“Accordingly, in every state sanctified to God capital punishment must be ordered for all who have dared to injure religion, either by introducing a false and impious doctrine about the Worship of God or by calling people away from the true worship of God; for all who blaspheme the name of God and His solemn services…”
–Martin Bucer
—
Van Mastricht on the duties of the civil magistrate:
“They must study, second, the fear of God, through which they should govern not only justly, but also piously and religiously. They should have concern for religion, not neglect it (Acts 18:14-16), but devote themselves entirely to it, which chiefly concerns these three things:
(1) to have a heart faithfully possessed with the fear and reverence of God, throughout their entire governance (Gen. 42:18; 2 Chron. 17:3-6; 34).
Next (2) to direct the entire contour of their governance according to what has been prescribed in the divine Word, to which end the king of Israel was bound to write for himself a book of the law Deut. 17:18-20; 2 Chron. 17:6).
Furthermore, (3) to set before them as the chief goal of their entire governance the glorification of our King, the propagation and amplification of his kingdom, to provide in every way for its prosperity of both kinds, spiritual and temporal (Rom. 13:3-4; Isa. 60:10, 16; 1 Tim. 2:2).”
—
“Moreover, to Kings, Princes, Rulers, and Magistrates, we affirm that chiefly and most principally the conservation and purgation of the Religion appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but also for maintenance of the true Religion, and for suppressing of idolatry and superstition whatsoever, as in David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others, highly commended for their zeal in that case, may be espied.”
— John Knox
—
“And this amounts thus far, at least, that judges, rulers, and magistrates, which are promised under the New Testament to be given in mercy, and to be of singular usefulness, as the judges were under the Old, are to take care that the gospel church may, in its concernment as such, be supported and promoted, and the truth propagated wherewith they are intrusted; as the others took care that it might be well with the Judaical church as such. And on these, and such like principles as these are, may you safely bottom yourselves in that undertaking wherein you seek for direction from God this day.”
— John Owen
—
“Christianity should be twisted in with national constitutions, that the kingdoms of the world should become Christ’s kingdoms, and their kings the church’s nursing-fathers.”
— Matthew Henry
—
“Because the Puritans were students of God’s word and held to its unity
and abiding authority, their thinking and living aimed to be governed by
the principle that only God can diminish the requirements of His law (Deut.
4:2). Not one jot or tittle of it was abrogated by the Messiah (Matt. 5:
17-19), and hence no man dare tamper with its full requirements. The
law is to be used as a social restraint on crime (I Tim. 1:8) as well as
guidance in holy living for individuals. The state, no less than any other
area of life, was taken to be subject to God’s authority via His written
revelation. The magistrate cannot escape his obligation to be “a minister
of God” appointed as an avenger of God’s wrath against evildoers—that
is, against transgressors of God’s law (Rom. 13:1-7; cf. vv. 8-10). The
civil leader is called to be a blessing to his public, which can mean nothing
other than following God’s prescribed moral pattern. The magistrate is
required to establish justice in the gate (Amos 5:15), and justice is preeminently defined by the law of Moses given to Israel (Deut. 4:8). Thus,
when the statesman forgets the law of God, he inevitably perverts justice
(Prov. 31:5) and thereby betrays his vocation. The Puritans took seriously
the magistrate’s responsibility not to swerve to the right or left of God’s
revealed law (Deut. 17:18-20). This law was not a standard of righteousness merely in Israel; it is universal in its application and demand, for God
does not have a double standard (cf. Deut. 25:13-16). The justice of
God’s law has been established as a light to the peoples (Isa. 51:4; Matt.
5:14,17); it should guide their steps just as it was intended to guide the
steps of Israel in ethics. God’s law binds all nations and their leaders, for
sin is a disgrace to any people (Prov. 14:34). This truth led David to promote God’s law before kings (Ps. 119:46) and to declare that all rulers
must fear the Lord in their government and become thereby a blessing to
the people (II Sam. 23:3-4). The kings and judges of all the earth, then,
are called upon to serve the Lord with fear (Ps. 2:10-12). Having learned
these truths well, the Puritans had to conclude that it is an abomination for
kings to violate the law of God, for in so doing justice is perverted and the
people are brought under oppression (Prov. 16:12; 28:28). Therefore the New England Puritans sought a government which would enforce God’s
commandments, knowing that the sure word of the sovereign Lord required, endorsed, and undergirded this project.
