............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Chapter 2
THE HEADSHIP OF CHRIST


The principle of "the headship of Christ" is central to the discussion on church government. On this rock stands the true church, and on this same rock the false church founders. The principle, and its implications must be correctly understood, without which there will be no possibility of sifting the many claims of the various systems of church government. The vaunted claims of a church come to nothing if it does not believe in the headship of Christ. The doubtful claims of another church may yet be tolerated if it does hold to Christ's headship. From this principle flows many, if not all, of the other principles that make up the system of church government taught in the Holy Scripture.


The Principle Proven

There are many direct as well as indirect teachings in the Bible on the headship of Christ over the church. The direct teachings include the following:

Colossians 1:8, "And He (Christ) is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence."

Ephesians 1:22-23, "And He (God) put all things under His (Christ's) feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all."

Ephesians 5:23, "For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Saviour of the


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

body."

John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but My kingdom is not from here."

Since the kingdom of Christ (literally, the rule ot Christ) extends over His church, the last-quoted verse teaches not only the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom, but also that He is head over the church.

It is to be noted that all these verses refer to the universal church of Christ. This does not militate against the truth that Christ is head over every local church. If anything, it emphasizes the truth that Christ is head over every local church on earth. We have seen in the previous chapter, that the universal, invisible, church of Christ manifests itself in the world as local, visible, congregations. If Christ is the head of the universal church, He is also head of every such congregation.

Moreover, Matthew 28:18 gives us Christ's words, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." Christ's universal authority might not be recognised by all at the moment, and His rule over all might not have been fully realised just yet (Phil. 2:9-11; 1 Cor. 15:20-28), but the truth remains that He has been given authority over all. Converted people are those who have been conquered by the grace of God through the hearing of the gospel. They become willing subjects of Christ, and certainly own Christ as their Lord. The local church, which is made up of such believers, cannot do less than own Christ as its head.

The 1689 Confession recognises this truth by quoting Colossians 1:18, together with Matthew 28:18-20 and Ephesians 4:11-12, in the statement on the headship of Christ (chapter 26, paragraph 4):

"The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order, or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner;..."

The Westminster Confession as well as the Savoy Declaration have similar statements.


........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

The Principle Expounded

As head of the church, Christ acts as the mediator between God and men: holding to the offices of prophet, priest and king. Chapter 8, paragraph 1, of the 1689 Confession states this:

"It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, according to the covenant made between them both, to be the mediator between God and man; the prophet, priest, and king; head and saviour of His church, the heir of all things, and judge of the world; unto whom He did from all eternity give a people to be His seed and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified." (Italics added for emphasis.)

Christ as prophet

As prophet, Christ revealed the word of God to men. He is Himself the incarnate Word, so that he who has seen Him has seen the Father (Jn. 1:1-3; 14:7, 9). Prophethood, therefore, speaks of God's revelation. Christ continues to exercise headship over His church by bringing His word to bear on the consciences of His people. His Spirit strives with His people to bring them into closer conformity with His word, and thereby sanctifies them (Eph. 5:25-27).

The church that acknowledges Jesus Christ as head must submit to His teaching as revealed in the word of God. The sole authority of Scripture in all matters of faith and practice must, therefore, be acknowledged. The importance of doctrine to the life of the church, and the primacy of preaching in worship, must be recognised. The church should strive towards greater purity and faithfulness in both doctrine and practice. The church that defies God's word, and honours human traditions and human inclinations instead, does not have Christ as its head.

Christ as priest

Jesus Christ is also priest. Priesthood speaks of the worship of God. In the Old Testament, the priests led the people of God in worship. Jesus Christ, as our High Priest, offered Himself as the all-sufficient sacrifice on the cross of Calvary for our redemption (Heb. 10). He continues to intercede for His people in heaven.

