The Bloody Tenant Washed and Made White in the Blood of the Lamb, Part 1 · Chapter 47
CHAP. 47. A Reply to his Chap. 47.
Diſcuſſer.
THere be excellent and precious ſervants of God in their time, who have abſolutely denyed the 13. of the Rom. to concerne any matter of the firſt Table.
Defender.
I will not ſtand upon the laſt uſe in that Chapter, put you on the Lord Jeſus Chriſt: which I hope the Diſcuſſer himſelfe will not deny, much leſſe ſay, that any Excellent and precious ſervants of God, doe abſolutely deny, that ſuch a Duty concerneth the firſt Table. But what is it that the ſervants of God ſay?
Diſcuſſer.
Calvin ſaith, this whole Diſcourſe concerneth Civill Magiſtrates: and therefore in vaine doe they who exereiſe Power over Conſciences, goe about from this place to eſtabliſh their ſacrilegious Tyranny.
Defender.
Calvins Judgement herein (as generally in other points) is ſound and agreeable to the Text: but not at all favouring the Diſcuſſers Imagination. This whole Diſputation (ſaith he) is of Civill Governments: whereupon this inference is (according to his owne true meaning and ſcope) therefore it doth nor concerne Church-Government. Therefore ſuch Church-Governours as upon pretence of this Text doe make Lawes, without the word, and beſides the word, to bind Conſcience, and to uſurp power over Conſciences, they in vaine goe about to eſtabliſh their ſacrilegious Tyranny from this place. But what is this to the point in hand? Church-Governours doe in vaine goe about from this place to eſtabliſh their Sacrilegious Tyranny by giving Lawes without the word, and beſide the word to bind Conſcience: Therefore Civill Magiſtrates, (of whom this whole Diſcourſe is) ſhall exerciſe a ſacrilegious Tyranny over the Conſcience, and in vaine goe about to eſtabliſh it from this place, when from the word of God, they eſtabliſh true Religion, and goe about to puniſh the Fundamentall ſubverters of the ſame. But how farre off Calvins Judgement was to reſtraine Civill Magiſtrates from medling in matters of Religion, let him interpret himſelfe in his own words (in his opuſcula) in his Anſwer to Servetus, who was put to Death for his Hereſies at Geneva by his procurement. Hoe uno (ſaith he) contentus ſum, Chriſti adventû; nec mutatum eſſe Ordinem Politicum, nec de Magiſtratuum officio quicquam Detractum.
A gedùm quod Paulus docet, Rom. 13.4. Non fruſtra ah ipſis Gladium geſtari, an ad ſpeciem unam reſtringi debet? Fatentur iſti, quibuſcum nunc Diſcepto ad alia crimina plectenda Judices divini…ùs eſſe amatos, mo… â Religione abſtineani, ut libera, ipſis tacentibus, Impietas laſciviat: verirm reclamat innumeris locis Spiritus Sanctus, &c. This one thing (ſaith he) ſufficeth me, that by the coming of Chriſt, neither was the State of Civill Government changed: nor any thing taken away from the Magiſtrates Office. Goe to then, that which Paul teacheth (Rom. 13.4.) that he beareth not the Sword in vaine, ought it to be reſtrained unto one kind onelyonly? they themſelves confeſſe with whom I have to deale, the Magiſtrates are armed of God to puniſh other crimes, ſo that they abſtaine from matter of Religion, that ſo ungodlyneſſe may runne riot by their connivance. But the Holy Ghoſt crieth out againſt this in many places, &c.
Diſcuſſer.
Againe, Calvin ſpeaking of ſulfilling the Law by Love, writeth thus on the ſame place, Paul hath not reſpect vntounto the whole Law, he ſpeaketh onelyonly of thoſe duties, which the Law commandeth us towards our neighbours. And after Paul only mentioneth the ſecond Table, &c. And that he repeateth, Love is the fulfilling of the Law, underſtand it as before, of that part of the Law which concerneth humane Society: for the former Table of the Law, which is of the worſhip of God, is not here touched.
So Beza upon the word foreign, (if there be any other Commandement, it is ſummed up in this, thou ſhalt love thy Neighbour as thy ſelfe) the whole Law, (ſaith he) commandeth nothing, but the love of God, and our Neighbour: but ſince the Apoſtle in this place diſcourſeth of the mutuall Duties of men one to another, I thinke this Terme, Law, ought to be reſtrained to the ſecond Table.
