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]

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.

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.

Book Review: Pierre Viret

At long last, as his 500th birthday approaches, thanks to Jean-Marc Berthoud, Zurich Publishing and the Pierre Viret Association, one of the great French Reformers, Pierre Viret (1511-1571), has been brought out of the shadow of John Calvin, whose 500th birthday we observed last year, and into worthy remembrance (Jean Marc-Berthoud, Pierre Viret: A Forgotten Giant of the Reformation - The Apologetics, Ethics, and Economics of the Bible, Tallahassee, Florida: Zurich Publishing, 2010). I have previously noted the ongoing efforts to translate select Viret works; now Mr. Berthoud's anticipated biographical sketch is available from Zurich Publishing.

With an excellent and succinct introduction by Thomas Ertl, President of the Pierre Viret Association, Mr. Berthoud has sketched for us a brief biography of this neglected Reformer, known as the "Angel of the Reformation," who was perhaps John Calvin's best friend, who as a preacher outrivaled his friend, and the man who in Lausanne in 1537 founded the first Reformed Academy, whose professors later served in Calvin and Beza's Genevan Academy. In this biography, particular attention has been paid to Viret's work as an ecclesiastical reformer, ethicist, apologist, economist, and philosopher, with extracts from his writings on each subject.

A prolific writer, Viret published over 40 works in his lifetime, "some up to a thousand pages in length," few of which have been republished in modern times. The Pierre Viret Association is working to rectify this oversight. As I have noted last year, select translation works are forthcoming. Mr. Berthoud has provided us with a list of Viret's published works in French, and a complete bibliography, including Viret's Latin works, is also forthcoming from Dominique-Antonio Troilo next year, Lord willing. Also expected next year is an English translation of Viret's letters by Michael Bruening.

Viret was greatly concerned to bring truth and application of the evangelical gospel to the people around him. This was the impetus for his academy, his prolific writings addressed most often to laymen, and his apologetic themes.

According to Robert Linder, Viret was probably present to observe first-hand the famous meeting between William Farel and John Calvin at which Farel issued his thunderous call to Calvin to pastor in Geneva (Linder, The Political Ideas of Pierre Viret, pp. 28-29). From the days when Viret, William Farel and John Calvin jointly defended in public debate Farel's 1536 Lausanne Articles, the three men were remarkably united in their friendship and ministry, each with different gifts. Theodore Beza noted that Calvin taught with authority, Farel thundered mightily, and Viret preached eloquently and winsomely (Berthoud, p. 20). Together, they were known as Geneva's Triple Light, or the Genevan Triumvirate. Viret's popularity as a preacher, in fact, exceeded that of Calvin.

Viret believed "that 'good laws' in a truly in Christian state always would be based on on the Ten Commandments of God found in the Holy Scriptures" (Linder, p. 58). Mr. Berthoud, as a theonomist, does not recognize the traditional Reformed threefold distinction of moral, judicial and ceremonial law (Berthoud, p. 35). He views Viret as "not explicitly theonomic (the term did not then exist), [yet] far more consistently and thoroughly Biblical than...his Genevan colleague [Calvin]" (Berthoud, p. 35). In this writer's view, Linder's statement that "Viret, unlike Calvin, was ready to extend openly the authority of the Bible over the state" (Linder, p. 63) is inexplicable in light of Calvin's theocratic statements in his Institutes and elsewhere, and too much is made of this erroneous dichotomy by Mr. Berthoud, in this writer's opinion, when he emphasizes the descent into the particulars Mosaic judicial laws by Viret over Calvin. The theocratic views of Viret in his application of God's law to society and the state as found in his massive Instruction Chrétienne, considered by Pierre Courthial to be "one of the magisterial works of the Reformation" (Courthial, Christian Instruction, Vol. 1, Introduction, p. 19), are apparent and admirable. It is to be regretted that Mr. Berthoud's theonomic views take such precedence in his chapter on Viret's ethics, but the extracts from Viret and Linder are most helpful in bringing forward Viret's ethical views.

