Theodidactic Counsel From Martin Bucer

William Gouge, one of the delegates to the Westminster Assembly, once wrote that the judicial laws of ancient Israel, to the extent only that they rested upon "common equity," "remain as good directions to order even Christian polities accordingly" (Commentary on Hebrews 1:505).

If one may be permitted to quote oneself, "The judicial laws of Moses are indeed of great use to Christian magistrates today, being part of the whole of Scripture, all of which is 'profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness' ( 2 Timothy 3:16), and, although they are no longer nomos / law, having 'expired' with the state of Israel (WCF 19:4), they are still didache, that is, part of the teaching of the Word of God" ("The Puritan Legacy Considered," R. Andrew Myers, 2009). Hence, the term theodidactic.

Martin Bucer, like William Gouge, takes this theodidactic approach to the role of the judicial law in modern civil polity. In his classic work, De Regno Christi (On the Kingdom of Christ), dedicated to King Edward VI, Bucer addresses the matter by emphasizing both the expiration of the force of Israel's judicial laws and the continuity of their general equity, that is, in connection with their basis in the moral law of God, which is, the Decalogue. 

Lastly, the well-being of his people also demands of Your Majesty a serious and thorough modification of penalties, by which wrongdoing and crimes are kept in check in the commonwealth. But since no one can desire an approach more equitable and wholesome to the commonwealth than that which God describes in His law, it is certainly the duty of all kings and princes who recognize that God has put them over His people that follow most studiously his own method of punishing evildoers. For inasmuch as we have been freed from the teaching of Moses through Christ the Lord so that it is no longer necessary for us to observe the civil decrees of the law of Moses, namely, in terms of the way and circumstances in which they described, nevertheless, insofar as the substance and proper end of these commandments are concerned, and especially those which enjoin the discipline that is necessary for the whole commonwealth, whoever does not reckon that such commandments are to be conscientiously observed is not attributing to God either supreme wisdom or a righteous care for our salvation.

Accordingly, in every state sanctified to God capital punishment must be ordered for all who have dared to injure religion, either by introducing a false and impious doctrine about the Worship of God or by calling people away from the true worship of God (Dt. 13:6-10, and 17:2-5); for all who blaspheme the name of God and his solemn services (Lv. 24:15-16); who violate the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14-15, and 35:2; Num. 15:32-36); who rebelliously despise authority of parents and live their own life wickedly (Dt. 21:18-21); who are unwilling to submit to the sentence of supreme tribunal (Dt. 17:8-12); who have committed bloodshed (Ex. 21:12; Lv. 24:17; Dt. 19:11-13), adultery (Lv. 20:10), rape (Dt. 22:20-25), kidnapping (Dt. 24:17); who have given false testimony in a capital case (Dt. 19:16-21). [Martin Bucer, De Regno Christi, in Wilhelm Pauck, ed., Melanchthon and Bucer, pp. 378-279]

Why Study the History of the Scottish Covenanters?

F.F. Bruce, Foreword to J.D. Douglas, The Light in the North, pp. 7-8:

At first blush the inclusion of a whole volume on the Scottish Covenanters in a series covering two thousand years of Christian history may be put down to an excess of provincialism on someone's part. But the inclusion of this volume is due to something more than an exaggerated estimate of the importance of seventeenth-century Scotland in the on-going story of the Church in the world. Thucydides wrote the history of the Peloponnesian War not simply because of the part which it played in his own career, but also because in the record of this conflict, waged over a period of twenty-seven years between the leading states of the Greek world, he discerned principles and patters of action which tended to recur in the fortunes of men and nations. So, too, the story of the Scottish Covenanters, limited as it is in space and time, brings out in sharp outline a crucial issue which the Christian Church has had to face from its earliest days, and which is as acute today as ever it was. 

This issue is not the question whether episcopacy or presbytery is the more apostolic order. To this question there are more than two possible answers. The issue is that of the relation between Church and State. The highest authority that Christians recognize bids them "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." But it is not easy to fix the limits of those things that are Caesar's, and less easy than ever when Caesar himself turns Christian. Extreme positions were taken up on either side in seventeenth-century Scotland, when the divine right of kings was opposed by the divine right of presbytery -- the divine right of presbytery, moreover, not only in the Scottish Kirk but in England and Ireland as well. The kindly, tolerant, hospitable English people have often been bewildered, and at times even exasperated, by the stiff-necked behaviour of the other nations that share with them the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, with their inordinate sense of history and their contempt for the suggestion of reasonable compromise when principles are at stake. Even where a national symbol like the Stone of Destiny is concerned, Scots know where they stand on the point of legal principle and call from time to time upon the sister nation to honour the Treaty of Northampton. But it was not national honour that was at stake in the seventeenth century, but the Crown Rights of the Redeemer -- the claim of Christ to be Master in His own house. On this principle an Aberdeen doctor will insist as strenously as the most zealous Protestor from the west lands. 

For, whatever may be thought about the interpretation which Andrew Melville and his followers put upon the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, it is a fundamental Christian doctrine. On the one hand, there are still times when it must be emphasized that the civil ruler, as such, even when he is a Christian, has no authority in church councils beyond that of the humblest church member. On the other hand, the obedience which a Christian man, or the Christian community, owes to the civil ruler, even when the ruler is a Christian, is never absolute. There are times when it may be not merely a Christian right, but a Christian duty, to disobey the civil ruler: when his claims clash with the law of God, the Christian will say with the apostles: "We must obey God rather than men." Where men so conscious of their Christian right and duty as the Covenanters were confronted by men so blindly insistent on imposing their own will as the Stuarts, the resultant conflict revealed the issues involved with exceptional clarity.

Viret's Holy Commonwealth

Robert Dean Linder, The Political Ideas of Pierre Viret, pp. 122-125:

From the foregoing facts drawn from an examination of Viret's remarks concerning politics, a relatively clear and complete picture can be constructed of what he considered the ideal state to be like. What he envisioned as the epitome of a godly state in which Biblical principles were observed was in many ways comparable to the Holy Commonwealth that the New England Puritans tried to establish in the American wilderness almost a half century after Viret's death. In fact the parallels are so striking as to be noteworthy.

Viret's Universal Church was one in which all true believers were members and which found its visible expression in the form of a local congregation called a "community of saints." The local church was to govern itself like a "free community" and a "celestial republic." In short, the form of ecclesiastical government was to be a type of congregationalism. It is true that Viret's congregational church polity was not exactly like that of the New England churches. He still accepted the ecclesiastical machinery of the Reformed Church with its colloquies and synods, and saw these gatherings as valuable assets to the work of God. However, his fundamental emphasis was always upon the local congregation which was to be governed like a democracy.

Then, too, he assigned to the minister an important and influential role of leadership in the local church. Like the Puritans, he maintained that the pastor was no better than any other believer and that his difference was one of function and office rather than rank. But also like the Puritans, Viret's thought reveals that for all practical purposes he conceived of the minister as the executive head, under Christ, of the local church. 

The Church as a whole was to occupy a position of privilege in Viret's ideal state. The preaching of the true Gospel was to have precedence over all other activities and have free reign among the people. In addition, the civil code of the secular state would be based directly upon the laws of God and conform with them in every possible way. Furthermore, although a Christian magistracy was not absolutely necessary nor for that matter possible in every instance and every country, still in his ideal state the magistrates would all be true Christians. In this manner they could work in complete and harmonious co-operation with the Church. The Christian magistrates would act like "guardians" and "foster-fathers" of the Church, protecting, helping and sustaining it in every way possible consistent with their office. This was also the idea behind the Holy Commonwealth of New England.

Also, the great influence of the clergy in secular government was apparent both in Viret's thinking and in New England Puritan practice. Viret felt that ministers should be consulted by secular officials in order to determine the will of God, especially in all matters relating in any way to religion, and that the head of state should include "true ministers of the Gospel" among his advisors. Furthermore, if the will of the secular government should ever conflict with the will of God, Viret recommended that the ministers go to the civil officials, call their attention to the point in question and admonish them to conform to God's plan rather than to their own.