The church that acknowledges Christ as head must engage in pure and


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

acceptable worship. The 'regulative principle" must be clearly understood and properly applied. The word of God is sufficient for all our needs. It shows us that God must be worshipped "in spirit and truth" (Jn. 4:23-24). Nothing must be added, and nothing taken away (Dt. 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). There have been differences of opinion in the actual applications of the regulative principle of worship, arising from differences in people, culture, and time. One church must respect another when differences like these arise. Close fellowship is possible when each church upholds the regulative principle and is conscientiously applying it to its own circumstances.

Worship that is regulated by the word of God need not be dull, lifeless, and stifling. The word of God does not enslave, but it liberates. In the attempt to be relevant and contemporary, many churches have ignored the regulative principle of worship. Human innovations, carnal practices, and unedifying features have been introduced. Such a church cannot properly be said to have Christ as its head.

Christ as king

Jesus Christ is also king. Kingship speaks of rule or government. Christ has equipped the local church with all that it needs to function properly. Clear teaching is given in the Bible on how the church is to be organised and governed. Enough instructions are given on how discipline is to be exercised so that the church is kept pure, faithful, and healthy.

The church that acknowledges Christ's headship must seek to organise itself in the way prescribed in the Bible. As with worship, so also in church government: human traditions and personal inclinations should not hold sway. Which is the biblical form of church government? Who should exercise rule in the church? How is church discipline to be implemented? These are issues that must be honestly and courageously faced.

The number and order of offices

Both the number and the order of these offices of Christ are important: prophet, priest, and king. No church is perfect this side of life. Every church, however, must strive to be pure and faithful, in doctrine as well as in practice. The local church is a golden lampstand in principle, because Christ has sanctified it with His blood (Rev. 1:12, 20). It must also be golden in reality, because that is the will ol God for it (Eph.


.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

5:25-27). Continual reformation ol the church is therefore necessary, without which no blessing from God may be expected.

The recognition of the number and order of Christ's offices will help us in: (1) determining what constitutes a true church; (2) the work of reforming our own churches; and (3) determining the extent of fellowship we might have with churches. From the Reformation, those who have attempted to define a true church had been subconsciously conditioned and guided by the offices of Christ. They had, almost unanimously, come to the same conclusion that a true church should have the preaching of God's word, the correct administration of the ordinances, and the exercise of church discipline.

In reforming a church, all three areas must be involved, and in that order of importance: the word, worship, and government. This number and order help us to determine which church most clearly recognises Christ as head. A church that emphasizes correctness of church government without an equal emphasis given to correctness in worship and doctrine is very defective. Our present study in church government should, therefore, be tempered by a recognition of its proper place in the overall life of the church.

In Reformed circles, much attention has been given to the issue of unity between churches. Fellowship between individual believers have often been confused with fellowship between churches. Disagreements have arisen between churches that are otherwise like-minded, over the extent of fellowship one church might have with other churches. Differences over how unity between churches should be expressed have plagued the Christian world. One step forward in this area of discussion would be to work out and apply the doctrine of the three offices of Christ.

The exposition above arises from the truths expressed in chapter 8, paragraphs 9 and 10, of the 1689 Confession:

"This office of mediator between God and man is proper only to Christ, who is the prophet, priest, and king of the church of God; and may not be transferred from Him to any other."

"This number and order of offices is necessary; for in respect of our ignorance, we stand in need of His prophetical office; and in respect of our alienation from God, and imperfection of the best of our services, we need His priestly office to reconcile us and present us acceptable unto God; and in respect of our averseness


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

and utter inability to return to God, and for our rescue and security from our spiritual adversaries, we need His kingly office to convince, subdue, draw, uphold, deliver, and preserve us to His heavenly kingdom."


The Principle Denied

The headship of Christ over the church is explicitly denied by two widespread errors: Papism and Erastianism.

