Since publishing my article in 2024, several responses have argued that the difference between the two versions of WCF 23:3 is only a matter of emphasis and not an actual contradiction. Other ministerial colleagues in the PCA have argued that although the American version of WCF 23:3 is significantly changed, the new version does not entail a denial of anything in the original. These brothers assert that the Westminster divines and the American Presbyterians agreed with the magisterial Reformers that the civil magistrate may not interfere in matters of faith (in sacra). This, however, is not the same as saying the magistrate does not have authority around matters of faith (circa sacra). Thus, it is argued that the American Presbyterians prohibited the magistrate’s involvement “in matters of faith” without rejecting what the original version of WCF 23:3 said about the magistrate’s duties “around matters of faith.”

Central to this argument is the recognition that America at the end of the eighteenth century, and well into the nineteenth century, continued to uphold blasphemy laws, Sabbath laws, and religious tests for office. Moreover, Presbyterians—including those responsible for drafting the American revision—were often in favor of these provisions. Like their British counterparts in 1646, American Presbyterians believed the civil magistrate should maintain “piety, justice, and peace” (WCF 23:2). Some have maintained, then, that American version—while perhaps not a hard establishmentarianism, is still a “soft” establishmentarianism. In short, the two versions of the Westminster Confession may not be identical, but they are, in the end, not mutually exclusive.

Must, Must Not, May (1646)

What should we make of this argument that the two versions are merely different, not contradictory? To answer this question, we have to go back to the original 1646 version. We can break apart WCF 23:3 into three lists: what the civil magistrate must do, what he must not do, and what he may do.

The civil magistrate must:

1. Take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church.
2. That the truth of God be kept pure and entire.
3. That all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed.
4. That all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline be prevented or reformed.
5. That all the ordinances of God be duly settled, administered, and observed.

The civil magistrate must not:

1. Assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments.
2. Assume to himself the powers of the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

The civil magistrate may:

1. Call synods or be present at synods.
2. Provide that whatever is transacted at synods be according to the mind of God.

Notice that although the Westminster divines prohibit the magistrate from preaching, from administering the sacraments, and from enacting ecclesiastical discipline, they do give the magistrate considerable authority in matters related to the church. In fact, the first thing the magistrate must do is ensure that “unity and peace are preserved in the Church.” Likewise, he must ensure that doctrine is kept pure and that the worship and discipline of the church are reformed. He is responsible not only for the establishment of the ordinances of the church, but for ensuring that these ordinances are observed by the people. Finally, we are told that the civil magistrate has power to call ecclesiastical synods and power to determine whether the decisions of the synod are “according to the mind of God.”

In short, the civil magistrate, according to the Westminster divines, should be involved in maintaining the welfare of the church, should root out false expressions of the church, should reform the church (when corrupt), should prevent the church from being corrupted (when already reformed), should oversee the establishment of the church, and should make sure that his people attend church services. Some may call this involvement only circa sacra (because the magistrate is not an officer in the church), but clearly the Westminster Assembly was calling for a very active magistrate with respect to matters of faith. Read more»

Kevin DeYoung | “Does the American Revision of the Westminster Confession Contradict the Original Version on the Doctrine of the Civil Magistrate?” | June 16, 2025

RESOURCES

• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
• Browse the Heidelshop!
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

Post authored by:

• Heidelblog

  

  The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.

  More by Heidelblog ›