davejonescue
Puritan Board Junior
Was doing some light reading tonight and came across this train of thought. The only similar type of stuff I have seen along this line is discussions of the Laws place post-grace in Theonomic forums. Are there any other segments of Christianity that have or hold the same type of viewpoints below; or this already the general consensus of Reformed churches in general?
"Next, the Dr. finds fault with my interpretation of that place of Zachary, concerning putting to death him that prophesied falsely, his reason is, Because (forsooth) by that means the Parents should have power of death upon their Children; therefore (saith the Dr.) there must be some other sense sought out, then that which the words doe purport.
Whereunto I answer, That Moses shewing what ought to be done against those false Teachers which go about secretly to withdraw from the true worship of God, saith, Deu. 13. 6, 9. that though it be his Brother, his Son, his Daughter, or his Wife, he shall not spare but kill them: tell me now I pray you, doth not Moses mean there truly, and as his words sound, that the false Teacher shall die? If you cannot deny it, then you see that your reason which you here assign is nothing worth, for there also it is commanded to the Father to kill his Son.
But if you list to learn, you may perceive that by these words understood simply, there is no power given to one private man to kill another, nor for the parent (as a private man) to kill his children: but this manner of speech is grounded upon the Law of God, Deut. 17. 7. whereby it was provided, that the witness which had accused should throw the first stone against the convicted person; forasmuch therefore, as both Moses and Zachary after Moses, will have the Father accuser of his own Child, if the knowledge of his enticement to Idolatry remain with him alone, therefore also they ascribe the killing of the guilty person unto them, as a thing belonging to the duty of the Accuser.
Oh! but your words seem to give suspicion of a difference between the Jews and us, what is that? why that Christian Parents should rather put their children to death, then to be with-drawn by them: so that the Jews have an absolute Commandment to put them to death, but the Christians have it under condition, if they cannot otherwise keep still the true Worship of God.
But where and in what shop is this difference quoined? For how shall they be sure they shall not be with-drawn by him, unless they procure him to be put to death?
And although they were out of the peril of being with-drawn, how are others provided for, whom he may corrupt? And if it were possible that poison which he hath, could not hurt any other, where is the revenge of Gods glory which hath been dishonored by such false teaching? and in the maintenance whereof the zeal of Gods children as well under the Gospel as under the Law doth consist?
I conclude therefore that place of Zachary (against your fond distinction) that the same severity of punishment which was used against false Prophets then, ought to be used now under the Gospel against false Teachers, comparing one person and circumstance with another. As he which hath fallen from God, and gone about to draw others away, to be handled according to the Law prescribed in that 13. of Deut. If this be extreme, I am content to be so counted with the holy Ghost. And though in some cases of Idolatry, upon repentance life is given, yet in this case and some other expressed in the Law, as of open and horrible blasphemy of the Name of God; I deny that upon repentance there ought to follow any pardon of death, which the Judicial Law doth require.
Besides, It is an Anabaptistical tenant to avoid all punishment of sin whatsoever, to maintain that, For whatever offence a man commit, if he shew tokens of repentance, he may be delivered from bodily punishment: For what Murderer, what Traitor, &c. which though he be never so unrepentant and obstinate in his sin, hearing that upon repentance there is a way to escape death, will not enforce himself to shew all tokens of repentance?
Let this truth therefore be further enforced by this Argument. Forasmuch as I have shewed out of the new Testament that he who killeth a man, and taketh away his corporal life ought to die, it followeth much more, that he which taketh away the life of the soul should die: and if it be meet to maintain the life of man by the punishment of death, how should the honor of God, which is more precious then all mens lives, be with smaller punishment established?
Therefore to close up this question, I will add this; That the Magistrates which punish Murderers and Thief's, and Treasons, with other transgressors of the second Table severely, and are loose in punishing the breaches of the first Table, begin at the wrong end, and do all one with those, who to dry up many rivers continually fed by one fountain, begin at the channels where it divideth and parteth it self into many arms: which as it is an endless labor, so is this also which they go about; for whereas S. Paul teacheth Rom. 1. that God for revenge of the dishonor of his Name, giveth men over to wicked minds, to the committing all kind of silthinesse, and of all kind of sins against the second Table, be they never so horrible; and so maketh the breach of the first Table the cause of the breach of the second: It cannot be (let the Magistrate lay as good watch as he can, and aggravate punishments as much as he can,) I say it cannot be but where either the first table is broken, or the breach not duly revenged, but swarms of Treasons, Thefts, Murders, Adulteries, Perjuries and such like, must needs breake out in those Governments.
And therefore as the short and easy way to dry up the Channels and Rivers is to stop up the head and fountain of all, so the only remedy of purging the Common-wealth of these mischiefs, is to bend the force of sharp and severe punishments especially against Idolaters, Blasphemers, Contemners of true Religion, and of the Service of God.
And therefore I conclude, that those which would have the severity of the Law against Idolaters, &c. abated, doe at unawares not only thereby utter the small price which they set either of Gods glory, or of the salvation of their Brethren, but withal declare themselves enemies to Common-wealth's, and of all both civil and godly honesty of life."
