Wollebius On Relation Between Magistrate & Church — God’s Law & Civil Law

(4) Such is the government of the church. We come now to civil authority, by which the church is subject to the magistrate.

Propositions

I. The magistrates are protectors [nutritii] of the church, in that they enforce both tablets of the law, protect [conservere] churches and schools, and defend the truth.

Wollebius: Compendium Theologiae Christianae as found in Reformed Dogmatics edited by John W. Beardslee p. 148

Calling of councils

I. The calling of a council is the privilege of the magistrate, if he is a believer; if he is an unbeliever, either it must be obtained by a petition, or, if he is actively hostile to a council, then as a matter of necessity it must be held with the general consensus of the church.

II. The persons who ought to be present at a council are civil and ecclesiastical presidents, clerks, suitable men chosen for the purpose…

VII. The duty of the civil president is to convene the council, to defend it after it has gathered, to prevent all violence and disorder, to promulgate the regularly adopted decrees by his authority, and to use force against those who are unwilling [to comply].

ibid. p. 149

Chapter IV: The Works Connected with the Second, Third, and Fourth Commandments in General

V. Religion ought to be the concern of everybody, but especially of magistrates and ministers. The former are indeed the guardians of the church. They are responsible, therefore, for the maintenance of churches and schools, the support of ministers, and so on.

VIII. Religion is not to be forced [upon people] but taught.

IX. Religion is not to be spread by arms, but nevertheless it is to be defended by them.
Examples are pious kings, like the Maccabees, and emperors, especially Constatine the Great and Theodosius the Great.

X. If any abuse enters religion, it is to be reformed by the prince or magistrate.
Examples are Moses, Joshua, David, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, Constatine the Great, Theodosisus, etc.

ibid. 201-202

Chapter VII: The Duties Connected with the Fourth Commandment

XIV. The sanctification of the sabbath is the duty of everyone, but especially of magistrates and pastors.

The magistrate should give heed to Nehemiah’s example, lest the sabbath be persistently violated (Neh. 13:15ff.). It is also his duty to moderate the strict obersavation of this day when necessity requires, in order that considerations of love may also be effective. Examples were given by the Maccabees (I Macc. 2:41), and Constantine the Great, who permitted farm labor whenever weighty necessity required it.

ibid. 223

Johannes Wollebius – 1586-1629

Knox On The Continuing Necessity To Enforce Punishment Against Idolatry

Concerning the Idolatrie of Queen Mary & the question of capital punishment

‘” What ye may,” said the uther,[Knox] “be force, I disput nocht; bot what ye may and aucht to do be God is express commandiment, that I can tell. Idolatrie aucht nocht [only] to be suppressit, but the idolater aucht to dey the deith, unless that we will accuse God.”” I knaw,” said Lethingtoun,” the idolater is commandit to dey the deith; but be whome?” “Be the peopill of God,” said the uther;” for the commandiment wes gevin to Israeli, as ye may reid, ‘Heir, Israeli,’sayis the Lorde, ‘the statutis and the ordinancis of the Lord thy God,’ &c. Yea, ane [commandement] wes gevin, That gif it be heard that idolatrie is committit in onie ane cytie, inquisitioune sal be taikin; and gif it be founde trew, that than the whole bodie of the peopill sail aryse and destroy that cytie, spairing in it nether man, woman, nor chylde.”

ibid., from yesterday’s quote — p. 441.

note that both Lethington and Knox are agreed on the continuing relevance of the punishment for idolatry, the only question is who should carry out the punishment when the idolater is the Queen of that nation.

Knox On Responisbility Of Her Majesty In Civil Realm

” The secound that we requyre, is punishment of horrible vices, such as ar adultery, fornicatioun, open hurdome, blasphemye, contempt of God, of his Word, and Sacramentis; quhilkis in this Realme, for lack of punishement, do evin now so abound, that syne is reputed to be no syne. And thairfoir, as that we see the present signes of God is wrath now manifestlie appear, so do we foirwarne, that he will stryck, or it be long, yf his law without punishement be permitted thus manifestlie to be contempned. Yf any object, that punishementis can nott be commanded to be executed without a parliament; We answer that the eternall God in his Parliament has pronounced death to be the punishment for adulterye and for blasphemye; whose act is yf ye putt not to executioun, (seeing that Kingis ar but his lieutennentis, having no power to geve lyefe, whair he commandis death,) as that he will reputt you, and all otheris that foster vice, patronis of impietie, so will he nott faill to punishe you for neglecting of his judgements.”

John Knox 1514-1572
[A petition ” to the Quenis Majestie, and Hir most Honourable Privey Counsall etc.”].

works of John Knox; collected and Edited by David Laing. vol.2 (Edin.1864) pp.339-340.

