Wilhelmus A' Brakel and the Duty of the Civil Magistrate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Backwoods Presbyterian

Puritanboard Amanuensis
[IMGL]http://www.gezinsgids.nl/data/foto/15_februari_2007/Brakel.jpg[/IMGL]From Vol. 2, Chapter 29, page 179:

“It is the duty of the civil government to uphold not only the second table of the law, but also the first. It must see to it that God is honored. It may not tolerate any idolatry, worship of images, or any false religion within her jurisdiction, but must rather eradicate these. It must prevent the vain use of God’s Name practiced by cursing, swearing, and blasphemy. It must prevent the desecration of the Sabbath, punish violators of this commandment, and see to it that the gospel is proclaimed everywhere within its jurisdiction. It must see to it that the church as the darling of the Lord Jesus is protected and preserved and that neither internal dissension no any external oppression disturb or destroy the church, but that instead she be safely preserved in the use of the privileges and liberties which her King Jesus has given her.”

See page 178-180 for A’Brakel’s treatment of “The Responsibility of the Civil Government with Regard to the Church”.

Buy the 4-Volumes here.
 
[IMGL]http://www.gezinsgids.nl/data/foto/15_februari_2007/Brakel.jpg[/IMGL]From Vol. 2, Chapter 29, page 179:

“It is the duty of the civil government to uphold not only the second table of the law, but also the first. It must see to it that God is honored. It may not tolerate any idolatry, worship of images, or any false religion within her jurisdiction, but must rather eradicate these. It must prevent the vain use of God’s Name practiced by cursing, swearing, and blasphemy. It must prevent the desecration of the Sabbath, punish violators of this commandment, and see to it that the gospel is proclaimed everywhere within its jurisdiction. It must see to it that the church as the darling of the Lord Jesus is protected and preserved and that neither internal dissension no any external oppression disturb or destroy the church, but that instead she be safely preserved in the use of the privileges and liberties which her King Jesus has given her.”

See page 178-180 for A’Brakel’s treatment of “The Responsibility of the Civil Government with Regard to the Church”.

Buy the 4-Volumes here.

Not being familiar with the works of the man, suffice it too say he would not be a proponent of contemporary Two Kingdom theology as promulgated by the fellows at Westminster Seminary CA?
 
...And David Dickson:

Do not lastly, the Lutherans, Anabaptists, Arminians, Quakers, and all sorts of heretics and sectaries err, who maintain, under pretest of Christian liberty, That the civil magistrate is not in duty to punish any man with the sword, for errors in doctrine, but that they ought to be tolerated and suffered, provided such persons as own them, do not trouble or molest the common-wealth?

Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

1st, Because the keys of the kingdom of heaven, are for this end delivered to the ministers of the church, that with censures they may pursue scandalous and offending persons, who will not obey admonition, Matt. 18.15,17,18.

2d, Because an heretic, after the first and second admonition, is to be rejected, avoided, or shunned. That is, let him not remain in the external communion of the church, Titus 3.10.

3d, Because Paul did excommunicate Hymeneus and Alexander, who had made shipwreck of the faith, 1 Tim. 1.19,20.

4th, Because if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed, 2 Thes. 3.14. 1 Tim. 6.4,5. Titus 1.11.

5th, Because Christ approves and commends the pastors of the church of Ephesus, because they could not suffer them that are evil; but had tried them which say they are apostles, and were not, and had found them liars, Rev. 2.2. And Christ, in that same chapter, accuses the pastors of the church of Pergamus and Thyatira, and threateneth them, because they had suffered heretics to be in the church.

The Lutherans, Anabaptists, Arminians, and other sectaries are confuted.

1st, Because it is evident from many examples of godly magistrates, who did extirpate idolatry, and inflict punishment upon idolaters; as did Jacob the patriarch, who purged his family of strange gods, Gen. 35.2-4. Moses likewise took punishment with the sword, upon those who did worship the golden calf, Exod. 32.26-28. We have

2d, The example of Hezekiah, 2 Kings 18.4. Of Josiah, 2 Kings 23. Of Asa, who decreed, that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel (according to the law of God, Deut 13.9.) should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman, 2 Chron. 15.13. Of Jehosaphat, 2 Chron. 17.6. Of Nehemiah, chap. 13.15,17,35.