Still, the provinces of the Church and the state were to be distinct and separate. The minister, though he should have a great deal to say about the practical operation of the state, should never exercise political influence either by law or threats of excommunication and interdict but only by moral suasion. Likewise, the civil magistrate should never use his powers to force acceptance of the Gospel on people or to legislate religion for the masses. Instead he should do everything in his power to protect the Church as it carried out its spiritual mission. He also should make conditions as favorable as humanly possible for the acceptance of the message of repentance and faith in Christ which the Reformers preached. But in no case should the magistrate usurp the office of minister or interfere in the internal affairs of Church, especially in matters of church discipline, and under no circumstances should the minister assume any of the civil powers of the magistracy.

Finally, there are enough democratic elements in Viret's thought to assume that in a political entity where the vast majority of the people were true Christians, he would approve of some kind of Christian Republic based upon popular participation in government. After all, if he was so willing to trust even a common laborer who was one of the elect of God with the government of the Church, why would he be unwilling to commit to this same regenerate individual the reins of power in an ideal secular state where the Gospel was proclaimed freely and regularly and in which nearly everyone was a true believer? Even in a state where true Christians were a minority, Viret's personal preference appears to have been for some sort of democratic republic.

It is true that Viret nowhere sought to restrict political rule to the elect, but he did dream of an ideal state in which all would be united by faith and knowledge in the true religion thus identifying for all practical purposes the elect with the body politic. Therefore, it seems safe to conclude that if it were possible to win nearly everyone in a certain political community to the Reformed faith, he would have endorsed popular participation in both ecclesiastical and civil government. This would have been Viret's idea of a state which conformed most closely to God's will for man on earth.

An Unjust Law is No Law at All

Augustine, De Libero Arbitrio (On the Free Choice of the Will) 1.5.11:

A law which is not just does not seem to me to be a law.

Ibid, 1.6.15:

...nothing in the temporal law is just and legitimate which human beings have not derived from eternal law.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1-2.96.4:

I answer that, Laws framed by man are either just or unjust. If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience, from the eternal law whence they are derived, according to Proverbs 8:15: "By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things." Now laws are said to be just, both from the end, when, to wit, they are ordained to the common good--and from their author, that is to say, when the law that is made does not exceed the power of the lawgiver--and from their form, when, to wit, burdens are laid on the subjects, according to an equality of proportion and with a view to the common good. For, since one man is a part of the community, each man in all that he is and has, belongs to the community; just as a part, in all that it is, belongs to the whole; wherefore nature inflicts a loss on the part, in order to save the whole: so that on this account, such laws as these, which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding in conscience, and are legal laws.

On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good, through being opposed to the things mentioned above--either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory--or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him--or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5), "a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all." Wherefore such laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should even yield his right, according to Matthew 5:40-41: "If a man . . . take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him; and whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two."

Secondly, laws may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine good: such are the laws of tyrants inducing to idolatry, or to anything else contrary to the Divine law: and laws of this kind must nowise be observed, because, as stated in Acts 5:29, "we ought to obey God rather than man."

Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter From a Birmingham Jail":

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may want to ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

Matthew Henry on Psalm 94.20 ("Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?"):

It is a pity that ever a throne, which should be a terror to evil-doers and a protection and praise to those that do well, should be the seat and shelter of iniquity. That is a throne of iniquity which by the policy of its council frames mischief, and by its sovereignty enacts it and turns it into a law. Iniquity is daring enough even when human laws are against it, which often prove too weak to give an effectual check to it; but how insolent, how mischievous, is it when it is backed by a law! Iniquity is not the better, but much the worse, for being enacted by law; nor will it excuse those that practise it to say that they did but do as they were bidden. These workers of iniquity, having framed mischief by a law, take care to see the law executed; for they gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, who dare not keep the statutes of Omri nor the law of the house of Ahab; and they condemn the innocent blood for violating their decrees. See an instance in Daniel's enemies; they framed mischief by a law when the obtained an impious edict against prayer (Dan. vi. 7), and, when Daniel would not obey it, they assembled together against him (v. 11) and condemned his innocent blood to the lions.

Lutheran Resistance to Tyranny

The Reformed owe a debt to their Lutheran brethren for articulating early on a Biblical theory of resistance to tyranny, as found in two particular works which have been shown to have influenced the Huguenot resistance theory of Theodore Beza, for example.

1) Von der Notwehr Unterricht, Nutzlich zu Lesen (Instruction Concerning Self-Defense, Necessary to Read) by Justus Menius (1547, with editing done by Philipp Melanchthon; 1547, 2nd. ed. by Melanchthon). The second edition, which was popular in its day, includes sections titled "Instruction Concerning Self-Defense," by Menius, "How Self-Defense is a God-Pleasing Work," and other sections dealing with both passive disobedience of unlawful commands, and active resistance, up to and including tyrannicide. First published during the 1546-1547 Schmalkaldic War, the violent conflict between forces of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and the Protestant Schmalkaldic League, this treatise helped articulate the Lutheran grounds for resistance to the Emperor (the work was not limited to civil and political resistance though; it speaks to resistance to the head of household when he acts tyrannically as well). It built upon the earlier writings of Martin Luther and others who found grounds to resist higher authorities in Luther's Of Temporal Authority: to What Extent it Should be Obeyed (1523), for example. Melanchthon wrote, "In the Warning [to his Dear German People] and in other writings, Dr. Martin Luther declared that defense was just" (quoted by Luther D. Peterson, "Melanchthon on Resisting the Emperor: The Von der Notwehr Unterrichte of 1547," in Jerome Friedman, ed., Regnum, Religio et Ratio: Essays Presented to Robert M. Kingdon, p. 143). Not only did Melanchthon justify constitutional resistance by lesser magistrates to superior tyrants, but in the section on "Who may lead resistance?" he also left the door open to permit individual active resistance to tyranny on basis of natural law providing the right of self-defense to all (giving as noble examples of this Obediah who hid the priests from Queen Jezebel; William Tell; Thrasybulus, who led the resistance against the thirty tyrants of Athens; Pelopidas, who saved Thebes from the Spartans; and even the wife of the cruel tyrant Alexander Pheraeus, who killed her husband), while at the same time condemning "Beruff" (unjustified rebellion) "violence carried out without a calling...and intended to raise oneself up" (ibid, p. 141).

2) Though militarily, the Schmalkaldic War ended in defeat for the Protestant cause, the Reformation would not be crushed by force. The ensuing dissatisfaction with the 1548 Augsburg Interim would lead to the 1555 Peace of Augsburg, embedded the principle of Cuius regio, eius religio ("Whose realm, his religion"), the idea that the religion of the civil magistrate dictated the religion of his jurisdiction. Yet, in 1550, the Magdeburg Bekenntnis Confessio et Apologia Pastorum et Reliquorum Ministorum Ecclesiae Magdeburgensis, more commonly known today as the Magdeburg Confession, articulated the position of Lutheran pastors of Magdeburg, who refused to submit to the Augsburg Interim, which Emperor Charles V attempted to enforce militarily by besieging the city. The Confession was one of many tracts and pamphlets issued in defense of Lutheran freedoms, and the most influential. Although a complete published English translation of this document is lacking, it has been discussed by Robert M. Kingdon, "The First Expression of Theodore Beza's Political Ideas," Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 46 (1955); David Mark Whitford, Tyranny and Resistance: The Magdeburg Confession and the Lutheran Tradition; and John Witte, Jr., The Reformation of Rights: Law, Religion and Human Rights in Early Modern Calvinism. Whitford describes the document:

The Confession begins with a one-page "Short Summary of the Contents of this Book," followed by an 11-page "Introduction." The body of the treatise is divided into three sections. The first section (chapters 1-7) recapitulates the main doctrinal loci of the Augsburg Confession. The second section discusses resistance theory, and the third section provides a warning to those who oppose Magdeburg's actions.

The Confession emphasizes the duty of lesser civil magistrates to interpose, or resist the tyrannical conduct of higher magistrates, in defense of the people under their care.