Papism

Papism, or Popery, is the error that claims for the pope of the Roman Church power over both the spiritual and the temporal realms. Two views prevail in that church, which do not make any material difference to our present argument. One view is that power is vested solely in the pope. Another view holds that power does not reside in the pope individually, but in the pope in conjunction with a general council, which represents the church at large.¹ The fact is that the sole headship of Christ is denied by the transference of His power to a mere man or a group of men.

The claim is sometimes made that Christ is head of the church in the ultimate sense. This does not change the situation in any way since Christ as head of the church has not founded the church and delegated His power to human administrators. In the words of James Bannerman, Christ "is not only the founder of the Christian church; He is ruler and administrator of it, in such a way that He keeps in His own hand all the power and authority and grace that belong to that society "² Put another way, Christ is head of His church in a direct and immediate sense. This is a truth denied in Papism.

Erastianism

Erastianism is the doctrine that maintains the supremacy of the state over the church. Named after the German theologian Thomas Erastus (1524-83), the theory was practised long before that time.³ It began to appear in the fourth century when Constantine professed conversion and legalised the Christian faith in his realm. Advocated by Martin Luther in Germany and Henry VIII in England, this theory has had historical manifestation in the state churches of Scandinavia, Germany, and England.⁴


.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

The chief contribution of Erastus to the theory which now bears his name is that he, more clearly than others before him, laid down the principle that Christ has not appointed a government in the church in the hands of church officers distinct from the civil magistrate.⁵ Erastianism may justly be described as making the church subordinate to the state, in opposition to the papish extreme of making the state subordinate to the church. In Erastianism, the monarch of the nation is held to be the head of the church.

Differences On Church-State Relationship

The headship of Christ is claimed to be upheld in Presbyterianism, Independency, and Congregationalism. This is for the obvious reason that in none of these systems is there a human head of the church. Traditional Presbyterianism, however, denies the headship of Christ in an implicit way. To understand how this is so, we must discuss the different theories of church-state relationship.

Apart from Papism and Erastianism, there are three other systems of belief on the relationship between the church and the state: Co-operatism, Voluntaryism, and Separatism. Co-operatism is a name we have invented, for want of a better word, to describe that system which has for long been wrongly associated with the principle of Co-ordinate Authorities in traditional Presbyterianism. That Co-operatism is a better term to describe the belief of traditional Presbyterianism will become clear later.

Separatism is another term we have invented to describe yet another system of belief which had existed since the days of the Donatists in fifth century, and was re-asserted by the Anabaptists during the Reformation.⁶ Just as Presbyterian writers have contributed largely to the confutation of Independency with Congregationalism, they have also contributed to the confutation of Voluntaryism with Separatism. Voluntaryism, we contend, is the correct and biblical view, occupying the golden mean between Co-operatism and Separatism. To appreciate the differences and similarities between these three, it seems best to begin our discussion with Voluntaryism.⁷ The visual representation of the different systems will help us in our discussion:


.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


Voluntaryism

The first characteristic of Voluntaryism is the separation of church and state. The church and the state are two co-equal and independent powers. Both are ordained by God (Rom. 13:1-7; Mt. 22:21). Each is supreme in its own sphere of rule, and in the execution of its functions. Each is answerable to God, and each obliged to exercise its functions according to the word of God. There should be no interference of one with the other. However, there is nothing to stop the church from benefiting from the conditions provided by the state that are conducive to the progress of the gospel. Conversely, there is nothing to prevent the state from benefiting from the life and activities of the church. This would include the possibility of the church teaching the state biblical principles of law: especially with regard to religion, ethics and morality.

This state of equality, independence, and the possibility of mutual benefit between church and state has been described as the co-ordination of powers. Note that the lawfulness of each deriving benefits from the other, and even of each voluntarily contributing to the good of the other, is not the same as the alliance of the two authorities. Alliance, or co-operation, in matters that are strictly under the jurisdiction of one or the other of the authorities will necessarily destroy true independence. A similar situation will be encountered when we consider the issue of the communion of churches, in which true independence of the churches is


.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

destroyed when government is confused with fellowship. The co-ordination of powers may be best understood by a consideration of the next two elements of Voluntaryism.