Two From Beza On Church And State


“Let this be the conclusion of this argument: those (like R. Scott Clark, Michael Horton, David Van Drunen, and Darryl Hart, etc.)who would bar the Christian magistracy from the care of religion and especially from the punishments of heretics, condemn the plain word of God, reject the authority of the ages, and as a consequence seek the total destruction and extermination of the church.”

Beza, De Hereticis, quoted in Verduin, Stepchildren, p. 57

“But what, then, is the relevance of this long discussion of the duty of kings and magistrates to maintain religion for deciding whether they may be forcibly resisted if they persecute it? I reply that it is one thing to introduce religion in a country, another to preserve it once it is established or to restore it when it has been buried, as it were, under the connivance, ignorance, and wickedness of men. I hold, then, that religion is planted and increased by the Spirit of God alone, through the Word, which is ordained for teaching, encouraging, and exhorting, since this is the special activity of the Holy Spirit, which works by spiritual means. The duty of a prince who would convert his subjects from idolatry or superstition to true religion is to see that they are given good and lively instruction, while the duty of subjects, correspondingly, is to yield to reason and to truth. The prince, finally, should provide and enforce good edicts against those who, from pure stubbornness, would resist establishment of the true religion, as has been done in our time in England, Denmark, Sweden, Scotland, and in a large part of Germany and of Switzerland, against Papists, Anabaptists, and other heretics. And if, instead of believing in the bloodstained whore of Rome, other nations had done likewise, there would be peace not only in religion but in all other public matters, too.”

Beza, Right of Magistrates as found in Constitutionalism and Resistance in the Sixteenth Century Translated and edited by Julian H. Franklin, p. 134

1.)I don’t think Beza would have been sending his son to Escondido for Seminary training. Indeed, given the first quote Beza might seek to bring these gentleman who teach the R2Kt virus up on charges.

2.)Note, that in these United States the rulers do indeed follow Beza’s advice. In an attempt to convert their subjects from what, as Humanists they consider, idolatry or superstition to true humanist religion, the Rulers, through the Government schools, do seek to see to it that the subjects are given good and lively instruction in the humanist religion.

3.)Some will think that the idea of a magistrate charged with the protection of the first table is unreasonable. The unreasonableness of it though comes from having lived generations without that being the case, not from the idea itself. We have so given into a kind of pluralism that was never intended that we think it odd now to pull back from any kind of restrictions on pluralism. As such, the thought that the magistrate should protect the first table seems to be an abomination to most people who think themselves “god fearing people.” It’s as if, having eaten dog biscuits for supper for generations, we are appalled at the notion of eating steaks.

4.) Now surely, there is no way to go from the pluralism that we have to magistrates enforcing the first table overnight. The only way that this is going to happen is by conversion of both those inside and outside the Church. Conversion of those inside to a Biblical understanding that godless pluralism is not acceptable and conversion of those outside to a Biblical understanding that only life can be found in Christ. We will never be able to strong arm a solution. We got into this mess incrementally and we will only get out of this mess as
the Spirit of Christ changes the minds of men inside and outside the Church. Reformation in head and members is the answer not Revolution.

5.) I think a argument could be made that the pursuit of a Christian Theology that embraces pluralism and that evacuates the responsibility of the magistrate to the first table has contributed to a widespread destruction and extermination of the Church. The church in the West is a curio. It is retreating from every assault against it. The Church has been feminized and is largely run by the third sex.

Beza on the Magistrate and the Church

“The duty of the civil authority in this matter is hedged about by these three regulations: (1) It must strictly confine itself to its own sphere, and not presume to define heresy; that belongs to the church alone. (2) It must not pass judgment with regard to persons, advantages, and circumstances but with pure regard to the honor of God. (3) It must proceed after quiet, regular examination of the heresy and mature consideration of all the circumstances, and inflict such punishment as will best secure the honor due to the divine majesty and the peace and unity of the church.”

Theodore Beza
Beza, De Hereticis, quoted in Schaff, History, p. 798

Here Beza gives us a classical example of normal two Kingdom theology (as opposed to radical two kingdom virus theology). Notice Beza teaches that the civil realm and the church each have their own respective spheres. Second, in number “2” above the counsel is itself based upon the scriptural teaching that legal rulings must be no respecter of persons. Perhaps natural law teaches that we should consult the Scriptures for insights on these matters? Beza is, as such, using the Scriptures to instruct the Magistrate what his role is. Third, the magistrates ruling is in consideration of both God and church. Clearly Beza would be appalled by radical two kingdom virus theology.

All of this is an example of the quote I lifted from Bavinck yesterday. Here we see that “although nature (civil realm) and grace (church realm) are distinct and may not be confused or mingled, God does link the two.