We will show from Holy Scripture that if a higher magistrate undertakes by force to restore popish idolatry and to suppress of exterminate the pure teaching of the Holy Gospel, as in the present instance, then the lower god-fearing magistrate may defend himself and his subjects against such unjust force in order to preserve the true teaching, the worship of God together with body, life, goods, and honor. The powers that be are ordained of God to protect the good and punish the bad (Romans 13), but if they start to persecute the good, they are no longer ordained of God. There are to be sure degrees of tyranny and if a magistrate makes unjust war upon his subjects contrary to his plighted oath, they may resist, though they are not commanded to do so by God. But if a ruler is so demented as to attack God, then he is the very devil who employs mighty potentates in Church and State. When, for example, a prince or an emperor tampers with marriage against the dictates of natural law, then in the name of natural law and Scripture he may be resisted.

Praise be to God. Because He lives we also shall live and be exalted since now we suffer with Him and for His sake we are killed all the day long (Psalm 44).
...
If the high authority does not refrain from unjustly and forcibly persecuting not only the lives of their subjects but even more their rights under divine and natural law, and if the high authority does not desist from eradicating true doctrine and true worship of God, then the lower magistracy is required by God's divine command to attempt, together with their subjects, to stand up to such superiors as far as possible. The current persecution which we are suffering at the hands of our superiors is primarily persecution by which they attempt to suppress the Christian religion and the true worship of God and to reestablish the Pope's lies and abominable idolatry. Thus the Council and each and every Christian authority is obliged to protect themselves and their people against this.

This Confession was very influential in the thought of Theodore Beza, who wrote in his 1554 treatise Concerning Heretics that a "signal example of [interposition by lesser magistrates against superior tyranny] has been shown in our times by Magdeburg, that city on the Elbe." Later, in 1574, Beza describes his famous treatise on The Rights of Magistrates explicitly as a "'revision' or 'reprint' of that treatise 'published by those of Magdeburg in 1550 and now revised and augmented with several reasons and examples'" (Whitford, Ibid, p. 61). Whitford goes on to sum up the significance of this connection:

The connection between The Magdeburg Confession and Theodore Beza places the Confession at the center of the debate over political resistance in Reformation thought. The Magdeburg Confession is, therefore, one of the most important documents of the Reformation on political theology, and it played a key and positive role in the development of resistance theory.

Biblical Theocracy and Past Abuses

Henry Van Dyke, ed., Groen Van Prinsterer's Lectures on Unbelief and Revolution, "Lecture III: Anti-Revolutionary Principles" 57-67:

4. One weighty and controversial point remains: the union of Church and State. It has many opponents, including Christians. I can best begin with the unadorned presentation of the grounds for it.

If a sovereign in all his acts is to be guided by the precepts of morality, this morality must find support in a religion, to whose faithful profession the sovereign grants protection and favours, in the interest of maintaining justice, virtue, and order. If a sovereign is God's lieutenant, he is obliged publicly to confess and worship Him, to aid others in the exercise of worship, and as far as his legitimate authority extends to apply the standards of God's law to all his deeds and ordinances. As Scripture says: "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling."14 As for the church, she is called to be the light, the salt, and the leaven of the world. The church ought not to seek martyrdom or humiliation. She should not withdraw if the state requests her co-operation. The church must endeavour to secure authority and influence for the Gospel, in order that the divine commandments be observed. These are the grounds for the union of Church and State.

Notice that it is not an option but an obligation. Objections based on fear of harm or despair of profit are therefore not to the point. What does it benefit the state? people ask; it has often paid too dearly for the support of the church. And why would the church need any state support? She flourishes under oppression. Worldly favours are a temptation for her. The Gospel is strong enough without human assistance. -- All these commonplaces are irrelevant the moment appears obligatory. The manner and the degree in which it is applied many run into obstacles in view of the requirements of toleration and the rights of conscience, but this may never lead to a denial of the principle.

And yet, as you know, its opponents are daily increasing. The church, they say, is sacred and the state is profane. The church is the community of God, the state is the world that lies in wickedness. What concord hath Christ with Belial?15 -- Don't think I am putting words in their mouths; you will find even stronger expressions in many a book and pamphlet, admonishing advocates of union to repent and inveighing against union as the Carthage that must be destroyed. Why, a zealous Christian in our own country has recently gone on record as saying that with the exception of ancient Israel all states are from the Devil.16 And Professor [Alexandre] Vinet, that gifted scholar and humble believer, is not afraid to assert, in his widely known book published a few years ago, that the confusion of ideas which have led to union can be attributed only to Satan.17

According to Vinet, union is at all times, in all circumstances, under any government, an abomination.

So it is to me -- in a revolutionary state. I loathe a union such as we have had in the Netherlands since 1795. Legally termed a separation, the present relation between church and state is such that factually the church is restricted in the enjoyment of her lawful rights, hindered in the exercise of her proper influence, placed under tutelage, and, breaking the reciprocal bond, is bound in fetters. From such slavery the church ought to wrest herself free. Indeed, with such a state the church should want to have no relation whatever.

But I reject Vinet's general condemnation. Vinet errs in his conception of the state and, accordingly, in his evaluation of its historic relation with the church. He begins by adopting the radical definition of the state as an aggregate of individuals by whose consent the concentrated masses of the people is governed, a "civil society" whose individual members "have made a common cause of whatever is their common concern."18 Then, to forestall having the government of such an omnipotent state, as a corollary, impose also a national religion, in violation of private conscience, he further defines the state as a "man minus his conscience," concerned only with material interests.19 Such a state, I grant, should have no relation with the church. But this is not the historic state of which I speak.

In addition, Vinet frequently succumbs to the temptation of imputing historical misapplications to the principle as such. Then oratory has free play, evoking the spectres of hypocrisy, self-interest, intolerance, fanaticism. But I hold no brief for the folly and wickedness of men. I defend only the principle and what necessarily follows from it.

Many claim, however, that past abuses followed from the very nature of this relationship. The sovereign will always make his supreme power his own ends. The financial tie will everywhere serve as a pretext for inspection and control. The clergy can be bought at any time by the tokens of honour and favour. Where the church is in union with the state, there independence in matters of faith cannot exist.

We readily admit that too often governments have used their power unjustly and have (not just in our days) used their position of paymaster of the clergy to obtain mastery over the church. We are aware that the clergy have not always remained immune to weapons of silver or of steel. Yet, temptations can be resisted; a state's attempts can meet effective opposition; nor will every sovereign want to dominate a church whose faith he shares. As Thomas Chalmers observes: "There might be an entire dependence on the state in things temporal, without even the shadow of a dependence upon it in things ecclesiastical. Although the church should receive its maintenance, and all its maintenance, from the civil power, it follows not that it therefore receives its theology from the same quarter; or that this theology should acquire thereby the slightest taint or infusion of secularity."20 Nor are regular payments of money the sole or principal tie. Payments may cease yet the union continue if the church's faith is but heeded in the drafting of laws and institutions. In short, abuses are possible but not necessary.

This is borne out by the union of church and state as it actually obtained in all nations prior to the Revolution. Here too Vinet, like many others among our Christian opponents today, is more at home in the flowery fields of philosophical speculation than in the arid deserts of historical research. On this point, do the annals of our fathers speak only of weakness, never of vigorous energy, only of neglect, never of vigilance in the performance of duty? In Calvin's Geneva, there was insistence on the independence of the church no less than than on the independence of the state. From the history of the Reformed Church we can summon many witnesses whose deeds are a glorious testimony to the possibility of clinging unshakably to the rights of the church against the arrogations of the temporal authorities.

I call your attention to Great Britain, where in recent years the Free Church of Scotland has sacrificed the benefits of union, however high she valued them, for the sake of preserving genuine independence. In the seventeenth century almost the whole of English history is taken up by the struggle of the courageous Puritans against the coercion of a caesaropapistic regime sympathetic to Roman Catholicism. After the Restoration of 1660 the believers in Scotland, because they wished to maintain presbyterian polity against the designs of an ungrateful and unscrupulous king, suffered bloody persecution for twenty years, ceasing only when William of Orange arrived to put an end to the coercive and arbitrary measures.
...
But it is time to close with a general remark.

My statement of last week fully holds for this evening's topics: never -- if we exclude the Sophists -- no never before the dawn of the Revolution have these basic maxims been subject to doubt. It has only been since then that historical development is exchanged for the Constitution factory, that the free action of the nation's organic parts is replaced by the lifeless whole of a centralized administration, that Divine right yields to the sovereignty of the People, and that the union of Church and State is abandoned in favour of political atheism.