The second characteristic of Voluntaryism is the mutual subordination of persons. There is the recognition that an individual may be a member of both the realm of the church as well as that of the state without there being a conflict of interest or loyalty. A believer may be a member of a church at the same time that he is a citizen of a political entity. He may even hold office as a civil magistrate. Members and office-bearers of the church are, in common with other men, subject in all civil things to the authorities that exist.

The third characteristic of Voluntaryism, which gives it its name, is the voluntary nature of the efforts of individuals to promote the cause of God and the kingdom of Christ. William Cunmngham describes it as "the principle that an obligation lies upon individuals to labour, in the willing application of their talents, influence, and worldly substance, for the advancement of the cause of God and the kingdom of Christ."⁸ Of course, many non-believers do not recognise this obligation that God has placed upon them, but the fact of the existence of that obligation remains (e.g. Rom. 1:18-2:16). Men are creatures, living in God's creation, by God's good pleasure. They are, consequently, held accountable to God for how they live. If this were not true, there would be no judgment and condemnation upon the wicked on the last day. The obligation, however, is to God. If unbelieving individuals voluntarily exert effort to promote the cause of truth, they are fulfilling an obligation they owe to God. It does not credit for them any righteousness that saves. The church may benefit from such efforts of unbelievers. However, the church must never expect or demand from, nor be obligated to, such unbelievers.

Voluntaryism was held by the early Particular Baptists. This may be ascertained from articles 48 to 51 of the 1644 Confession as well as chapters 21, 23 and 24 of the 1689 Confession. This should be the view of Reformed Baptists today, who claim adherence to the 1689 Confcssion.⁹

Separatism

The next system is best described by the name of Separatism. It advocates the separation of church and state, but carries this truth to an extreme. Church and state are two separate entities, both ordained by God, each having its own sphere of influence and power, and each not

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

coming into conjunction with the other in any at all. It denies the mutual subordination of persons, claiming that a believer belongs to the realm of Christ's kingdom, and an unbeliever belongs to the realm of the world. A believer is not permitted to be a magistrate, to join the army, or to take oath. Separatism also maintains that the promotion of the cause of God lies entirely with believers, and that the church should never accept any help or benefits from the state.

This extreme view is often taken to be the chief characteristic of Voluntaryism when, in fact, it is more a characteristic ot Separatism. Cunningham's description of Voluntaryism should, therefore, be applied to Separatism instead: Separatism (not Voluntaryism) maintains that "the only relation that ought to subsist between the state and the church - between the civil government and religion is that of entire separation; or, in other words, ... that nations, as such, and civil rulers in their official capacity, not only are not bound, but are not at liberty, to interfere in any religious matters, or to seek to promote the welfare of the church of Christ, as such."¹⁰ (Italics added.)

This was the view held by the Donatists in the fifth century, and by the Anabaptists during the Reformation.^{8, 11} The Anabaptists were generally milder than the Donatists, requiring in their confessions of faith that a believer should honour the state as an institution of God, and be subject and obedient to it in all things that do not contradict the law of God.¹² In contrast, many Donatists of the earlier years were forced by circumstances to be hostile to the persecuting civil authorities.¹³

Separatism is upheld today by many Congregationalists of the Fundamentalist persuasion, and also by the Mennonites.

Co-operatism

Co-operatism claims to uphold all the three principles of Voluntaryism, namely the separation of church and state, the mutual subordination of persons, and the voluntary nature of efforts to promote the cause of God and the kingdom of Christ. It, however, modifies all three principles so that, in reality, a different system subsists.

