Reformers and Toleration

Scott · #1 (**permalink**) 07-12-2007, 10:39 AM

Paul Helms writes this, referring to Samuel Rutherford:

Quote:

Rutherford advocated the action of the civil magistrate by a ‘civil sanction’ to make men and women conform to what, in the best judgement of the orthodox ministers of religion, was the true Christian doctrine, way of life and mode of worship. Rutherford had, in common with many others at that period, both a horror and a fear of pluralism. He was equally as much afraid of pluralism as any English monarch or bishop seeking to impose and to enforce uniformity of worship in the courts, even though he made a principled distinction, as they did not, between the work of a minister of the gospel and the work of the civil magistrate. Though in practice this principle boils down to the same thing: New Presbyter is Old Priest writ large.

With respect to the issue of toleration, is the bolded statement fair? The quote is from Rutherford and the Limits of Toleration.

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.

Ivanhoe · #3 (**permalink**) 07-12-2007, 11:24 AM

Hmmm...stuff like this makes theocracy/theonomy look tame and mild. Well said, Andrew.

Scott · #4 (**permalink**) 07-12-2007, 12:28 PM

Andrew: Thanks for the background - I did not know that.

The Protestant Reformers and Catholics might have had different theoretical grounds for their actions, but in the end both enlisted criminal penalties to suppress the public expressions of interpretations of individuals that were inconsistent with established interpretations. I think that is what Helms was getting at.

Scott · #5 (**permalink**) 07-12-2007, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draught Horse

Hmmm...stuff like this makes theocracy/theonomy look tame and mild. Well said, Andrew.

I don't think so. The Protestants' penalties were typically more flexible and generally more lenient those of theonomists. For example, the big theonomists do not advocate fines, but that was a common Protestant penalty.

Ivanhoe · #6 (**permalink**) 07-12-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott

I don't think so. The Protestants' penalties were typically more flexible and generally more lenient those of theonomists. For example, the big theonomists do not advocate fines, but that was a common Protestant penalty.

That's not necessarily true. Theonomists do not always advocate the death penalty. The only reason that many find the idea of "fines" problematic is because it often denies justice to the victim (the rich guy paying his way off).

What I am getting at is that the old school reformers are closer to the theonomists/theocrats in that they denied religious pluralism and used the magistrate to promote the Christian religion. That sort of talk would get one fired from a Reformed seminary today.