14 [Psalm 2:10, 11.]
15 [Cf. I John 5:19; II Cor. 6:15.]
16 Pastor [H.P.] Scholte, in the periodical De Reformatie [vol. IV, no. 5 (1843), p. 249].
17 Vinet, Essai sur la manifestation des convictions religieuses et sur la separation de l'Eglise et de l'Etat, p. 22.
18 Ibid., p. 215.
19 Ibid., p. 256.
20 Chalmers, Works, XVII, 197.

MHCC 31: Matthew Henry, Law Student

Before Matthew Henry was ordained to the ministry in 1687, he studied law at Gray's Inn from April 1685 to June 1686. It was a formative period in his life.

Charles Chapman, Matthew Henry: His Life and Times - A Memorial and a Tribute, pp. 49-50:

But at that time, when Noncomformists were persecuted so bitterly, and when special danger would attend a young man's piety, [Philip Henry] wisely decided not to send Matthew to Oxford, but allowed him, after leaving Mr. [Thomas] Doolittle, to pursue his studies at Gray's Inn, London, where many have laid the foundation of their legal greatness. Although Matthew pursued his studies with diligence and care, it appears that he never seriously thought of the law as a profession. His heart's desire was to preach the Gospel. However, by studying there he had opportunities of forming acquaintance with men of some consideration, of hearing the most eminent Episcopalian and Nonconformist divines, and of variously filling up his time with profit until he could see his way clear to the Christian ministry. The influence his legal studies is seen in many parts of his writings. Very often there will be found in his Commentary, Latin and English quotations which do not come in the usual course of classical or theological reading, and there is often a use of terms which only a lawyer would think of employing.

Henry on Gen. 8.15-29:

Noah was able to give a very good account of his charge; for of all that were given to him he had lost none, but was faithful to him that appointed him, pro hac vice—on this occasion, high steward of his household.

Num. 31.1-6:

Though [Phinehas] was not yet the high priest, yet he might be delegated pro hac vice—for this particular occasion, to bear the urim and thummim, as 1 Sa. 23:6.

Num. 30.3-16:

Non est distinguendum, ubi lex non distinguit—We are not allowed to make distinctions which the law does not....Qui tacet, consentire videtur—Silence gives consent.

Num. 35.9-34:

But if the homicide was not voluntary, nor done designedly, if it was without enmity, or lying in wait (v. 22), not seeing the person or not seeking his harm (v. 23), which our law calls chance-medley, or homicide per infortunium—through misfortune, in this case there were cities of refuge appointed for the manslayer to flee to. By our law this incurs a forfeiture of goods, but a pardon is granted of course upon the special matter found.

These are but a few instances of the legal background which permeates Henry's writing. Like many Reformers and Puritans before him -- including John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Philip Melanchthon, Johannes Œcolampadius, François Hotman, Philippe de Mornay, Nathaniel Ward, John Winthrop (also studied at Gray's Inn), Johannes Althusius, and Andrew Melville, to name a few -- Henry brought an interest and justice and precision to bear upon his interest in theology, the queen of sciences. As twin ordinance of God, both magistracy and ministry intersect on so many points of morality, ethics and Biblical jurisprudence, that it is not surprising that the study of law and the study of ministry have influenced one another. One thinks of the profound effects of the Reformation not only upon the church, but upon civil jurisprudence. Christopher Goodman's How superior Powers ought to be obeyed of their subjects, and wherein they may lawfully be by God's word disobeyed and resisted; Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex; Nathaniel Ward's Body of Liberties; and so many more like treatises grounded in the word of God concerning the duties of magistrates and citizens have left their mark on society. Freedom in Christ, brought by the gospel, has always engendered both respect for the law, as well as a desire to promote the common welfare, and to resist tyranny and oppression. And students of law, like Matthew Henry, have often seen their way, by the grace of God, to become students of our great Lawgiver, and Advocate, Christ.

Thomas M'Crie, Life of Andrew Melville, pp. 22-23:

Every person versant in its literary history must have been particularly struck with the union of the study of theology and law. Law, when properly viewed, is a noble, and in some sense a divine science. When, instead of being made to rest on the arbitrary dictates of mere will, whether exerted by individuals or communities, on the prescriptions of custom, or on the uncertain deductions of indeterminable expediency, the Law of Nations is founded, as it always ought to be, on the Law of Nature, and the eternal principles of equity and justice sanctioned by the Supreme Legislator, the study of it is closely allied to that of theology. And to represent them as discordant, or as incapable of affording aid to each other, is to injure both, and is as absurd as it would be to divorce and dissever the great ends which they respectively aim at,—the promoting of the temporal and spiritual welfare of mankind. We meet with few of the writers of this period who excelled in one of these branches without being also well acquainted with the other. As religion is the common concern of all men, and as the public mind was then deeply interested in the controversies relating to it, we are not greatly surprised at the accounts which are given of the extensive acquaintance with the Scriptures, and with ecclesiastical history, which was possessed by many distinguished civilians and statesmen—by such men as Hottoman, and Godefroy, and Grotius, Languet, and Mornay, and St Aldegonde. But we are not equally prepared to admit the statement, although well authenticated, that the chief divines of the Reformed Church were intimately acquainted with the principles of jurisprudence, and qualified, by the course of study which they had pursued, to give their advice on questions relating to government and the administration of laws. Not to mention Calvin, Beza, and other foreign theologians, it would be easy to establish the fact by referring to not a few in our own country, as Row, Craig, Pont, Arbuthnot, and Adamson. This may be ascribed partly to the passion which those who addicted themselves to learning at that period felt to "intermeddle with all knowledge;" and partly to the superior gratification which this manly study yielded, in comparison with the dry and disgusting logic which had so long been exclusively cultivated in the schools. But it is chiefly to be traced to a new feeling, which recent events had produced, and which had for its direct object the promotion of the public good. This was the effect of the late reformation of religion; and at the same time one of the moral forces by which that mighty revolution exerted its influence upon the sentiments of mankind in favour of civil liberty and the amelioration of government. It is a favourite maxim with many in the present day, that the benefits which we owe to the Reformation are to be regarded as the ulterior and remote results of that event, rather than effects contemplated and intended by the reformers. It would be absurd to give an absolute negative to this proposition; but there is much less truth in it than those who announce it with such oracular importance imagine. Many of those actions which we are apt to impute to turbulence, or to clerical ambition and officiousness, and which we are prone to stigmatise as the offspring of bigotry and intolerance, we would, if better acquainted with the principles of the actors, and more attentive to the circumstances in which they were placed, see reason to ascribe to more enlightened and patriotic views.

The Duty of Nations

James R. Willson, Political Danger: Essays on the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ over nations and their political institutions 1809-1838, ed., Gordon J. Keddie, pp: 260-261:

Nations Must Acknowledge Christ

Nations are bound, in the constitutions of their government, to recognize formally the authority of the Mediator as their King.

The duty of nations as nations

It is the duty of all individuals who compose a nation to obey Christ. Therefore, the collective body should expressly acknowledge Emmanuel as sovereign Lord. This recognition ought to be embodied in the fundamental law of the empire. When every person in the commonwealth "is under the law to Christ" (1 Cor. 9:21), the whole nation, in its convention representing all, is bound by the law of God, to do homage to Him "who is Lord of all." "All the parts are equal...to the whole" (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England [London, 1791], Book II, p. 164). As then, when acting apart, every man owes allegiance to Christ, so, when acting together, they cannot nationally be freed from their [obligation] to "the King of kings." "And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people" (Acts 3:23). "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake" (1 Pet. 2:13). Man, who is subject to Christ, ordains civil government by the will of the majority, in the name of the Lord. And this is the formal reason of the willing submission, or obedience. It is for the Lord Christ's sake, from whom the people derive their right to frame the government, by whom the moral laws of the empire are enacted, whose honor and glory are to be promoted, and for whose sake alone that allegiance is due to this ordinance of man.