(Thomas Cartwright, 1535-1603 "Helps for discovery of truth in point of toleration.")
"Next, the Dr. finds fault with my interpretation of that place of Zachary, concerning putting to death him that prophesied falsely, his reason is, Because (forsooth) by that means the Parents should have power of death upon their Children; therefore (saith the Dr.) there must be some other sense sought out, then that which the words doe purport.
Whereunto I answer, That Moses shewing what ought to be done against those false Teachers which go about secretly to withdraw from the true worship of God, saith, Deu. 13. 6, 9. that though it be his Brother, his Son, his Daughter, or his Wife, he shall not spare but kill them: tell me now I pray you, doth not Moses mean there truly, and as his words sound, that the false Teacher shall die? If you cannot deny it, then you see that your reason which you here assign is nothing worth, for there also it is commanded to the Father to kill his Son.
But if you list to learn, you may perceive that by these words understood simply, there is no power given to one private man to kill another, nor for the parent (as a private man) to kill his children: but this manner of speech is grounded upon the Law of God, Deut. 17. 7. whereby it was provided, that the witness which had accused should throw the first stone against the convicted person; forasmuch therefore, as both Moses and Zachary after Moses, will have the Father accuser of his own Child, if the knowledge of his enticement to Idolatry remain with him alone, therefore also they ascribe the killing of the guilty person unto them, as a thing belonging to the duty of the Accuser.
Oh! but your words seem to give suspicion of a difference between the Jews and us, what is that? why that Christian Parents should rather put their children to death, then to be with-drawn by them: so that the Jews have an absolute Commandment to put them to death, but the Christians have it under condition, if they cannot otherwise keep still the true Worship of God.
But where and in what shop is this difference quoined? For how shall they be sure they shall not be with-drawn by him, unless they procure him to be put to death?
And although they were out of the peril of being with-drawn, how are others provided for, whom he may corrupt? And if it were possible that poison which he hath, could not hurt any other, where is the revenge of Gods glory which hath been dishonored by such false teaching? and in the maintenance whereof the zeal of Gods children as well under the Gospel as under the Law doth consist?
I conclude therefore that place of Zachary (against your fond distinction) that the same severity of punishment which was used against false Prophets then, ought to be used now under the Gospel against false Teachers, comparing one person and circumstance with another. As he which hath fallen from God, and gone about to draw others away, to be handled according to the Law prescribed in that 13. of Deut. If this be extreme, I am content to be so counted with the holy Ghost. And though in some cases of Idolatry, upon repentance life is given, yet in this case and some other expressed in the Law, as of open and horrible blasphemy of the Name of God; I deny that upon repentance there ought to follow any pardon of death, which the Judicial Law doth require.
Besides, It is an Anabaptistical tenant to avoid all punishment of sin whatsoever, to maintain that, For whatever offence a man commit, if he shew tokens of repentance, he may be delivered from bodily punishment: For what Murderer, what Traitor, &c. which though he be never so unrepentant and obstinate in his sin, hearing that upon repentance there is a way to escape death, will not enforce himself to shew all tokens of repentance?
Let this truth therefore be further enforced by this Argument. Forasmuch as I have shewed out of the new Testament that he who killeth a man, and taketh away his corporal life ought to die, it followeth much more, that he which taketh away the life of the soul should die: and if it be meet to maintain the life of man by the punishment of death, how should the honor of God, which is more precious then all mens lives, be with smaller punishment established?
Therefore to close up this question, I will add this; That the Magistrates which punish Murderers and Thief's, and Treasons, with other transgressors of the second Table severely, and are loose in punishing the breaches of the first Table, begin at the wrong end, and do all one with those, who to dry up many rivers continually fed by one fountain, begin at the channels where it divideth and parteth it self into many arms: which as it is an endless labor, so is this also which they go about; for whereas S. Paul teacheth Rom. 1. that God for revenge of the dishonor of his Name, giveth men over to wicked minds, to the committing all kind of silthinesse, and of all kind of sins against the second Table, be they never so horrible; and so maketh the breach of the first Table the cause of the breach of the second: It cannot be (let the Magistrate lay as good watch as he can, and aggravate punishments as much as he can,) I say it cannot be but where either the first table is broken, or the breach not duly revenged, but swarms of Treasons, Thefts, Murders, Adulteries, Perjuries and such like, must needs breake out in those Governments.
And therefore as the short and easy way to dry up the Channels and Rivers is to stop up the head and fountain of all, so the only remedy of purging the Common-wealth of these mischiefs, is to bend the force of sharp and severe punishments especially against Idolaters, Blasphemers, Contemners of true Religion, and of the Service of God.
And therefore I conclude, that those which would have the severity of the Law against Idolaters, &c. abated, doe at unawares not only thereby utter the small price which they set either of Gods glory, or of the salvation of their Brethren, but withal declare themselves enemies to Common-wealth's, and of all both civil and godly honesty of life."
(Thomas Cartwright, 1535-1603 "Helps for discovery of truth in point of toleration.")