Mr. Berthoud also sees Viret as a presuppositional apologist. Berthoud is on stronger ground here, and his discussion of Viret's understanding of common grace as it bears upon discussion of gospel truth with unbelievers, is most interesting. Berthoud is not favorable to the Ramist philosophy adopted by the Puritans (which he views as "binary," Berthoud, p. 82), or the evidentialist apologetic of C.S. Lewis and Alister McGrath, but shows how Viret in his Christian Metamorphosis brings both heathen philosophers and, above all, the holy Scriptures to bear in his witness to the unbeliever, with Viret calling Job the 'greatest of all philosophers' (Berthoud, p. 57). Berthoud rightly distinguishes between the fallacy of "an imaginary common intellectual ground shared in dialogue with the adversaries of the Christian faith" and Biblical wisdom of "mak[ing] use of all aspects of man's intellectual and cultural activities to reach, in a very concrete and practical fashion, the interests of his contemporaries" (Berthoud, p. 57).

Berthoud's discussion of Viret's concern with rightly understanding Biblical magistracy versus tyranny, particularly in the economic sphere, is most illuminating. Viret has much to say about taxes, just and unjust, and Mr. Berthoud highlights this point most appropriately. The gabelle tax was employed in his day, as Berthoud notes, much like a value added tax in our modern society, as a catch-all means of increasing statist power. If the power to tax is the power to destroy, then it is a power that must be reined in by Biblical limitations of civil authority, which Viret discusses at length.

This modern introduction to the life and thought of Viret is very timely as Viret's 500th birthday celebration draws near. As "the most successful and sought-after Protestant preacher in sixteenth-century France" (Linder, "Forgotten Reformer," Christian History No. 71 (July 2001)). He was a very important Reformer, so important that, in my view, the four Reformers presently at the center of the Reformation Wall should have been expanded to five to include him, rather than pushing him to the side. Viret contributed greatly to light of the Reformation which dispelled darkness (Post tenebras lux) and therefore it is most fitting that he should now step out of the shadows. Many thanks to Mr. Berthoud, Tom Ertl and others for bringing Pierre Viret into the light once again.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I have not received any compensation for writing this post. I have no material connection to the brands, products, or services that I have mentioned. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

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.

One Size Shoe For All Feet

John Weemes, The Christian Synagogue, p. 241:

The judicial Law only obliged the Jews in Judea; No Levite might have a possession in Israel: yet Acts 4.36 a Levite of Cyprus sold his possession, and laid it down at the feet of the Apostles; this Levite dwelling in Cyprus, might have a possession, although not in Judea.

The judicial Law belonged only to the people in Judea, therefore Carolostadius, who urged the Judicial Law to be observed in all Countries, did as those who would have one shoe to serve all sorts of feet: So the Jews were to blame, who urged the observation of the Ceremonial Law to the Gentiles.

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.

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.

Mono to Theo Doxa

"Mono to Theo doxa" (Greek, "To God alone be glory") -- William Symington's personal motto.

William Symington (1795-1862) was a Scottish Reformed Presbyterian minister and theologian known best for two works The Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ (1834) and Messiah the Prince (1839). Although his sons published a memoir of Symington's life which appeared in the 1881 edition of Messiah the Prince, and Dr. Roy Blackwood contributed a brief article about him the Dictionary of Scottish Theology, there has been precious little written about this man of God over the years, although the legacy of his writings has made him an enduring representative of Second Reformation principles.

Thankfully, a new book has been published by Reformation Heritage Books which seeks to remedy this oversight. William Symington: Penman of the Scotttish Covenanters (2009, RHB) by Dr. Roy Blackwood and Michael Lefebvre is a helpful guide to the life, theology and writings of this man. It provides a good overview of the principles he stood for and the history of the Covenanters, as well as the experiences and influences of his own life. In addition, we learn something about Dr. Blackwood, whose life was impacted by a thesis he wrote on Symington many years ago. The in-depth examinations of his two greatest works on the atonement and the mediatorial kingship of Jesus Christ (I commend the article linked here on the subject by Pastor Phil Pockras) are valuable, especially for those who are new to these principles; they include helpful diagrams which express the principles visually. The book is well-documented with footnotes (although it lacks an index, which would be helpful to include if there is a future edition).