The church and the state are regarded as co-equal and independent, as in Voluntaryism, but the lawfulness and obligation to establish a friendly alliance between the two is also asserted. Consider these statements by Cunningham:


.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

"... the existence of this original distinctiveness and independence (of church and state), and the necessity of its being always maintained, are not inconsistent with, and do not necessarily obstruct or prevent, the formation of union or friendly alliance between them."¹⁴

"... the relation of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, even when they are united together, should be regulated throughout by the principle of their distinctness from, and independence of, each other."¹⁵

We have added the italics in the above quotes to emphasize the point that more is asserted than the plain separation of church and state. This had been the position of Presbyterians like John Calvin and George Gillespie.¹⁶ The Presbyterians like to call this the principle of co-ordinate authorities, when in reality it is the advocation of co-operation between the two authorities. It should be noted that this principle of co-operation arises from a belief in the national establishments of religion. This is the belief that it is right to have a state church. Commenting on the voluntary nature of the efforts of men to promote the cause of God, Cunningham says:

"Of course no defender of the principle of national establishments of religion ever questioned the truth of the voluntary principle in this its proper sense. The true ground of difference is just this, - that we who hold to the principle of national establishments of religion extend this general obligation to nations and their rulers, while those who are opposed to us limit it to individuals; so that the voluntary principle, in the only sense in which we reject and oppose it, - and in the only sense, consequently, in which it forms a subject of fair and honourable controversy, - is a mere limitation of the sphere of this obligation to promote the cause of God and the kingdom of Christ - a mere negation that the obligation in this respect which attaches to individuals, extends also to nations and their rulers."⁶

It is of interest to note the manner by which James Bannerman argues for co-operation between church and state.¹⁷ He begins by showing that the church and the state are essentially distinct and mutually independent. We would have no problem with that. He proceeds from there to argue for the possibility and lawfulness of a connection and friendly co-operation between the two. This is the thin end of the


.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

wedge. Arguments, both correct and questionable ones, are employed which do not convincingly prove the point. In the next stage, he attempts to prove that the church and the state have a duty to seek a friendly alliance or connection. The arguments used are even weaker than those used in the previous stage. Next comes the coup de grace, the finishing stroke. He attempts to show the necessity of connection between church and state! From the possibility and lawfulness of alliance, he ends with the duty and necessity of such alliance! This is a classic case of the a fortiori method of argumentation used in a dubious way.¹⁸

Clearly, major adjustments have been made to the principles of Voluntaryism so that the separation of church and state is no more true separation, the mutual subordination of persons is no more mutual subordinations, and the voluntary nature of efforts to promote the cause of God is no more voluntary. It is incorrect to say that Presbyterians hold to the principle of co-ordinate authorities. The principle of co-ordinate authorities is just another name for the separation of church and state as upheld in Voluntaryism. Presbyterians hold to a system of belief on church-state relationship that is best described as Co-operatism.

Liberty of conscience

We have shown that the principle of co-operation upheld in traditional Presbyterianism is closely allied to the belief in the national establishments of religion. This is not a mere assertion on our part, but is freely owned by Presbyterians like William Cunningham.

It may easily be shown that the belief in the national establishment of religion is but one manifestation of a more general problem, namely sacralism, that is, a territorial view of the church. This was an idea that was carried over from the Roman Catholic Church into all the Reformed churches, except those of the Baptists. All infants born to believing parents in a certain territory were regarded as members of the church in that territory. Since church and state were intertwined, the power of the state could be harnessed to persecute those who were branded "heretics" for repudiating infant baptism. All these errors are thus linked together inextricably: sacralism, infant baptism, co-operation between church and state, denials of liberty of conscience and freedom of religion, and the repression of "heretics" by force.