3d, Were not good kings reproved, and was it not imputed to them as a fault, that they did not take away the high places? 2 Kings 12.3, 14.4, 15.4. 2 Chron. 15.17. Far more is it a fault to suffer heretics.

4th, It is evident from the office of the magistrate, who is the minister of God against them that do evil, and bears not the sword in vain, Rom. 13.4.

5th, Because it is expressly commanded in Scripture, that punishment be inflicted upon idolaters, even by the nearest relations. If then, the father may kill the Son, may kill the daughter; the husband the wife of his bosom; and if one brother may stone another brother with stones that he die, for being idolaters; much more may the civil magistrate do this, Deut. 13.6-13. Deut. 17.2-7. Lev. 24.10.

6th, Because it is foretold, that under the New Testament, kings shall be nursing fathers to the church, and queens nursing mothers; and that heretics that were about to be hurtful to the church, shall be removed and taken away, Isa. 49.23. Zech. 13.2,3. And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, (that is all idolatry whatsoever, so that the same shall not be so much as named any more among you) and they shall no more be remembered. And I will also cause the prophets, (the false prophets) and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land; (that is, the false teachers who teach impure doctrines, thro' the inspiration of the unclean spirit the devil.) Compare this with 1 John 4.1-3. For confirmation, consider what is foretold by John, Rev. 17.12,16,17. That the kings of the earth shall eat the flesh of the whore, and burn her with fire. All which are foretold, as blessings to be conferred upon the church.

7th, It is evident from the epithets whereby the pernicious and destructive nature of heretics is set forth in scripture. They are called wolves, not sparing the flock, thieves, robbers, troublers of the church, and seducers or beguilers of poor souls. They are like unto a gangrene, or canker in the body. They are as leaven, or sour dough, which leaveneth the whole lump, Acts 20.29. John 10.8. Acts 15.24. Gal. 5.12. 2 Tim. 2.17. Gal. 5.9.

8th, Because Ezra did esteem it a great favour and blessing of God conferred upon the church; for which he thanked God, that had inclined the heart of Artaxerxes to publish a decree for the punishment of those that did not observe the law, whether it be, saith the text, unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment, chap. 7.23,25,28.

9th, Because we ought to pray for kings, and all in authority, that under them we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness, and in honesty, which end cannot be attained unless the civil magistrate bridle and tie up heretics, 1 Tim. 2.2. these words, in all godliness, concern religion, or the first table of the moral law, as the following word, honesty, or civility, hath a respect to the commands of the second table, and the duties which we owe to our neighbour and to one another. For true magistrates are keepers and defenders of both tables of the ten commandments.

10th, Because the toleration of heretics, as we may read of the Anabaptists in Germany, Thomas Muntzer, John of Leyden, and their followers, first by railing against the ministry, as the Quakers do, and by raging against the magistracy, brought both church and state into confusion, put the country into burning flames, wherein themselves at length were consumed to ashes.

From Truth's Victory Over Error-- Chapter XX
 
I'm confused. Are Y'all suggesting official state religion?
I'm praying for a Christian magistracy that will uphold the true religion and that under their rule all "blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed" (WCF 1647).

What he said.
 
I'm confused. Are Y'all suggesting official state religion?
I'm praying for a Christian magistracy that will uphold the true religion and that under their rule all "blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed" (WCF 1647).

Well that's fine, so short answer then, do you wish to see the 1st Amendment repealed?
 
I'm confused. Are Y'all suggesting official state religion?
I'm praying for a Christian magistracy that will uphold the true religion and that under their rule all "blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed" (WCF 1647).

Well that's fine, so short answer then, do you wish to see the 1st Amendment repealed?
If said amendment is used some how to diminish the true religion (the Christian Faith) and leave access for other false religions (everything except the Christian Faith), and it does, then yes. I am a Christian before I am an American, and the Constitution or its amendments mean nothing to me if they violate the Scriptures. However, I will obey lawful commands of the magistrate (for example, the 1st Amendment does not require me personally and directly to sin) pertaining to things indifferent, but it does not mean I have to agree with the current laws as being ideal.