Russ Pulliam, associate editor of The Indianapolis Star, commends this book highly on the back cover, having been personally influenced by Dr. Blackwood's thesis on Symington years ago to better understand a key teaching of Symington: that the mediatorial kingship of Christ applies to all areas of life.

In what I consider to be his magnum opus, Messiah the Prince (most recently reprinted by BiblioLife in 2009 and available for purchase at Amazon here, as well as to read online here), Symington aims to explore the far-reaching principles associated with Christ's kingly office. As the eternally begotten Son of the Father, Christ has always had authority as God; but in a particular way, as Savior, he obtained royal authority to govern the universe through his victory at the cross, resurrection and ascension, all of which is prophesied in Psalm 2. This we refer to as his mediatorial kingship, which is specially directed to his church, but extensive over all creation, and all spheres of life, relationships and associations. With special reference to Christ's kingship over church and state (and the state's relationship to the church in matters circa sacra), Symington's lays out the Biblical groundwork for understanding both the doctrine and the application of his mediatorial dominion. Christ indeed governs now, not only spiritually in the hearts of his saints, who willing in the day of his power, but presently, in this very world even in the midst of his enemies, even through magistrates, who are his ministers, and even through the tyrants appointed by him to scourage his people. His kingship is not limited to a spiritual reign in the church but extends to all reaches of life, even outside the church. The implications of this dominion are profound, as many who have studied this doctrine will testify. There is no better treatise on the subject than that which Symington wrote over 150 years ago.

I commend this new biography of the man, as well as his own writings to you, dear reader. God grant that every knee would bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is both Lord and King. Thank the Lord for sending William Symington to help us understand what this means, and to men like Dr. Blackwood and Mr. Lefebvre, and others, who have kept his testimony alive. Messiah the Prince rules, let all the nations rejoice!

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."

The Judicials

William Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews (Solid Ground Christian Books: Birmingham, AL, 2006 reprint of 1980 Kregel Publications edition, which is from the 1866 Nichols edition), Vol. 1, p. 505 (and London ed., 1655, p. 171):

Sec. 69. Of the judicial law of the Jews.

Besides the ceremonial law, the Jews had a judicial law, proper and peculiar to that polity. This law concerned especially their civil estate. Many branches of that law appertained to the Jewish priesthood; as, the particular laws about the cities of refuge, whither such as slew any unawares fled, and there abode till the death of the high priest, Num. xxxv.25. And laws about lepers, which the priest was to judge, Lev. xiv.3. And sundy other cases which the priest was to judge of, Deut. xvii.9. So also the laws of distinguishing tribes, Num. xxxvi.7; of reserving inheritances to special tribes and families, of selling them to the next of kin, Ruth iv.4; of raising seed to a brother that died without issue, Gen. xxxviii.8, 9; of all manner of freedoms at the year of jubilee, Lev. xxv.13, etc.

There were other branches of the judicial law which rested upon common equity, and were means of keeping the moral law: as putting to death idolaters and such as enticed others thereunto; and witches, and wilful murderers, and other notorious malefactors. So likewise laws against incest and incestuous marriages; laws of reverencing and obeying superiors and governors, and of dealing justly in borrowing, restoring, buying, selling, and all manner of contracts, Exod. xxii.20; Deut. xiii.9; Exod. xx.18; Num. xxxv.30; Lev. xx.11, etc., 32, 35.

The former sort were abolished together with the priesthood.

The latter sort remain as good directions to order even Christian politics accordingly.

1. By these kinds of laws the wisdom of God was manifested in observing what was fit for the particular kind and condition of people; and in giving them answerable laws, and yet not tying all nations and states thereunto.

2. That liberty which God affordeth to others to have laws most agreeable to their own country, so as they be not contrary to equity and piety, bindeth them more obediently to submit themselves to their own wholesome laws, and to keep peace, unity, and amity among themselves.