Thirty-Fourth Question: The Political Government of the Church
“What is the right of the Christian magistrate about sacred things, and does the care and recognition of religion belong in any way to him? We affirm
I. After having treated of the ecclesiastical government of the church, we must add something about the political. Concerning this, a grave question is moved in the examination and decision of which it is sinned in different ways, in excess as well as defect.
II. They sin in excess who claim all ecclesiastical power for the magistrate; who oppressed by the liberty of the ministry, deliver the thurible into the hand of Uzziah and think that no power belongs to pastors except what is derived from the magistrate.
They sin in defect who remove him from all care of ecclesiastical things so that he does not care what each one worships and allows free power to anyone of doing and saying whatever he wishes in the cause of religion Or who, although they ascribe to him the care of nourishing and defending the church, so that he may kindly cherish and powerfully defend it, still leave nothing of recognition and nothing of judgment concerning religion save the execution alone to him. They rest upon this foundation – that this knowledge and judgment about matters of faith is proper to the ecclesiastical order, whose decrees the magistrate is bound to respect and perform. This is the opinion of the Romanists, which Bellarmine sets forth.
III. The orthodox (holding the mean between these two extremes) maintain that the pious and believing magistrate cannot and ought not to be excluded from all care of religion and sacred things, which has been enjoined upon him by God. Rather this right should be circumscribed within certain limits that the duties of the ecclesiastical and political order be not confounded, but the due parts be left to each. this we embrace in two propositions.
IV. First proposition. “A multiple right concerning sacred things belongs to the magistrate.” It is proved (1) from the divine command. To him was committed the custody of the divine law; on this account he ought to care for the piety and worship of God, which is commanded by the first, no less than for justice and love, which is commanded by the second table: “And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes” (Dt. 17:18,19)”
Francis Turretin – (1623-1687)
Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol.III, pgs. 316-317
Here Turretin gives a balanced two Kingdom approach. He recognizes extremes in Two Kingdom Theology and navigates between them. The R2Kt virus would have been, according to Turretin “a sin in defect.”
Notice also that Turretin doesn’t eliminate scriptural teaching all because it is somehow connected to Israel’s Theocratic embodiment. Turretin does not practice a intrusion ethic.
Speaking of R2kt, we came home to find a copy of the Watchtower magazine under our doorway. I turned to the mission statement inside, where I discovered that the JWs praise Christ as “King of the universe” but also boast about being a “non-political body.” I guess this thing is infectious.