In All Godliness and Honesty

I exhort therefore that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men: for kings, and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet, and a peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty. (1 Tim. 2.1-2)

How is that we are to pray for our civil magistrates? That we may live a quiet and peaceable life? Yes, but "in all godliness and honesty." How did older Puritan and Reformed divines understand this guidance for how we are to pray? The Westminster Divines understood this verse to support the proposition inferred from the second petition of the Lord's Prayer -- "thy kingdom come" -- that the Lord teaches us to pray that "the church [may be] furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances [and...] countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate" (Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 192). So far from this verse supporting the modern doctrine of "separation of church and state" (understood to imply that the state must be divorced from any support of piety), this verse in fact, according to the Reformed historically, teaches that our prayers ought to be that magistrates would promote piety towards the end that we might live piously, quietly and peaceably.

John Calvin writes on this passage:

That we may lead a peaceful and quiet life By exhibiting the advantage, he holds out an additional inducement, for he enumerates the fruits which are yielded to us by a well regulated government. The first is a peaceful life; for magistrates are armed with the sword, in order to keep us in peace. If they did not restrain the hardihood of wicked men, every place would be full of robberies and murders. The true way of maintaining peace, therefore, is, when every one obtains what is his own, and the violence of the more powerful is kept under restraint.

With all godliness and decency The second fruit is the preservation of godliness, that is, when magistrates give themselves to promote religion, to maintain the worship of God, and to take care that sacred ordinances be observed with due reverence. The third fruit is the care of public decency; for it is also the business of magistrates to prevent men from abandoning themselves to brutal filthiness or flagitious conduct, but, on the contrary, to promote decency and moderation. If these three things are taken away, what will be the condition of human life? If, therefore, we are at all moved by solicitude about the peace of society, or godliness, or decency, let us remember that we ought also to be solicitous about those through whose agency we obtain such distinguished benefits.

Hence we conclude, that fanatics, who wish to have magistrates taken away, are destitute of all humanity, and breathe nothing but cruel barbarism. How different is it to say, that we ought to pray for kings, in order that justice and decency may prevail, and to say, that not only the name of kingly power, but all government, is opposed to religion! We have the Spirit of God for the Author of the former sentiment, and therefore the latter must be from the Devil.

If any one ask, Ought we to pray for kings, from whom we obtain none of these advantages? I answer, the object of our prayer is, that, guided by the Spirit of God, they may begin to impart to us those benefits of which they formerly deprived us. It is our duty, therefore, not only to pray for those who are already worthy, but we must pray to God that he may make bad men good. We must always hold by this principle, that magistrates were appointed by God for the protection of religion, as well as of the peace and decency of society, in exactly the same manner that the earth is appointed to produce food. Accordingly, in like manner as, when we pray to God for our daily bread, we ask him to make the earth fertile by his blessing; so in those benefits of which we have already spoken, we ought to consider the ordinary means which he has appointed by his providence for bestowing them.

To this must be added, that, if we are deprived of those benefits the communication of which Paul assigns to magistrates, that is through our own fault. It is the wrath of God that renders magistrates useless to us, in the same manner that it renders the earth barren; and, therefore, we ought to pray for the removal of those chastisements which have been brought upon us by our sins.

On the other hand, princes, and all who hold the office of magistracy, are here reminded of their duty. It is not enough, if, by giving to every one what is due, they restrain all acts of violence, and maintain peace; but they must likewise endeavor to promote religion, and to regulate morals by wholesome discipline. The exhortation of David (Psalm 2:12) to “kiss the Son,” and the prophecy of Isaiah, that they shall be nursing — fathers of the Church, (Isaiah 49:23) are not without meaning; and, therefore, they have no right to flatter themselves, if they neglect to lend their assistance to maintain the worship of God.

Thomas Cobbett, The Civil Magistrate's Power, pp. 35-36, writes likewise:

...civil rulers by their office and place, now in the days of the New Testament, are to look to matters pertaining to godliness; whether doctrinal, or practical, so far as acted by the outward man, and appearing in outward view in their life or the like, as well as they are in the like way, to look to the matters of honesty. As he that is taught to pray that he may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness, and honesty, prayeth that he may lead a life in all godliness and honesty (without which to pray for peace and quiet in any other life, or to pray to be let alone unmolested, in any ungodly or dishonest way of his life, even but to ask leave and liberty to sin). So he that prayeth to the Lord, for all that are in highest civil authority, as for kings or the like; for this end, that he may live in all godliness and honesty, quietly, and peaceably, he prayeth to God, to cause the persons in such civil authority, to further by their civil authority such an end, to which under God they are an external means, and surely then he prayeth, that persons in civil authority may in such sort attend and look to matters as well of piety, as of honesty, appearing in any acts or ways of their subjects' lives; as that their subjects may in such godly and honest acts and ways of their life and in no other enjoy peace and quiet.

Just War

And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and he that sat upon him was called faithful and true, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. (Rev. 19.11)

James Durham's comments on this text (Commentary on Revelation, p. 890) are worthy of consideration by magistrates who must decide whether and how to manage war justly:

And then, secondly, it is added, that in righteousness he doth judge and make war: which implieth, that there is a right end in His undertaking, a right cause, and a right manner of proceeding in it.

More Divinity In His Little Fingers

Concerning King Edward VI, as an example of godly civil magistracy, Edward Leigh, wrote, Epistle Dedicatory, A Systeme or Body of Divinity:

When he was Crowned, they put into his hands three Swords: he Answered, there was one yet wanting, the Word of God, the Sword of the Spirit, which was farre to be preferred before all those. When he was pressed by Bishop Ridley and others to tolerate his Sisters Masse in her own Chappel, he would not (though importuned) yeeld thereunto, saying, he should dishonour God in it; and being urged by them, he burst out into tears, and they [Thomas Cranmer] affirmed, That he had more Divinity in his little fingers, then they in all their bodies.

He That Ruleth Over Men Must Be Just

The Delight of Kings: A Compendium by A. Hayter From A Hind Let Loose -- Gen. 49.21, pp. 6-7:

The New Testament gives a definitive statement of civil government in Romans ch. 13 v. 1-9 and 1 Timothy ch. 2 v. 1-2; which is a summary of the pattern also found in the Old Testament. We shall first take in review these Old Testament passages where we have the epitome of kingship delineated. Thus the qualifications of those who exercise civil rule are that, They must be men of truth, fearing God and hating covetousness (Ex. 18.21); they must be just, and not deceitful, false or oppressive: He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God (2 Sam. 23.2-3); they must be men of understanding, they must be of the same nation, and not strangers (Deut. 13 v. 1 & 17; Jer. 30 v. 21). They are to be elected by all the people, that is, by the adult men among whom they are to rule: The men of Judah made David king (2 Sam. 2 v. 4) or again: The people made Saul King (1 Sam. 11.15) and as also in the words of Hushai: Whom the Lord and this people, and all the men of Israel choose, his will I be (2 Sam. 16.18). Any perversion of this order by those who thrust in upon the people however they accomplish it, is usurpation; as in Hos. 8.4: 'They made kings but not by me; that is, strictly and only in the way appointed by God, and which is said to be "by" him as if God himself had actually done it.

Both Tables of the Law

Edward Leigh, Epistle Dedicatory, A Systeme or Body of Divinity:

It is the Duty of the Magistrate not onely to regard that the life of his Subjects be civil and honest, but also that it be religious and godly. Therefore we are taught to pray for them, that we may live under them a peaceable life, not only in all honesty, but also in all godliness, or true worship of God, as the word used by the Apostle doth signifie. Therefore the King was commanded to take a Copy of the whole Law, and not of the second Table only, implyingg that he should look to the execution as well of the first Table as the second.

