Category: Apologetics

Question:

Does the civil government exercise any authority at all with regard to the church?

Answer:

It has no authority whatsoever in the church, but it does have authority with regard to the church.

We thus most strenuously oppose the Erastians and Arminians who posit all authority and government with the civil government, subordinating all ecclesiastical authority and government to the civil government, from which it is in turn delegated to the church. We have contradicted this notion in the foregoing and shall shortly do so again. We are likewise opposed to the view of the papists who remove all who belong to the church from governmental jurisdiction. At the same time, they maintain that the civil government may not render judgment at all in the realm of religion, and that the civil government must merely follow blindly and execute whatever the church has deemed and judged to be correct. We are also opposed to the view of the Libertines who insist that the government may not be involved with religion at all, but must permit every religion in its territory to proclaim whatever it wishes. We declare that the civil government does indeed have authority with regard to the church and is obligated to make use of this, which is a matter we subsequently shall demonstrate to be so.

Question:

What authority does the civil government not have?

Answer:

It has no authority whatsoever in the church and may not rule over the church as lords and masters. Government officials may not act as if they are servants sent of Christ””in Christ´s Name preaching, administering the sacraments, using the keys of the kingdom of heaven, commissioning ministers, appointing elders in the church, and decreeing what or what will not be preached concerning divine truths, and what are or are not the fundamental points of the Christian religion. They also have no right to depose and expel ministers who are godly and blameless in doctrine and life, and who have been lawfully called as the ministers of given churches. They may not, as lord and master over the church, reject such men, declare the calling to be null and void, efface it, etc. The government has no authority relative to such ecclesiastical matters, for in doing so she would reach for the crown and scepter of the Lord Jesus, whose prerogative this is. Those governments who are not refrained by the many examples of divine judgment will pay a bitter price for such a practice.”

Wilhelmus A Brakel – (1635-1711)
The Christian’s Reasonable Service Vol. II, pp. 169-170

Note that A’Brakel desires to protect the Church from the State’s interference on what it is divinely commissioned to do. It’s not difficult to conjecture that the reason for this insistence that the State is limited in the Church when the Church is faithfully being what she is supposed to being is that A’Brakel understood that when the State tinkers in the Church when the Church is being what she is supposed to be that what the State is attempting at that moment of tinkereing is to change the religion of the people.

Second though the State isn’t to tinker in the Church when the Church is being what she is called to be the State still has responsibility to protect the one true religion. The Reformed Theologian A’Brakel calls them Libertines who suggest that the Magistrate must take a “hands off” posture when it comes to religion. A’Brakel sees all attempts at creating a civil realm where the State allows all religions to flourish as being LIBERTINE.

Perhaps A’Brakel understood that if the State can’t control the church through the front door by commissioning its pastors, appointing its elders, decreeing what and won’t be preached in the Church, or assigning the fundamental points of the Christian religion, the State will attempt to gain control of the Church through the back door by making the Church irrelevant to the people by allowing all religions to compete with the Christian religion. If the State successfully sets up a situation where all religions are competing then the State gets to be the referee over the various competing religions. Just as the States interests towards cultural hegemony are served by directly controlling the Church so its interests towards cultural hegemony as served by creating a situation where religions are competing with one another.

If A’Brakel could come back to life where would he find the Libertines in America? Would he find any Seminaries where Libertinism is exhaustively taught on this subject?

From pages 327-336 Turretin deals with heretics and especially the Servetus affair. It is a necessity to read the whole passage to guarantee all the nuances and qualifications are thought through but for the sake of time here is a sample:

XLIV. “Third proposition. “We think that incurable factious and blasphemous arch-heretics, not ceasing to scatter their poison, against interdicts often and repeated and a pledge given, disturbing both the state and church, can be punished with death.” Yet that this is not resorted to unless all other mild means have been tried without avail to cure them and restore them to a better mind. For when it is evident that such remedies not only do not cure the evil, but rather exasperate and increase it, then at length (although sorrowfully) the magistrate compelled by the necessity of his office will direct his attention to it.; like physicians, who are wont to employ extreme remedies for desperate and extreme maladies that what cannot be corrected and cured may be stopped by the knife and cautery so that the healthy parts may not be affected…