If Christianity is the true religion (and it is), then why wouldn't I want it to be the protected religion and all others suppressed? It only makes sense. God will do the changing of hearts via the sound preaching of the Gospel, but government may certainly uphold God's law for the regulation of man's behavior. If the sabbath were enforced then all people, unless providentially hindered, would have to be in a church hearing the Gospel. I think that's a good thing.

Agreed but let us be pragmatic. Was Reverend Brakel calling for a theoretical Christian Magistrate or an actual enforcer of orthodox doctrine? Within the reformed tradition, there are divergent interpretations of scripture, e.g. two Kingdom theology. Would we want a Minister of Religion or the Secretary of Religion to enforce doctrinal interpretation and to define the manner of our worship? What if that Minister was Joel Osteen one year and Michael Horton the next? Apart from our Lord as our King, could we expect anything other than some Saul like manifestation on this side of glory?
 
I'm confused. Are Y'all suggesting official state religion?
I'm praying for a Christian magistracy that will uphold the true religion and that under their rule all "blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed" (WCF 1647).

Well that's fine, so short answer then, do you wish to see the 1st Amendment repealed?
If said amendment is used some how to diminish the true religion (the Christian Faith) and leave access for other false religions (everything except the Christian Faith), then yes. I am a Christian before I am an American, and the Constitution or its amendments mean nothing to me if they violate the Scriptures. I will obey lawful commands of the magistrate pertaining to things indifferent, but it does not mean I have to agree with the current laws as being ideal.

If Christianity is the true religion (and it is), then why wouldn't I want it to be the protected religion and all others suppressed? It only makes sense. God will do the changing of hearts via the sound preaching of the Gospel, but government may certainly uphold God's law for the regulation of men's behavior.

Agreed but let us be pragmatic. Was Reverend Brakel calling for a theoretical Christian Magistrate or an actual enforcer of orthodox doctrine? Within the reformed tradition, there are divergent interpretations of scripture, e.g. two Kingdom theology. Would we want a Minister of Religion or the Secretary of Religion to enforce doctrinal interpretation and to define the manner of our worship? What if that Minister was Joel Osteen one year and Michael Horton the next? Apart from our Lord as our King, could we expect anything other than some Saul like manifestation on this side of glory?

The requirement to uphold both tables of the Law falls upon all Magistrates, as all are ministers of God. This does not require, or even suggest, that one Super-Magistrate would have an exclusive claim to that role (which, in my opinion, would be a rotten idea).
 
I'm confused. Are Y'all suggesting official state religion?
I'm praying for a Christian magistracy that will uphold the true religion and that under their rule all "blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed" (WCF 1647).

Well that's fine, so short answer then, do you wish to see the 1st Amendment repealed?
If said amendment is used some how to diminish the true religion (the Christian Faith) and leave access for other false religions (everything except the Christian Faith), then yes. I am a Christian before I am an American, and the Constitution or its amendments mean nothing to me if they violate the Scriptures. I will obey lawful commands of the magistrate pertaining to things indifferent, but it does not mean I have to agree with the current laws as being ideal.

If Christianity is the true religion (and it is), then why wouldn't I want it to be the protected religion and all others suppressed? It only makes sense. God will do the changing of hearts via the sound preaching of the Gospel, but government may certainly uphold God's law for the regulation of men's behavior.

Agreed but let us be pragmatic. Was Reverend Brakel calling for a theoretical Christian Magistrate or an actual enforcer of orthodox doctrine? Within the reformed tradition, there are divergent interpretations of scripture, e.g. two Kingdom theology. Would we want a Minister of Religion or the Secretary of Religion to enforce doctrinal interpretation and to define the manner of our worship? What if that Minister was Joel Osteen one year and Michael Horton the next? Apart from our Lord as our King, could we expect anything other than some Saul like manifestation on this side of glory?

The requirement to uphold both tables of the Law falls upon all Magistrates, as all are ministers of God. This does not require, or even suggest, that one Super-Magistrate would have an exclusive claim to that role (which, in my opinion, would be a rotten idea).