Duties of Christians Under National Judgments

Anthony Hayter, The Delight of Kings: A Compendium From A Hind Let Loose - Gen. 49.21 [ie., a compendium of A Hind Let Loose by Alexander Shields], pp. 26-27:

A people is bound to preserve the privileges and rights of their parliaments, which are but representatives of themselves, when they act according to the trust committed to them by the people. But when they betray that trust, and engage in conspiracy with the sovereign, the people cannot own such as their representatives, but must regard them as perjured traitors, and therefore as divested of that power and authority which is now returned to the hands of the people. In such case it is incumbent upon the people to secure themselves, their religion and their liberty, in the most efficient way Providence will permit. Their aim should be to extract themselves from the tyranny, and maintain their rights and adhere closely to the fundamental constitutions, laws and practices of their native realm. Evil laws bring in desolating judgments upon a nation; evil laws corrupt the whole body politic, demoralise the people and lay waste their heritage. Their duty, especially that of Christians, under such dispensations is --

• To acknowledge that God's hand is lifted in judgment against them: Who gave Jacob to the spoil and Israel to the robbers? did not the Lord, he against whom we have sinned? (Is. 42.24)
• To humble themselves under the hand of God (2 Chron. 12.7-8)
• To accept the punishment (Lev. 26.40)
• To repent and forsake their sin and their rebellion against God, as held forth in Solomon's prayer (1 King 8.46-48)
• To cry to the Lord for help and deliverance
• To strive earnestly for the righteous rule and dominion of Christ over that nation, and the extirpation of antichrist
• To bewail the abominations of their wicked rulers and to keep themselves separate from all their defilements, having no fellowship with works of unbelief and darkness, but rather reproving them
• To pray for such rulers as enemies and persecutors, to pray for their restraint and conversion, as did Stephen (Act. 7.60)
• To own subjection to them only as to a judgment (Neh. 9.36-38) and not confederate with them in any of their perversity: Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord (2 Chron. 19.2)
• To use all lawful means to be delivered from their violence and rapacity. Thus were the prophets hid in a cave from the malice of Jezebel; thus was Moses hid from Pharaoh (Heb. 11.23); thus did Christ withdraw himself out of the way of his enemies (John 8.59 etc); thus did Paul flee from Damascus; thus Joseph and Mary fled from Herod; and the wise men disobeyed his request and avoided him.

Wycliffe on the Judicials

John Wycliffe's Bible contains a lengthy prologue, a portion of which I have attempted to translate from Middle English into modern English. Any errors in translation are mine, and I have provided the original as well as the translation for comparison. This section has to do with Wycliffe's understanding of the trifold division of God's law, with specific focus on the moral and judicial laws.

John Wycliffe, General Prologue to the Holy Bible, Chap. II:

The old testament is departid in to thre parties, in to moral comaundementis, iudicials, and cerimonyals. Moral comaundementis techen to holde and preise and cherishe vertues, and to fle and repreue vicis, and these comaundementis bynden euer, and han strengthe, for tho ben groundid in charite and reson, and in lawe of kynde.

Judicials techen domes and peynes for orrible synnes, and iudicials of Moises lawe weren ful iust and profitable for men, for tho weren ordeined of God, that may not erre in his domes, and lawis, and workis. Netheles sithen Crist was maad man, and ordeyned lawe of mercy and of charite, and wole not the deth of a sinful man, but repentaunce and saluacioun, cristen men ben not bounden to kepe the iudicials of Moyses lawe, that was endid in the tyme of Cristis passioun. But 3it cristen lordis that han the swerd, and are Goddis vikers, in xiij. c. to Romayns, moun punishe men, that trespassen openly, in catel and bodyly prisoun, and sumtyme bi bodily deth, whanne the synne may not ellis be distried, neither the comynte may ellis be stablished in pees, as the foure doctours and other latter preuen opynly by holy writ and resoun; but looke that this be don for charite and comyn profit, with mercy and compassioun of bretheren, not for couetise, nether pride, neither for veniaunce of a mannes owne wrong.

Translation:

The Old Testament is divided into three parts, into moral commandments, judicials, and ceremonials. Moral commandments teach [us] to hold and practice and cherish virtues, and to flee and reprove vices, and these commandments bind always, and have strength, for they are grounded in charity and reason, and in laws of kind.

Judicials teach judgments and punishments for horrible sins, and judicials of Moses' law were completely just for men, for they were ordained of God, who may not err in his judgments, and laws, and works. Nevertheless, since Christ was made man, and ordained laws of mercy and of charity, and willed not the death of a sinful man, but repentance and salvation, Christian men are not bound to keep the judicials of Moses' law, that was ended in the time of Christ's passion. But yet Christian lords that have the sword, and are God's vicars, in the 13th chapter of Romans, may punish men, that trespass openly, in property and bodily prison, and sometimes by bodily death, when the sin may not else be destroyed, neither the community may else be established in peace, as the four doctors [of the mendicant orders (I think) -- RAM] and other [?] prove openly by holy writ and reason; but look that this be done for for charity and common profit, with mercy and compassion of brethren, not for covetousness, nor pride, neither vengeance of a man's own wrong.

Silly Vassal

Andrew Melville to King James VI of Scotland (in 1596 at Cupar, Scotland) in reply to the king who reminded Melville that he was the king's vassal, particularly in matters ecclesiastical:

Sirrah! ye are God's silly vassal; there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland: there is King James, the head of this commonwealth, and there is Christ Jesus, the King of the Church, whose subject James the Sixth is, and of whose kingdom he is not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member.

Erastianism is the doctrine of the supremacy of the state in matters ecclesiastical (in sacris as opposed to circa sacra). As articulated by the man from whose name the doctrine is taken, the doctrine did not extend quite so far; Thomas Erastus (1524-1583) originally argued, in a treatise written in 1568, but only published posthumously in 1589,* that it was not in power of the church to excommunicate church members (the pastoral office could persuade but not censure by withholding the sacraments), but it was left to the civil magistrate to punish sinners. It was Richard Hooker, who began to publish Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie in 1594, and Hugo Grotius, writing on behalf of the Remonstrants in 1617 when he published De Imperio Summarum Potestatum Circa Sacra (On the Power of Sovereigns Concerning Religious Affairs), who contributed most notably towards promulgating what we now know as 'Erastianism'. Erastus himself was a notable physician, perhaps the best in Germany in his day, and a lay member of the Heidelberg consistory at the very same time that the Heidelberg Catechism was written. In that capacity, he resisted efforts to introduce Presbyterian church polity.

The Erastian cause was represented at the Westminster Assembly by such men as Thomas Coleman and John Selden. They failed to win the Assembly to their point of view, however. George Gillespie, one of the Scottish commissioners to the Assembly, wrote a masterful refutation of Erastianism entitled Aaron's Rod Blossoming: Or, The Divine Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated (1646). The Westminster Confession of Faith is decidedly anti-Erastian (although a fundamental misapprehension of the doctrine of church-state relations as stated in WCF 23.3b and elsewhere has ironically often led to the misdirected charge of 'Erastianism' against the original Confession, which would have surprised the Erastian party at the Assembly). The Assembly took great pains in a petition to Parliament to try to persuade it to steer clear of Erastianism, even noting that Erastus himself was a better physician than a theologian.

Journal of the House of Lords 7:524 (August 4, 1645) (see also A.F. Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly: Its History and Standards, p. 294):

Nor do we find that there hath been any great Doubt or Question made thereof in the Church, until Erastus, a Physician, who by his Profession may be supposed to have had better Skill in curing of the Diseases of the Natural, than the Scandals of the Ecclesiastical Body, did move the Controversy.

Ultimately, the British Parliament ratified the Westminster Confession of Faith as the doctrine of the Church England, with the following exceptions: WCF 20.4 (concerning the magistrate's authority to censure in connection with Christian liberty), chapter 30 (on church censures), and chapter 31 (on synods and councils). The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland too added a caveat when ratifying the Confession in 1647 to avoid even the appearance of Erastianism by explaining that it understood the magistrate's authority described in 31.2 as confined only to "kirks not settled or constituted in point of government" and affirming that that the power to convene church synods is directly given by Christ to the church and not dependent on the magistrate for its exercise (meaning that magistrates who are enemies of Christ and the church cannot legitimately prevent the church from convening such an assembly). Yet the Church of Scotland, known for its adherence to the crown rights of King Jesus, that is, the principle that Christ alone is head of the church and not the sovereign magistrate, whose encroachments must be resisted, did not actually amend the Confession at any point and found nothing in WCF 23 to be Erastian.

For a helpful guide to Erastian views contrasted with Biblical and Presbyterian principles, see William Cunningham, Discussions on Church Principles: Popish, Erastian, and Presbyterian (1863) -- see chapter 8 in particular here.