XLV. The reasons why we so determine are various, indicated already by us in Section 32 and the following, to which we add the atrociousness of the crime. for if punishment ought to increase with the greatness of the crime, no one can doubt that the blasphemy and impiety by which the majesty of God is directly assailed, is the greatest of all crimes and one which on that account ought to be visited with the greatest punishment; especially if an obstinate and pertinacious contempt of political and ecclesiastical order is joined with it as also perjury and an insane fury for corrupting others with the same poison. Such monsters of men ought to be regarded as public pests and cancers, as disturbers of the church and state whom it is of the highest importance to remove, whether to vindicate the glory of the offended supreme majesty or to conserve human society.”

Francis Turretin,
Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol.III 332-333

Note that Turretin views society or culture as a host that can be infected by parasites. Turretin understands that if the Host society is brought down by parasite theology in the larger culture that will lead to both church and society being brought down. This was the danger of Severtus. A little Severtus leaven would leaven the whole Geneva society loaf. You cannot cordon the Church from the culture or larger society. If the people of the church are operating in a Severtus created culture they will bring that Severtus created culture back into the Church and recreate the Church in the image of the culture.

XI. “Although Christ did not commit his church to Tiberius, but to Peter, still he did not exclude princes from the care of religion (he called them nursing fathers); nor did he who said “Kiss the Son” repel kings as such. The ministry of the word is committed to pastors; but the care of the state no less to the magistrate; in which state if the church exists, why should not the pious magistrate as such both afford entertainment to the church and keep off the wolves, who in the name of pastors lay waste the flock? Otherwise, by the same argument, I shall have denied that the defense of religion belongs to the magistrate because he gave no commands about religion to Tiberius.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol.III, — 319

Note in the last sentence, in the quote above, Turretin attempts an reductio ad absurdum. When he wrote that sentence the reductio was effective. Today that reductio is an argument that is actually being put forth with a straight face.

XIV.”Affirmatively there are many things which belong to the magistrate in reference to sacred things.

(1) He ought to establish the sacred doctrine and the pure worship of God in the state according to the prescription of the divine word; faithfully to conserve it when established or even to restore and reform it when declining, as is evident from the passages already quoted concerning Asa, Jehoshaphat, Josiah, Joash, Hezekiah. Hence the design of pious princes and Christian magistrates must be praised, according to which they lent a helping hand to the Reformation (which was in vain expected from the Roman court) and used all their endeavors to cherish and sustain it.

(2) He ought to protect the church according to his ability, to restrain heretics and disturbers of ecclesiastical peace, to promote the glory of God, to defend and propagate the true religion and to hinder the confusion of religions.”

(3)-(6) my fingers are getting tired…there are more good things he says – BLM

XV. “Ecclesiastical power is either internal, direct and formal, occupied with the administration and exercise of sacred things (such as the preaching of the word, the administration of the sacraments and the dispensation of the keys); or extrinsic, indirect and only objective (such as concerned with sacred things, as to procurement and disposition, that all things be done decently and in order in the house of God). The first belongs to pastors alone, to whom he has committed his church and given the keys of the kingdom of heaven; the latter belongs to Christian magistrates and princes, inasmuch as they ought to be the guardians of both tables; as in a well-regulated family the father disposes and arranges all things, the execution and performance of which belongs to the domestics.”

Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol.III, — 320-321

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.

“It is evident, that principallie it apperteineth to the King, or to the Chief Magistrate, to knowe the will of God, to be instructed in his Lawe and Statutes, and to promote his glorie with his hole hart and studie, which be the chief pointed of the First Table. No man denieth, but that the sworde is committed to the Magistrate, to the end that he shulde punishe vice and meinteine vertue. To punishe vice, I say; not onelie that whiche troubeleth the tranquilitie and quiet estat of the common welth, by adulterie, theft, or murther committed, but also suche vices as openly impugne the glorie of God, as idolatrie, blasphemie, and manifest heresie, taught and obstinatly meinteined, as the histories and notable actes of Ezechias, Josaphat, and Josias do plainlie teach us,…”

John Knox, The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing, 6 vols. (Edinburgh: James Thin, 1895), 4:398