Among the Puritans who came to America, John Cotton (1584-1652)
stands out as one of most prominent and influential pacesetters and theologians of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. A convert under the ministry
of Richard Sibbes, Cotton created enough of a reputation and stir in
England that he was summoned before the High Court to answer to William
Laud in 1632. However, the well-organized Puritan underground concealed him and enabled him to take flight to New England, where his presence was eagerly anticipated. In Boston, Cotton was a leader in Christian
doctrine and ecclesiastical polity. His political influence is here to be noted.
In his work, A Discourse about Civil Government in a New Plantation
whose Design is Religion (published in Cambridge, 1663), Cotton (perhaps
in association with John Davenport) wrote that a theocracy is the proper
and best form of government to endorse, and he defined a theocracy as
where the Lord God is our Governor and where the laws by which men
rule are the laws of God (pp. 14-15, original edition). A theocracy does
not mean the erasing of the distinction between church and state:
“The best form was theocracy, which for Cotton meant separate but
parallel civil and ecclesiastical organizations framed on the evidence
of scriptures. Church and state, he believed, were of the same genus,
“order,” with the same author, “God,” and the same end, “God’s
glory.” On the level of species, however, the two diverged. Here the
end of the church was salvation of souls while that of the state was the
preservation of society in justice.”
The law of God is binding on the civil magistrate, then, and the government
of the state ought to be molded in conformity to God’s revealed direction.
“The laws the godly would rule by were the laws of God, and in all hard
cases, the clergy could be consulted without danger of a confusion of
church and state.” Cotton’s attitude was that “the more any law smells of
man the more unprofitable.” Cotton and his Puritan contemporaries applied the revealed law of God to the state’s constitution and stipulations.
If any provision of the civil code was not explicitly warranted by God’s
word, then it was looked upon with great suspicion and accepted only with
great caution. It should be remarked here that, just as Cotton’s theocratic
ideal did not confuse church and state, neither did it blur the difference in
Scripture between cultic or restorative laws which anticipated the redemptive economy of Christ and moral laws with eternal rectitude or holiness
as their essence. “Moses’ laws, Cotton affirmed, were ceremonial as well as moral, and the former were to be considered dead while the latter were
still binding in a civil state.””
— Greg Bahnsen from his introduction to John Cotton’s “Abstract of the Laws of New England” (https://www.garynorth.com/JCR-W78-79.pdf)
—
“The chief duty of the magistrate is to secure and preserve peace and public tranquillity. Doubtless he will never do this more successfully than when he is truly God-fearing and religious; that is to say, when, according to the example of the most holy kings and princes of the people of the Lord, he promotes the preaching of the truth and sincere faith, roots out lies and all superstition, together with all impiety and idolatry, and defends the Church of God. We certainly teach that the care of religion belongs especially to the holy magistrate. Let him, therefore, hold the Word of God in his hands, and take care lest anything contrary to it is taught… Let him suppress stubborn heretics (who are truly heretics), who do not cease to blaspheme the majesty of God and to trouble, and even to destroy the Church of God.”
— Heinrich Bullinger
—
“The object of the Magistrate’s power as a Magistrate is the external man, and earthly things, because he doth not in such a spiritual way of working, take care of the two Tables of the Law, as the Pastor doth; and yet the spiritual good and edification of the Church in the right preaching of the Word, the Sacraments, and pure discipline is his end. It is true, whether the blasphemer profess repentance, or not, the Magistrate is to punish, yea and to take his life, if he in seducing of many, have prevailed, but yet his end is edification, even in taking away the life; for he is to put away evil, ‘that all Israel may fear, and do so no more.’”
— Samuel Rutherford
—
“They sin in defect who remove [the magistrate] from all care of ecclesiastical things so that he does not care what each one worships and allows free power to anyone of doing and saying whatever he wishes in the cause of religion.”
