The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

VirginiaHuguenot · #2 (**permalink**) 07-12-2007, 11:13 AM

Paul Helm is quoting John Milton's famous line written in the context of Milton's disputes with Parliament and the Westminster Divines over toleration and censorship. Milton had responded to the Licensing Order of 1643 with the publication of Areopagitica in 1644 and also published several tracts on divorce at the same time. The Westminster Assembly's position is found in the non-Erastian statement on the civil magistrate's relationship to Christian Liberty:

Quote:

4. And because the power which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.a And for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or to the power of godliness; or such erroneous opinions or practices as, either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church; they may lawfully be called to account,b and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the Civil Magistrate.c

a. Mat 12:25; Rom 13:1-8; Heb 13:17; 1 Pet 2:13-14, 16. • b. Rom 1:32 with 1 Cor 5:1, 5, 11, 13; 2 John 1:10-11 and 2 Thes 3:14 and 1 Tim 6:3-5 and Titus 1:10-11, 13 and Titus 3:10 with Mat 18:15-17; 1 Tim 1:19-20; Rev 2:2, 14-15, 20; 3:9. • c. Deut 13:6-12; 2 Kings 23:5-6, 9, 20-21; 2 Chron 15:12-13, 16; 34:33; Neh 13:15, 17, 21-22, 25, 30; Isa 49:23; Dan 3:29; Zec 13:2-3; Rom 13:3-4 with 2 John 1:10-11; 1 Tim 2:2; Rev 17:12, 16-17.

So is it fair to characterize the doctrine of Rutherford, et al. as that of "Priest writ large"? No. The doctrine that magistrates must supress public expressions of impiety is not Roman Catholic in origin but scriptural, as the Divines showed appealing to Scripture. Moreover, one can see this doctrine taught throughout the writings of Reformers and Puritans -- it is most definitely a Protestant doctrine (see here and here -- the Popish view of civil government is an abuse of this -- see William Cunningham's Discussions of Church Principles: Popish, Erastian and Presbyterian for further comparison). The aim of such a statement is to link the Presbyterian Establishment Principle with the Popish Inquisition -- a tactic that is common to anti-Puritans, who today like to refer to the "Puritannical" Taliban. Censorship per se is common to different religious and political agendas, but that in itself does not make all censorship equally right or wrong. The grounds for the censorship should be evaluated distinctly to be fair rather than condemning all censorship as Popish or Talibanic.