What would this look like within the framework of US constitutional law for example? Would each state appoint Magistrates to enforce that states perception of the Judicial law? How would one avoid the tyranny that drove the pilgrims from England in the first place?
 
Departing from my Baptist roots, I agree with the WCF. Too bad the LBCF doesn't have a chapter on the Civil Magistrate. I personally think that if I was in a place of authority in government, I would feel obligated to uphold the Law because it is ingrained in who I am. I don't see how in my personal life I would fight for it but in a public position I would not. I have had many a disagreement with fellow Baptists on this subject. Doesn't matter really, because if I ran for any office, I would say this up front and would get 0 votes.
 
I don't believe the First Amendment was ever intended to separate Christianity from our Nation's Capitol. It was intended to stop the state from sponsoring one denomination to the suppression of others. The State religion was Anglicanism. Presbyterians and others were heavily suppressed and only tolerated during the Kings reign. The state also paid for the debts of the Anglican Church with its taxation. If a Presbyterian or Baptist congregation wanted to have civil recognition and a presence they had to apply for it through the State. Most were heavily suppressed. If I am not mistaken, Patrick Henry was one of the champions of the First Amendment for this reason. It was never intended to separate the states responsibility to uphold God's law if I understand my history correctly.
 
Why can't I stop thinking Inquistion when I think state religion?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that there is no connection between a magistrate faithfully and consistently upholding the First Table of the Law and "the tyranny that drove the pilgrims from England in the first place."

We have a "state religion" now and England had a "state religion" then, but neither practice anything like what I see the good men above suggesting.
 
Why can't I stop thinking Inquistion when I think state religion?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that there is no connection between a magistrate faithfully and consistently upholding the First Table of the Law and "the tyranny that drove the pilgrims from England in the first place."

We have a "state religion" now and England had a "state religion" then, but neither practice anything like what I see the good men above suggesting.

Well then, not many saw the Spanish Inquistion coming either. By way of example, can you point to some good examples of the civil magistrates upholding state religion? Lastly, does the WCF infer upholding the essence of the Commandments, general equity etc. or does this civil magisterial enforcer seek a return to the Judicial law of Moses?
 
Why can't I stop thinking Inquistion when I think state religion?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that there is no connection between a magistrate faithfully and consistently upholding the First Table of the Law and "the tyranny that drove the pilgrims from England in the first place."

We have a "state religion" now and England had a "state religion" then, but neither practice anything like what I see the good men above suggesting.

Well then, not many saw the Spanish Inquistion coming either.

In moving from the Pilgrims in England to the Spanish Inquisition, we are going further away from what is being proposed, not closer to it. Is the Taliban our next objection?

By way of example, can you point to some good examples of the civil magistrates upholding state religion?

To answer that question, it would be helpful if you would define what you mean by "state religion." I don't see that any others here have used or condoned that term and am uncertain as to what you mean.

Lastly, does the WCF infer upholding the essence of the Commandments, general equity etc. or does this civil magisterial enforcer seek a return to the Judicial law of Moses?

I've nothing to add to Joshua's post.
 
Lastly, does the WCF infer upholding the essence of the Commandments, general equity etc. or does this civil magisterial enforcer seek a return to the Judicial law of Moses?
XIX.IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

Ex. xxi chap.; Ex. xxii. 1 to 29; Gen. xlix. 10 with 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14; Matt. v. 17 with ver. 38, 39; 1 Cor. ix. 8, 9, 10.

That noted, if a magistrate decided to enforce the same punishments that Israel did, I don't think we could call it immoral/wrong/cruel.

Were that magistrate to decree Mosaic punishment he must also apply Mosaic judicial process. Could that be done outside the Theocracy?

---------- Post added at 03:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 PM ----------

Why can't I stop thinking Inquistion when I think state religion?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that there is no connection between a magistrate faithfully and consistently upholding the First Table of the Law and "the tyranny that drove the pilgrims from England in the first place."

We have a "state religion" now and England had a "state religion" then, but neither practice anything like what I see the good men above suggesting.

Well then, not many saw the Spanish Inquistion coming either.

In moving from the Pilgrims in England to the Spanish Inquisition, we are going further away from what is being proposed, not closer to it. Is the Taliban our next objection?

