to believe that some of them were most unhappy indeed in doing so, but they did it.

They made him the supreme governor of the church as well as of the state. It was all right, of course, in the time of Henry VIII up to a point, although he persecuted some of the finest Protestants like Bishop John Hooper of Gloucester and others. It was better, much better, in the reign of Edward VI. And of course, these Protestants who had adopted this principle, they thought this was wonderful, and it was all going to work their way. Unfortunately for them, Edward VI died at a very early age. In came Queen Mary I. She was a Roman Catholic.

But she was able to turn on them and say this: "It is you, you yourselves, who have given the monarch, the throne, the crown, supreme authority in matters pertaining to the church." They themselves had done it, and all Mary did was to take the powers that Henry VIII had arrogated to himself with the connivance of these Protestant leaders. And of course, they had to suffer the terrible consequences. But people like Cranmer and others, they had no argument whatsoever to bring against Queen Mary at that particular point.

And of course, they came to see this. And yet, it was never quite dealt with, because even when Elizabeth came back, Elizabeth I came to the throne, there was a fight, all honor to the men who fought her, but they were defeated, and some of them were guilty of terrible weakness. Now, I've already granted that there was a good deal to be said on the political side; I'm prepared to grant their great difficulties. But oh, that they had kept to the biblical teaching, the New Testament distinction in these matters. But they didn't.

Elizabeth tyrannized over the church, and many godly people endured much suffering as the result of that. James I went still further, Charles I even further than that, and it ended, of course, in the Civil War and in the beheading of Charles I. Now, that is what happens, you see, in practice once you depart from this scriptural teaching. And you notice it not only happened under Roman Catholicism, it happened under Protestantism in exactly the same way.

And that is how you have an understanding of the rising of this whole free church principle. But in addition to that, if you do confuse the church and the state, it always results in harm being done to the gospel and its preaching. It always has that effect of detracting from the purity of the gospel. Now, let's be fair in these matters. Free churchmen have fallen into this same mistake. Let me put a question to you: why do you think the working people, working classes as they're called, are outside the churches at the present time?

Well, I have no hesitation in answering that for myself, and I could prove it. I say that they're in that position because in the last century, the 19th century, non-conformists, free churchmen, fell into this same error and trap in a slightly different way, but the principle is exactly the same. The owner of the works or the manager of the works was generally the chief deacon in the chapel. And he carried over into the life of the chapel what he did the other six days of the week in his works.

And so the working classes began to identify Christianity with capitalism, with status quo. They said the churches are against us. And they were very often against them, simply because the churches, instead of keeping themselves to the purity of the New Testament teaching, allowed the secular distinctions to come into the church. It doesn't matter, you see, whether it's a king or a prince or an emperor, or whether it's a plutocrat or whether it's a millionaire or whether it's a manager.

It doesn't matter who he is, nor what form his power may take; he must not be allowed to bring that into the realm of the Christian church. The moment he does, the gospel preaching is compromised. And often it was compromised, and the gospel gave the impression that it was just there to support and to buttress and to substantiate the status quo. It was on the side of privilege always as against the common people. You cannot mix these things without compromising your gospel and the purity of the preaching of the gospel.

Not only that, to mix these two things always produces hypocrites. When everybody in the parish is regarded as a Christian, you're bound to have hypocrites. When everybody in the nation is regarded as a Christian, hypocrisy is quite inevitable. And this has been the curse throughout the centuries. It's been as true of Protestantism as of Roman Catholicism. When the church isn't concerned about purity, but allows people to be admitted because they're children of particular parents or because of some worldly position or something like that, well then I say you have nothing but hypocrites.

And this has been rampant in Protestantism as in Roman Catholicism. People have been given positions of prominence in the church; very often a man reads the scriptures, not because he's a Christian, but because he's the local squire or a member of a profession and is regarded as a learned man who can read well. That's the sole reason why he steps forward to read the scriptures. Is it surprising, I say, that there has been hypocrisy and that people have reacted against this and have dismissed the church and the whole of her message? That is the kind of consequence you get when you fail to maintain this distinction.

But, of course, at the present time and in the present position, as has been the case for many years now, the idea of a state church in this or any other country has just become ridiculous. Why? Well, because you've got a multiplicity of denominations and of churches. The moment you have more than one church, a state church automatically goes out. If all Christians belong to one church, well, in a very wrong way but in a superficial manner, you can see some justification for a state church.

But the moment you've got divisions into sects, denominations, different groupings, it's not only wrong but it becomes an impertinence. Why should one particular denomination be the state church more than any other? But that is the position, you see, in which we have landed ourselves as the result of the failure of our forefathers to be governed by the teaching of the New Testament in these matters and allowing themselves to carry on certain traditions which they inherited from their fathers.

Well, we've got to leave it, I see, at that for tonight, but we still haven't finished quite with this matter. I'm simply laying down certain broad conclusions. We'll have to continue with this, God willing, next Friday evening and then continue with a consideration of: has the church then anything to say with regard to these great questions that are agitating the minds of people, like Sabbath observance, certain glaring moral problems at the present time, and so on?

Well now, I trust that I shall be able to deal with that, but the thing I trust I've left uppermost in your minds this evening is this: is that I have been able to show you that even those godly biblical men who drew up the Westminster Confession of Faith could only find—and oh, how they must have searched in order to find it—Matthew 2:4 and 5 to justify the position that they advocated. May God open our eyes to these matters in this period of change and transition through which we are passing. All these things are again before us acutely. Let us learn the lessons from the past. Above all, let us learn this lesson of always keeping ourselves to the biblical teaching.

Oh Lord our God, we pray thee to look upon us in pity and mercy and compassion. We see the mistakes of others, and yet oh Lord, we know that we are also blind to our own mistakes and errors. Lord have pity upon us, open our eyes, we pray thee. Give us understanding, give us honesty. Lead us in thine own way. Oh God, grant us thy blessing as we part from one another again this evening. Follow thy people oh God to their homes, be with them in all their associations, bless their loved ones and dear ones, bless them in all they do. Hear us oh Lord as we come in the name of thy dear Son.

And now may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship and the communion of the Holy Spirit abide and continue with us now, this night, throughout the remainder of this our short, uncertain earthly life and pilgrimage, and evermore. Amen.