* The original title was Explicatio gravissimae quaestionis utrum excommunicatio, quatenus religionem intelligentes et amplexantes, a sacramentorum usu, propter admissum facinus arcet, mandato nitatur divino, an excogitata sit ab hominibus. "It consists of seventy-five Theses, followed by a Confirmatio in six books, and an appendix of letters to Erastus by Heinrich Bullinger and Rudolph Gaulther, showing that his Theses, written in 1568, had been circulated in manuscript. An English translation of the Theses, with brief life of Erastus (based on Melchior Adam's account), was issued in 1659, entitled The Nullity of Church Censures; it was reprinted as A Treatise of Excommunication (1682), and, as revised by Robert Lee, D.D., in 1844." (Wikipedia) Theodore Beza responded to Erastus' treatise directly in 1590 with Tractatus de vera excommunicatione.

Defending Christ's Church Appertains to Christian Magistrates

The 1556 Confession of Faith of the English congregation at Geneva was written probably by John Knox and/or William Whittingham. It appears in the Geneva Bible and Geneva Form of Prayers or Book of Church Order. It is an expansion of the Apostles Creed, but this confession, like most Reformed creeds, has something to say very specifically about Christian magistracy too.

And besides this ecclesiastical censure, I acknowledge to belong to this church a political magistrate,[d] who ministers to every man to every man justice, defending the good and punishing the evil; to whom we must render honour and obedience in all things, which are not contrary to the word of God.[e] And as Moses, Hezekiah, Josiah, and godly rulers purged the church of God from superstition and idolatry,[f] so the defence of Christ's church appertains to the Christian magistrates, against all idolaters and heretics, as Papists, Anabaptists, with suchlike limbs of Antichrist, to root out all doctrine of devils and men,[g]...

d. Rom. 13:1-7; Wisdom 6:4; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13-14

e. Acts 5:29

f. Ex. 32:26-28; 2 Kings 18:4; 23:1ff.; 2 Chron. 29; 35:1ff.

g. 2 Tim. 4:2-4; Col. 2:8, 16-23; Matt. 15:1-9; Isa. 29:13; Heb. 9:12,14,; 25-26,28; 10:10, 12, 14; Acts 10:15; 1 John 2:22; Rom. 7:6; Gal. 5:1; Col. 2:8; Rom. 14:1ff.; 1 Tim. 4:1-8; Matt. 19:10-12; 1 Cor. 7:2, 9; 1 Cor. 8[?]; 1 Cor. 10:25; 2 Cor. 6:16; Luke 17:23; Rom. 3:19-20; 1 Cor. 3:11; Gal. 4:9-10

Godly Commonwealth

During the Interregnum (1649-1660), England was governed as a Commonwealth, that is, as a republic rather than a monarchy. It was a heady time for Puritans, even those who opposed the personal rule of Oliver Cromwell 'the Usurper.' They envisioned, prayed for and worked towards a godly, theocratic government, rather than the arbitrary, despotic government that the Stuart kings had personified. This was true even of those Puritans -- and there were many -- who opposed the regicide of Charles I and desired the return of the covenanted Charles II.

It is worth taking note of two particular Puritan treatises advocating theocratic government, which have much in common: Richard Baxter's A Holy Commonwealth and John Eliot's The Christian Commonwealth. Both were published in 1659 (although Eliot's treatise was actually written, it is believed, in the 1640s), and both were later retracted by the authors for pragmatic reasons (Eliot retracted his work in 1662, and Baxter in 1670, to please the royalist authorities and remove a "stumbling-block" of offense for those who perceived seditious tendencies in their works). Both books were born from a "common impulse" to see society governed under the headship of King Jesus. William Lamont writes in his introduction to the 1994 edition of Baxter's Holy Commonwealth (pp. xvi, xxvii) that:

[Baxter] knew all about New England from, among others, John Eliot, the missionary who was converting the native Indians to Christianity. The excited correspondence of the two men -- for there were parallels in the problems posed by American heathens and Kidderminster reprobates -- throughout the 1650s would result in two near-identical titles, published in the same year of 1659: Baxter's Holy Commonwealth and Eliot's Christian Commonwealth.

In 1659, Richard Baxter -- who although he had supported Parliament in the 1640s in its military resistance to King Charles I, had never quite fully supported Oliver Cromwell -- was enthusiastic in his support of Richard Cromwell, whom he viewed as magistrate with great potential and lacking in his father's regicidal and tyrannical baggage (Lamont describes A Holy Commonwealth as a 'love poem to Richard Cromwell').

A Holy Commonwealth was written in a turbulent, euphoric time when Baxter saw great things ahead. It contains 380 theses designed to 1) justify Baxter's support for Parliament in the 1640s, 2) lay out the groundwork for Biblical magistracy, include the proper theocratic relationship between church and state, 3) respond to James Harrington's views on the utopian republic as described in The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656), and 4) provide a Biblical and historical rationale for the obedience of subjects to lawful magistrates and their resistance to tyrants. As a result of the fast-changing political scenario in England, a series of Meditations was included by Baxter at the end of the work when it was published which reflect the dismay he felt at the direction the nation had taken in the short time between when he wrote the work and when it was ready for the press. The 1994 edition includes his 1670 recantation of (parts of) the work as well. The reasons for his retraction are complex having to do with the political baggage it brought to the Protectorate as well as to him personally during the Restoration, rather than the substance of his arguments. When reading it today, it helps to remember the context of its initial writing, the subsequent Meditations, its later retraction and its place in Baxter's political writings overall. It is a curious and valuable work for these reasons.

George R. Abernathy, Jr., wrote, "The English Presbyterians and the Stuart Restoration, 1648-1663," in Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 55, Part 2 (1965), p. 25:

A single quotation from the Holy Commonwealth is sufficient to indicate Baxter's basic position:

If the whole Family, with whom the People were in Covenant be extirpated, or become uncapable, the People may forme the Government as they please, (so they contradict not the Law of God:) not by Authority, but by Contract with the next chosen Government; nor as Subjects, but as Free men, the Government being dissolved.80

80 Ibid., p. 451 [this is Thesis 375, which appears on p. 208 of the 1994 edition]; italics added.

Meanwhile, John Eliot wrote The Christian Commonwealth: or, The Civil Policy of the Rising Kingdom of Jesus Christ from New England in the 1640s as encouraging reports came in from the mother country that godly magistracy was coming into its own. The manuscript was shared with friends in England, but sat around for over a decade before someone took occasion to send it to the printer. Although the timing may have seemed auspicious just then, those fast-changing events in England proved otherwise. After the Restoration, Massachusetts authorities, eager to curry favor from the Crown, banned the book and required Eliot to provide a written retraction and apology. Like Baxter, it appears that he did so to avoid giving offense rather than because he actually repudiates the principles contained within. This book, which advocates the Headship of Christ over England and all the nations, including the political sphere, and the institution of theocratic civil government modeled after Exodus 18, is said to be "the first book of political theory written by an American and also the first book to be banned by an American government."

Wisdom, By Whom Kings Reign

Charles Bridges, A Commentary on Proverbs, p. 76:

"By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth." Proverbs 8:15-16.

Another glorious contemplation of this Divine Person! He proclaims himself to be the source of power and authority, no less than of counsel and wisdom. "KING OF KINGS" was the mysterious name written upon his vesture. (Rev. xix.16; i.5; xvii.14.) Yet his crown does not displace the regal diadem from the brow of earthly princes; nor is the sceptre to fall from their hands. These ensigns of power are to be held, but in subordination to his own. By me kings reign; not only by my permission, but by my appointment. They bear my name. They are stamped with my authority. (Exod. xxii.28. Ps. lxxxii.6. John, x.35.) Proud anarchy disputes the prerogative, and traces the authority to the people; only that they may cast off the yoke of God, and "do that which is right in their own eyes." (Judg. xvii.6; xix.1. Hos. viii.4. 2 Pet. ii.10. Jude, 8.) Scripture polities lay down the offensive truth– "There is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. They are ministers of God," not servants of the people. (Rom. xiii.1-6.) Government in all its administrations – kings, princes, nobles, judges – is a Divinely-consecrated ordinance. Every kingdom is a province of the universal empire of the "King of kings." Men may mix their own pride, folly, and self-will with this appointment. But God's providential counter-working preserves the substantial blessing. Yet, if "the power be exclusively of God," then is Wisdom, by whom kings reign, the very essence and person of God. And here is our rest, our anchor in this world's agitating storm. "The government of the world is on the shoulders" of "the Head of the Church." (Isa. ix. 6.) All things – all power in heaven and in earth – is delivered unto him of his Father. "The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice." (Ps. xcvii. 1.)

