Revisionist Confessional History

by on May 1, 2026 | 1 Comment

There is an idea floating around that all the teachings of the original version of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646/1647) are basically included in or assumed by the revised American version of 1788/1789 and that agreeing with/preferring the original is more or less equal to subscribing to the American revised version, which is part of the standards of both the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. But the differences are more than semantic. The two versions—at least with regard to the relationship of the civil magistrate to the church—are at odds with one another; in fact, they flatly contradict.

The fact of difference is not a problem nor a surprise. Elsewhere, the Confession (chap. 31, “Of Synods and Councils”) states, “All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred”—in other words, total depravity happens. The seventeenth-century divines were not so arrogant as to believe that they could not err. Some presbyters today, even in the abovementioned denominations, might hesitate to accuse the Westminster Assembly of error, but if they will not do this, they must accuse the American revisers of error. To do the latter, a presbyter would need to state a difference with the Confession, something many who self-identify as strict subscriptionists are loath to do. Or they could admit that the chapter on the magistrate is the most culturally conditioned, time bound, and contextualized of any in the document and was therefore ripe for revision. It would be postmodern to say that, in this case, what matters is the understanding and preferences of any individual presbyter, and no one wants to be accused of postmodernism.

Admittedly, chapter 31 is far from the most important or vital section of the Confession. Still, confessional subscription being what it is, faithful presbyterians cannot wish away the tension and piously say, “Whatevs.” We (should) distinguish.

Let’s look at the original and the American, chapters XXIII and 23, sections III and 3, respectively. Both chapters are titled “Of the Civil Magistrate.”

So far, nothing to see. The magistrate may not preach, administer sacraments, or determine who is or is not admitted to the sacraments and membership. Hail, brother documents who dwell in unity! But wait, there’s more:

Westminster Confession of Faith (1646/1647)

Chapter XXIII

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, 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; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

Revised American Version (1788/1789)

Chapter 23

3. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.
Original: The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Revised: Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
So far, nothing to see. The magistrate may not preach, administer sacraments, or determine who is or is not admitted to the sacraments and membership. Hail, brother documents who dwell in unity! But wait, there’s more:
Original: . . . yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, Revised: . . . or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith.

The order the original speaks to is in the church. The magistrate’s duty is to ensure (impose?) unity and peace. This assumes strife, and we all know that when someone seeks to stop a fight, the combatants are likely to see this as meddling—or interference. The revised version says that the magistrate simply cannot do this; his relationship with the inner workings of the church is completely different. It is not that he should not interfere or involve himself much, but not at all. The original says he must interfere; the revisions say he must not.

The original goes on to expand the kinds of interfering envisioned and enjoined:

. . . that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed.

Doctrine is the magistrate’s business. Active suppression of error and irreligion is his job. Worship and church discipline are under his remit of church reform and defense. He is over (or can be over) all that the church is ordained to do. The revision says that he may not “in the least, interfere.”

The revisions then deploy an odd simile, using a prophetic Old Testament passage (Isa 49:23), which is pretty clearly eschatological. The King James Version is one of the few to connect “nursing” and “fathers.” Most translations use “foster” to describe the fatherhood in view, emphasizing the role of a guardian for a dependent child.1 This makes sense and fits with the words that follow in the revised version:

Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger.

The magistrate, as lord of the civil realm in which the church abides, is to protect the religious liberty of Christians (of “any denomination” and “all ecclesiastical persons”) so that they are free from fear of harassment, threat, or violence. Those who would assign to “nursing fathers” the duty to build churches or seminaries and to pay ministers would seem to be stretching the sense of the words and the passage. Protection is in view, and the Presbyterian Church in America’s Book of Church Order expresses this concept helpfully in its first Preliminary Principle: “No religious constitution should be supported by the civil power further than may be necessary for protection and security equal and common to all others.”

The revised version continues:

And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief.

In short, the civil government has no business with the church government. The voluntary principle is invoked, distancing this part of the Confession as far from the European state church model as could well be imagined.

The original directly contradicts these principles, giving the magistrate the most minute and final administrative power over the church:

For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

The magistrate, king, prince, or whatever civil ruling body may exist may call the meetings, lord it over them, and judge “the mind of God” concerning the ecclesial verdicts and decisions rendered. This is as far from noninterference as can be and would fundamentally change the character and operations of the church.

The revised passage goes on to say that protecting the freedom of all “their people,” whether religious or infidels, is the magistrate’s duty:

It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

Do you remember above where the original passage said that the magistrate was to “take order” of churchly matters? The revised passage uses the same words, but in it the magistrate is to take only civil order for the protection of the church. The civil power is to serve the church as a guardian of liberty and a hedge against violence, not as an umpire of doctrine and practice who can even eject players from the ecclesial arena.

When we compare these passages on the civil magistrate, we do not find “sorta, kinda” the same thing—they are altogether different. In honesty, we should not pretend otherwise.

The next question is which—the older or the newer—better reflects the Bible’s teaching, especially that of the New Testament. More on that later, Lord willing.

Editor’s Note: This essay was originally published on Presbycast Pravda and appears here by permission of the author. The OPC website has a helpful page on the American revisions.

Note

  1. Meaning a child of minority (underage) status. Interestingly, the American revised version of this section does not assume that the church has to be “on top” or in a position of cultural hegemony—a majority. The revised passage still works even if the church is a numerical minority, as she certainly has been in practically every age. This makes the revision more timeless and culturally portable.

©Brad Isbell. All Rights Reserved.

RESOURCES

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

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


One comment

  1. I know that often Church discipline and civil matters must come together.
    A church member might be found out to be breaking the law. But I’d really do like how the civil authorities are to protect the Church.

    Reply ↓

Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law. Comments that are profane, deny the gospel, advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Anonymous comments, posted without permission, are forbidden. Please use a working email address so we can contact you, if necessary, about content or corrections.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.