— Francis Turretin
—
“In Scripture holy kings are especially praised for restoring the worship of God when corrupted or overthrown, or for taking care that religion flourished under them in purity and safety. On the other hand, the sacred history sets down anarchy among the vices, when it states that there was no king in Israel, and, therefore, every one did as he pleased (Judges 21:25). This rebukes the folly of those who would neglect the care of divine things, and devote themselves merely to the administration of justice among men; as if God had appointed rulers in His own name to decide earthly controversies, and omitted what was of far greater moment, His own pure worship as prescribed by His law.”
— John Calvin
—
One thing I appreciated about Nancy Pearcey’s Toxic War on Masculinity is that boldly includes a very honest discussion of the pros and cons of women’s suffrage (99ff), pointing out that most women did not initially want the vote. They were quite content to leave public, political life in the hands of men, knowing that men would act in the best interests of their household and the wider community. Before the nineteenth amendment to the Constitution, it was not so much that men voted rather than women because men were somehow superior; rather, the franchise was lodged in the household rather than the individual because the family was seen as the basic building block of society and men were the heads of their households. By the late 1800s, the rising feminist movement had gained a foothold in society, contributing to the breakdown of a “common good” view of society. I have said before that feminism was really the beginning of identity politics in America and Peacey’s analysis backs up that claim. Women’s suffrage was basically the first shot fired in the modern “battle of the sexes,” since it opened up the possibility for men and women (even husbands and wives) to become political rivals. Pearcey does a good job explaining that the shift towards women’s suffrage was actually revolutionary in that it made the individual rather than the household the basic social/political unit, and this in turn led to further social degradation and fragmentation.
Here’s an example of a document from women opposing women’s suffrage:
Some Reasons Why We Oppose Votes for Women
Because the basis of government is force its stability rests upon its physical power to enforce its laws: therefore it is inexpedient to give the vote to women.
Immunity from service in executing the law would make most women irresponsible voters.
Because the suffrage is not a question of right or of justice, but of policy and expediency; and if there is no question of right or of justice, there is no case for woman suffrage.
BECAUSE IT IS THE DEMAND OF A MINORITY OF WOMEN, AND THE MAJORITY OF WOMEN PROTEST AGAINST IT.
Because it means simply doubling the vote, and especially the undesirable and corrupt vote of our large cities.
Because the great advance of women in the last century-moral, intellectual and economic-has been made without the vote; which goes to prove that it is not needed for their further advancement along the same lines.
Because women now stand outside of politics, and therefore are free to appeal to any party in matters of education, charity and reform.
Because the ballot has not proved a cure-all for existing evils with men, and we find no reason to assume that it would be more effectual with women.
Because the woman suffrage movement is a backward step in the progress of civilization, in that seeks to efface natural differentiation of function, and to produce identity, instead of division of labor.
Because in Colorado after a test of seventeen years the results show no gain in public and posal morals over male suffrage States, and the necessary increase in the cost of elections which is already huge burden upon the taxpayer, is unjustified.
Because our present duties fill up the whole measure of our time and ability, and are such as none but ourselves can perform.
Our appreciation of their importance requires us to protest against all effort infringe upon our rights by imposing upon us those obligations which cannot be separated from suffrage, but which, as we think, cannot be performed by us without the sacrifice of the highest intersts of our families and of society.
Because it is our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons who represent us at the ballot-box. fathers and our brothers love us; our husbands are our choice, and one with us: our sons are what we make them. We are content that they represent US in the corn-field, on the battle-field, and at the ballot-box, and we THEM in the school-room, at the fireside, and at the cradle, believing our representation even at the ballot-box to be thus more full and impartial than it would be were the views oi the few who wish suffrage adopted, contrary to the judgment of the many.
We do, therefore, respectfully protest against the proposed Amendment to establish “wo,nan suffrage” in our State. We believe that political equality will deprive us of special privileges hitherto a-corded to us by law.
Our association has been formed for the purpose of conducting a purely educational campaign. If you are in sympathy with this aim and believe as we do in the righteousness of our cause, will you send your name to us and pass our appeal on to some one else?
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO WOMAN SUFFRAGE,
35 West 39th St., New York City
—
TPC Pastor's Page 