Defender.
And ſo think I too, yet without the leaſt prejudice to the cauſe in hand. For if the Queſtion be of the dutyes which Subjects owe to Magiſtrates, they pertaine to the ſecond Table: or if the Queſtion be of the vertu eof love one to another, That it is the fulfilling of the whole Law, It is meant cheifely of the ſecond Table: though withall it be true, the ſecond Table cannot be fulfilled without fulfilling of the firſt Table alſo. Theſe things are out of controverſie. But what is all this to the point in hand? The Apoſtle in calling love the fulfilling of the Law, ſpeaketh of the Law of the ſecond Table. Ergo, the Magiſtrate (who is ſpoken of in the ſame chapter) hath no power to puniſh the crimes againſt the firſt Table? or thus further, in the 13. of the Romans, the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the Duties of Subjects to Magiſtrates (which is a Duty of the ſecond Table:) therefore Magiſtrates have no power to puniſh their Subjects for crimes againſt the firſt Table?
The Diſcuſſer might as well argue, that the duties of Subjects to Magiſtrates, are duties of the ſecond Table: therefore it is not the Dutie of Subjects to pray for their Magiſtrates, which is a Duty of the firſt Table? The Truth is, though Prayer be a Duty of the firſt Table; yet to pray for Magiſtrates, is a Duty of the ſecond Table. In like ſort, though Idolatry, and Blaſphemy, and Hereſie be ſinnes againſt the firſt Table: yet to puniſh theſe with civill penalties is a Duty of the ſecond Table. For let it be conſidered in the feare of God, are not all Duties of Righteouſneſſe to man commanded in the ſecond Table, as well as all Duties of Holineſſe to God, commanded in the firſt Table? If ſo, I demand againe, whether it be not a Duty of Righteouſneſſe belonging to the people of God, to enjoy the free paſſage of Religion, Truth of Doctrine, Holineſſe of worſhip, Purity of Church-Government? I demand yet further, if it be not an injurious dealing to the people of God, to diſturb the Truth of Doctrine with Hereſie? the holineſſe of worſhip with Idolatry? the Purity of Government with Tyranny? If all theſe be granted, then it unavoydably followeth, that all theſe wayes of unrighteouſneſſe are juſtly puniſhable by the ſecond Table. Let not therefore the Diſcuſſer pleaſe himſelfe in deluding himſelfe, and the world, that Beza, and Calvine did abſolutely denie the 13. of the Romans to concerne any matter of the firſt Table. For though the Duties of Loyalty to Magiſtrates, and of love to all, concerne the ſecond Table, yet it was neither the word nor Judgement of Calvine, or Beza, ſo to interpret Rom. 13. As to exempt Magiſtrates from Power of puniſhing Hereſie, and Idolatry. Calvines Interpretation of Rom. 13.4. and his Argument from thence againſt Servetus, is declared above in this chapter. Heare now how Beza interpreteth the ſame Text in his Booke entituled De Haereticis, â Magiſtratu puniendis. Teſtatur Paulus Magiſtratum eſſe Dei Miniſtrum qui Gladium gerat ad eas ulciſcendas, qui malè agunt, Rom. 13.4. Quamobrem alterutrum neceſſe eſt, ſi in Haereticos Magiſtratus jus nullum habet, vel ipſos malè non agere (quod Refutatione indigere non puto) vel, quod in genere Paulus ait, ad certum maleficiorum genus revocandum, eorum videlicet, quae corporalia peccata vocant, de quo malificiorum diſcrimine, copioſius, ut ſpero, poſteà, ſuo loco Diſſeram. That is, Paul witneſſeth ſaith he, that the Magiſtrate is. Gods Miniſter, who beareth the Sword to take vengeance on them that doe evill, Rom. 13.4. wherefore one of theſe two muſt needs be, If Magiſtrates ſhould have no juſt power over Hereticks, either that Hereticks are not evill doers (which is ſo groſſe, that I thinke, it needs no Refutation) or elſe that Pauls ſpeech is to be reſtrained to a certaine ſort of evill deeds, to wit, ſuch as they call corporall ſinnes: of which diſtinction of evill deeds, I ſhall diſpute more largely, I hope in his due place hereafter. So Beza.