The whole gamut of errors that spring out of sacralism are actually linked to the Presbyterian understanding, wrongly called  "covenant


.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

theology", of the covenant that God made with Abraham. The national establishment of religion may be justified only by appealing to the example of the theocratic nation of Israel. At bottom line, all these errors arise from a "flat theology", which fails to take into consideration the progressive nature of revelation and the proper relation between the Old and the New Testaments. Leonard Verduin has convincingly shown that any form of alliance between church and state will inevitably lead to the birth of a monster-hybrid that practises all the evils associated with it.¹⁹

Classic Presbyterian documents such as the Westminster Confession (chapter 23, paragraph 3) and the Belgic Confession (article 36) contain clear statements to the effect that the civil authority has the power to suppress blasphemies and heresies. The Cambridge Platform of 1648, a document of the paedobaptist Independents in America, also gives to the civil authority the power to restrain and punish idolatry, blasphemy, heresy, and the like (chapter 15, paragraph 8).²⁰ It is no secret that well-known Reformers like Calvin and Beza maintained the lawfulness of putting heretics to death.²¹ John Calvin's approval of the execution of Servetus remain a stigma to the reputation of this famous man. Independents, of paedobaptist persuasion, in America had actively persecuted Baptists, much to the embarassment of their counterparts in England.²²

Since these errors are inextricably linked together, the adherence to one of them tends to lead to the adherence of the others. Conversely, the more these errors are deliberately rejected, the closer one comes to the principles of Voluntaryism upheld in Independency. In our view, John Owen was an inconsistent Independent because of clinging on to infant baptism. He held to a clearer view on religious freedom compared to John Cotton, another paedobaptist Independent, who believed also in the alliance between church and state. The New England Independents, who shared the same views as John Cotton, ultimately turned Presbyterian by the adoption of the Saybrook Platform, in 1708.²³

We maintain that while Papism and Erastianism deny the headship of Christ in an explicit way, Co-operatism deny the headship of Christ in an implicit way. This is true from various considerations.

First, we note the truth that the Lord Jesus Christ has given the local church all the power and authority needed for its government. This truth is stated clearly in chapter 26, paragraph 7, of the 1689 Confesssion. It follows that to enter into alliance with the state, with the view that it


.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

may promote the cause of God and the kingdom of Christ, is to deny the sufficiency of the church. This would be to deny the authority and power of Christ and, therefore, also the headship of Christ.

Then, we consider the truth that God is alone Lord of the conscience. This is stated in chapter 21, paragraph 2, of the 1689 Confession. The Lord rules His people by bringing His word to bear on the conscience of His people. A man must be allowed to believe and act according to his conscience. That there are limits to true liberty of conscience no one will deny. The exercise of one's liberty should not be allowed to encroach on the liberty of others: in the disruption of civil justice or public peace, or in threatening violence to others. True liberty of conscience, however, must not be confused with mere toleration. The limits of the liberty of conscience must not be confused with the limitations imposed upon it. When the principles of Voluntaryism are not upheld, there can be no true liberty of conscience. To deny the liberty of conscience to others would be to deny the lordship of God over all men, and the headship of Christ over His people.

What of modern Presbyterianism? America was founded on the principles of the separation of church and state and the true liberty of conscience. This was largely achieved through the agitation and influence of Baptists, the most notable of whom were Roger Williams and Isaac Backus.²⁴ As we have seen, paedobaptists of both Presbyterian and Independent persuasions were their persecutors. When a National Constitution for the United States was adopted in 1787, all hopes of establishing a state church vanished. With the adoption of the First Amendment to the Constitution in I787, true liberty of conscience was established in the land.

Under these circumstances, Presbyterians had to re-adjust their view on church-state relationship. The Westminster Confession was revised in 1788 so as to teach the separation of church and state.²⁵ Those who adopted the Belgic Confession had, similarly, to put a disclaimer to the offensive Article 36, and declare in its stead the belief in the separation of church and state, as well as the liberty of conscience. They further repudiated the idea of the established church and advocated the autonomy of the churches.²⁶

Presbyterians of latter days have generally advocated the principles of separation of church and state and the liberty of conscience. Charles Hodge, writing in 1863, stated that "we have reason to rejoice in the recently discovered truth, that the church is independent of the state, and


.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

that the state best promotes her interests by letting her alone."²⁷ John Murray wrote along similar strains.²⁸ One cannot help but wish that these men would at the very least acknowledge the role played by the Baptists who, through much personal sufferings, brought about the recognition of these principles.