By way of example, can you point to some good examples of the civil magistrates upholding state religion?

To answer that question, it would be helpful if you would define what you mean by "state religion." I don't see that any others here have used or condoned that term and am uncertain as to what you mean.

Lastly, does the WCF infer upholding the essence of the Commandments, general equity etc. or does this civil magisterial enforcer seek a return to the Judicial law of Moses?

I've nothing to add to Joshua's post.

State Religion would be the States recognition and preference for one particular religion or denomination over all others, much like England in the time of the monarchs.
 
Is it possible that A' Brakel was writing for the time and place that he ministered, just as the Westminster Divines (don't forget that the assembly was originally called to write a consensus document for the Church of England which had a king as its divine protector.)

I believe the Vos theologians would be considered spiritual descendants of A' Brakel. Geerhardus Vos, in an article titled The Eschatology of the Psalter wrote:
It is the special function of the Church to speak unceasingly and unfalteringly for this one supreme aspect of the future world, to insist in season and out of season that in it God and the service of God are to the highest good and satisfaction of mankind ... To work for the amelioration of the world without putting at the top of its program the bestowal upon this world of the baptism of religion as the primal requisite, should be impossible for the Church so long as she retains a clear consciousness of her own specific calling. Nor is this merely the one or the foremost of the tasks of the Church, it is in such a unique sense her "business," that every other activity in order to legitimatize itself as a church function should be able to prove its vital connection, direct or indirect, with the service of God and of religion as her one unique mission in the world. For the Church to indulge in the advocacy of social and economic programs ... is a precarious undertaking, not only because in so doing the Church would speak without authority, but also because by every form of experimentizing in such a field she endangers the authority, which within the sphere of strictly-religious principles is properly hers ... the Church owes the success with which in the past she has contributed to the progress of the world in civilization to herfidelity to this fundamental principle and the self-limitation it imposes upon her.
 
For anyone with access to The Works of George Swinnock - Volume 4 pages 147-299 B.O.T. there is an excellent exposition on Psalm 82 entitled The Beauty of the Magistracy
Let us pray for our magistrates and acknowledged that God hath ordained them unto that solemn office. Great is their accountability unto Him in the several administration of their duties How they should tremble in His presence in our evil days for God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among gods Psalm 82v1
 
State Religion would be the States recognition and preference for one particular religion or denomination over all others, much like England in the time of the monarchs.

My desire, and my prayer, is that godly civil magistrates uphold the First Table of the Law. It is not that they would implement a "state religion" that establishes a particular denomination.

As far as the other questions:

--As to how this would work in a constitutional Republic, such as our own, we only need to note that the Law was presented in tables of stone to a Republic with representative government (see Exodus 18). So there's no conflict there.

--As to the question of how to avoid the potential of turning men into tyrants by having them uphold God's Law-- it's kind of like asking how to avoid the prospect of turning men into Jack Kevorkians by teaching them to do CPR. It's the Law of perfect freedom. There's nothing tyrannical about it.
 
You can have successful establishments of the Protestant Reformed religion without the killing, torture, and persecution of breakers of the First and Second Commandments, as we had in Scotland, and England and Wales, for many years.

Where the true religion is in the ascendency, e.g. Islam (First commandment) or Roman Catholicism (Second Commandment) would wither on the vine, and e.g. Muslims and Roman Catholics could be denied access to the country and to prominent public positions.

The Christian state isn't bound by the Mosaic penalties which were tailored for a Church under age i.e. a childhood Church. Where there was no animal sacrifice for sin, as was the case with all the grossest breaches of the 10C, it was appropriate that the offender be executed to teach the people by shadow and type about God's wrath against sin.

Quote from Timothy
It is not that they would implement a "state religion" that establishes a particular denomination.

An establishment of religion need not be a particular denomination, as it was/is in Scotland and England, but all those denominations that can agree to a particular confession. This confession could be broadly Reformed or more broadly evangelical.

to a Republic
Not quite. God was King of Israel, while there was no earthly king. Israel was always a Monarchy, but Israel was the Old Covenant Church and People whose direct descendant is not the New Covenant State, but the New Covenant Church and People.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top