Touching Penal sanctions
”But since no one can describe 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 they 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 the 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 certainly 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 (Deut 13:6-10 and 17:2-5); for all who blaspheme the name of God and his solemn services (Lev.24:15-16); who violate the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14-15, and 35:2; Num. 15: 32-36); who rebelliously despise the authority of parents and live their own life wickedly (Deut.21:18-21); who are unwilling to submit to the sentence of a supreme tribunal (Deut.17: 8-12); who have committed bloodshed (Ex.21:12; Lev. 24:17; Deut. 19:11-13), adultery (Lev. 20:10), rape (Deut.22:20-25), kidnapping (Deut. 24:7); who have given false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:16-21).”
Martin Bucer 1491-1551
” The Fourteenth Law: The Modification of Penalties” in Pauck ibid. pp.378-9
Note here that what Bucer does is he retains the general equity of the law as the Westminster confession speaks of in 19:4. In doing this he makes the same exact move that the Westminster divines made. On one hand Bucer admits that the Mosaic civil law as designed for the particular circumstances in which Israel existed has been done away with in Christ, on the other had he insists that the end, goal or purpose of the Mosaic civil law must be maintained.
Clarity on this distinction might be found in someone like Samuel Willard (1640-1707), pastor at Boston’s Old South Church, in his Compleat Body of Divinity (posthumous, 1726). There we find Willard writing,
“With respect to the Judicial Laws, we must observe, that these were Appendices, partly of the Moral, partly of the Ceremonial Law: Now such as, or so far as they are related to the Ceremonial, they are doubtless Abolished with it. As, and as far as they bear respect to the Moral Law, they do, eo Nomine, require Obedience perpetual, and are therefore reducible to Moral Precepts.”
I will still be posting quotes daily for quite some time on the difference between historical Reformed thought on the Two Kingdoms, but it ought to be increasingly evident already that Escondidoism is not Reformed in the slightest on this issue. Indeed, some would even contend that it is antinomian.
If the reader would like to see that R2Kt is considered virus by others besides me and who see it as antinomian they can read today’s entry at,
http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/the-westminster-confusion-of-r-scott-clark/
Joe Morecraft III speaks very highly of Bucer in his free 47 part series on “The History of the Reformation in the Brittish Isles.” You can find them on SermonAudio.com (surprisingly). It is a great resource. He does a wonderful job explaining the history from the 1st century on.
Blessings,
kazooless
Jeff,
Thanks for the tip. I think I’ll see if I can download and listen to the series.
Bret
It is a good series Bret; I thought he did a great job.
Greg,
I found it at sermon audio. Now, I just need my son to download it for me on my Ipod.
Thanks for the recommendation,
Bret