We rejoice, nevertheless, to see signs of change coming upon many Presbyterian denominations. Voluntaryism is, afterall, the truth upheld by Reformed Baptists! We only place on record here the fact that traditional Presbyterianism does not uphold the headship of Christ consistently because of upholding Co-operatism.


Summary

1. The doctrine of the headship of Christ over the church is important because upon it stand other doctrines related to church government. This principle is taught in such scriptures as Colossians 1:8; Ephesians 1:22-23; Ephesians 5:23; and John 18:36. The universal church is referred to in these passages, underlining the truth that Christ is head over every local church on earth.

2. As head of the church, Christ acts as the mediator between God and men: holding to the offices of prophet, priest, and king. Both the number and order of these offices are important. The recognition of this will help us in: (1) determining what constitutes a true church; (2) the work of reforming our own churches; and (3) determining the extent of fellowship we might have with other churches.

3 The headship of Christ is explicitly denied in Papism and Erastianism. In the former, the pope is regarded as head of the church. In the latter, the reigning monarch is the head.

4 Apart from Papism and Erastianism, there are three other systems of belief on the relationship between church and state: Co-operatism, Voluntaryism, and Separatism. Voluntaryism maintains that the church and the state are equal and independent, each with its own God-given sphere of jurisdiction. Separatism takes the separation of church and state to one extreme, while Co-operatism destroys true independence and separation by advocating the lawfulness and obligation of alliance between church and state.

5. Co-operatism is linked to a string of errors which have manifested themselves in the history of the church. These included the harnessing


.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

of civil authorities to the promotion of the cause of God, the practice of infant baptism, the denial of liberty of conscience, and the persecution of those who disagreed on such matters as infani baptism. Co-operatism is upheld in traditional Presbyterianism. The headship of Christ is denied implicitly.

6. Modern Presbyterians tend to accept Voluntaryism, the position of Reformed Baptists, in favour of Co-operatism. This means that the headship of Christ is accepted consistently. Congregationalism also accepts the headship of Christ, but tends to posit an extreme idea of the separation of church and state.


References And Notes

1. J. Bannerman, Vol. 1, pp.203-205.
2. Ibid., p. 199.
3. W. Cunningham, Vol. 1, p. 397.
4. G. I. Williamson, p. 192.
5. W. Cunningham, Vol. 1 p. 399.
6. W. Cunningham, Vol. 2, p. 560
7. This must not be confused with the philosophical system called Voluntarism which asserts the superiority or importance of the exercise of will to the deliberations of reason. See EDT, pp. 1147-1148
8. W. Cunningham, Vol. 2, p. 560.
9. S. Waldron, A Modern Exposition, p.283-297
10. W. Cunningham, Vol. 1, p. 391.
11. W. Klassen, pp. 244-246.
12. See, for example, articles 37 & 38 of the Waterland Confession, and articles 35 & 36 in A Short Confession, 1610, in W. Lumpkin, pp. 63-64, 111-112.
13. NIDCC, p. 308.
14. W. Cunningham, Vol. 1, p. 395.
15. Ibid., p. 396.
16. G. Gillespie, pp. 120-124.
17. J. Bannerman, Vol. 1, pp. 97-148.
18. The method by which an assertion is proven by building up one argument upon another.
19. L. Verduin, The Anatomy Of A Hybrid.
20. I. Murray, The Reformation of the Church, p. 271
21. W. Cunningham, Vol. 1, p. 398.
22. P. Toon, p. 162.
23. I. Murray, Jonathan Edwards, pp. 16-18.
24. J. Q. Adams, pp. 87-110.
25. S. Waldron, A Modern Exposition, pp. 292 297.
26. The Three Forms of Unity, p. 30.
27. I. Murray, The Reformation of the Church, p. 119.


.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

28. J. Murray, Vol. 1, pp. 253-259.