Treaty of Tripoli

Piracy is an age-old scourge which has re-asserted itself in the 21st century. In the late 18th century, the young United States of America found itself in conflict with pirates on the Barbary Coast of the Mediterranean from the Muslim states of (what is now) Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. These pirates were also slave traders who sold Christians into slavery with particular relish. Under George Washington's administration, U.S. Consul-General to the Barbary States Joel Barlow was designated to negotiate a series of peace treaties. One of them, the 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli (Tripoli, Libya) stands out for its notorious Article 11.

Article 11 of the English translation of the document reads:

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This article has been the source of much discussion as to the views of America's Founding Fathers concerning whether America was founded constitutionally as a Christian nation. Several points must be noted:

1) The English translation of the document by Joel Barlow varies considerably from the wording of the Arabic original. There is some question as to whether Article 11 in fact exists in the Arabic original at all.

2) A copy of the treaty bearing George Washington's signature is clearly a fraud, since it was negotiated during his administration but not ratified and signed until John Adams was in office.

3) Gary DeMar points out that treaties involving the United States and Great Britain were signed in 1783 and 1822 which refer to a Trinitarian God in the preface, which would indicate some measure of profession of Christianity by our nation.

4) The 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli was read aloud to the U.S. Senate prior to a recorded vote which was unanimous in its approval and ratification of the document -- in its form as an English translation, the third such unanimous recorded vote by Congress in American history.

5) The 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli was broken by continued pirate attacks, and had to be renegotiated under Thomas Jefferson's administration; the 1805 Treaty of Tripoli omits the aforementioned language that America "is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," it does include the following statement:

ARTICLE 14^th

As the Government of the United States of America, has in itself no character of enmity against the Laws, Religion or Tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan Nation, except in the defence of their just rights to freely navigate the High Seas: It is declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from Religious Opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the Harmony existing between the two Nations; And the Consuls and Agents of both Nations respectively, shall have liberty to exercise his Religion in his own house; all slaves of the same Religion shall not be Impeded in going to said Consuls house at hours of Prayer.

What can be said about these facts? John Eidsmoe has an appendix on the subject in Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers, pp. 413-415, and he also addresses the issue in response to William Edgar argument for National Confessionalism in Gary Scott Smith, ed., God and Politics: Four Views of the Reformation of Civil Government (Theonomy, Principled Pluralism, Christian America, National Confessionalism), p. 226. He considers Edgar's reference to this treaty to be "grasp[ing] at straws in order to debunk America's Christian heritage." David Barton in Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution and Religion, pp. 126-130, and Gary DeMar in America's Christian History, pp. 131-144, are equally dismissive of the relevance of this treaty.

DeMar's theory is that to the extent Article 11 is worth addressing it may reflect an effort to smooth over the negotiation process by alleviating fears that America would engage in a Crusade against the Dey of Tripoli.

A survey of the state constitutions, charterse, national pronouncements, and official declarations of the thirteen state governments would convince any representative from Tripoli that America was a Christian nation by law. The American consul in Algiers, Joel Barlow, had to construct a treaty that would assure the Dey of Tripoli that troops would not be used to impose Christianity on a Muslim people.
...
Tripoli may have feared a crusade-like invasion from the American navy. (Muslims well remembered the Crusades and the expulsion of Muslims from Grenada by Ferdinand and Isabella.) America was not founded as a Christian nation in the same way that Libya was founded as a Muslim nation. "Christianity was not an American state religion and therefore the United States government bore no official hostility toward Mohammadanism." The Dey of Tripoli had to be convinced that America would not impose its Christianity on the Muslim people by force. "Could it have been that in Article 11, America was assuring Tripoli and all of the Barbary states that the United States did not have a state church system and would therefore not attack Tripoli for religious reasons of forced conversion?" This seems to be the best explanation of the phrase found in Article 11 of the Treaty (ibid, pp. 137-138).

There is a significant problem with this theory, however; if Article 11 exists only in the English translation and not in the Arabic, one wonders how it would serve to reassure the Dey of Tripoli of anything.

The concession by DeMar that America is not a Christian nation in the official sense of that term is consistent with U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Brewer's proclamation in the case of Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1892) that (after listing a series of references and allusions to Christianity in official U.S. documents) "these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." (See also David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation, with an introduction by Gary DeMar.) It is also consistent with the understanding of Article 11 that the United States is in fact, as it plainly states, "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; [and] it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen." America, it is admitted by "Christian America" proponents is not constitutionally and officially Christian; to be described as Christian, one must reach for a volume of unofficial utterances to substantiate that conclusion. If this be granted, then let it be granted also that the 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli simply affirms this too, that America is officially not a Christian nation, and as such has no official enmity grounded in religion with Muslim nations.

The heart of the matter is how one understands a nation to be "Christian." Brewer, for example, makes all sorts of acknowledgments that America is not Christian as understood in the conventional sense of the word, yet concludes that it is in some way actually Christian.

But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it....Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christian. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in the public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.

Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation -- in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. (ibid, pp. 13-14).

What follows is a catalogue of references to Christianity in the colonial history of the United States and allusions to Christianity in connection with its birth as a nation through the Declaration of Independence and Constitution which are increasingly obscure as the effort to prove that the "Sundays excepted" within the constitutional requirements for legislation to become statutory law helps demonstrate somehow that America is a Christian nation shows (ibid, pp. 13-30).

To return to the Treaty of Tripoli specifically, the historical record of this treaty's negotiations and translation, it is to be admitted, is murky, and clouded unnecessarily by George Washington's alleged signature, but the fact remains -- a fact not addressed head-on by Eidsmoe or DeMar or Barton -- regardless of what the original Arabic document said, it was the English translation that was read aloud (it is a relatively short document), and unanimously approved and ratified, which included Article 11 as we see it here today. In fact, upon signing the treaty in 1797, John Adams issued the following statement:

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

So, again, what inferences can we draw from all of this? Clearly, it is the English translation of the treaty that must be reckoned with, and it was approved two branches of the United States government without any dissent being recorded, only full approbation. The faith of George Washington and John Adams and Joel Barlow aside (I will aim, Lord willing to address Washington and Adams' religious views in the future on this blog), William Edgar well notes the following:

This treaty clause does not by itself prove that the Founding Fathers had adopted a clearly defined secularist philosophy of government. It does show, though, that the first leaders of our country were ready to exploit the Constitution's silence regarding Christianity to smooth the way to peace with a Muslim state.

In our day, for reasons of political expediency we have forged alliances with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and so many others such nations, and even helped to rebuild Iraq as a Muslim nation constitutionally speaking. We have even recently resumed normal diplomatic relations with Libya following the state-sponsored bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988. There is nothing in our national charter to prohibit this, nothing to hold us back from aligning ourselves with those nations who have raged, conspired and taken counsel against the Lord and his anointed (Ps. 2.1-3). But ought we to bind ourselves to aid the ungodly, as Jehoshaphat joined in affinity with Ahab (2 Chron. 18.1)? How much greater by far would it be for America to take the path of wisdom and kiss the Son (Ps. 2.12)? "This is the great duty of the Christian religion; it is that which is required of all, even kings and judges, and it is our wisdom and interest to do it" (Matthew Henry). It is a duty not only of individual persons to confess Christ as King, but also magistrates in their official capacity, and nations, which are political and moral bodies of persons who are subject to the King, to confess with a kiss their allegiance to Him. A nation that is truly Christian is, or ought to be, at enmity with nations that openly fight against God and not to seek peace with such at the expense of kissing the Son. Huguenot minister Matthieu de Larroque (1619-1684), quoted by Rene Voeltzel, Vraie et Fausse Eglise en les theologiens protestants francais du dix-septieme siecle:

It is much more advantageous for the Christian to be sometimes at war with man in order to have peace with God than to always be at peace with man and thus be continually at war with God.