Quotations from the 17th Century Reformers
Now we arrive at the century that gave us the Westminster Standards. Today there is much confusion as to what the writers meant by “general equity” in chapter 19, paragraph 4 of the confession. After reading the quotes from the 16th century as well as quotes from the 17th, I think it will be easier to understand what they meant. The following quotes are very basic and foundational to the Theonomic ethic. If you read these and find yourself agreeing with them or having little disagreement, then you should have the same attitude toward Theonomy. For these are the writers that influenced Dr. Greg Bahnsen when he wrote: “Theonomy in Christian Ethics.”
17th Century
John Cotton in 1636, the well known American Puritan theologian, prepared an explicit essay, entitled “How Far Moses’ Judicials Bind Massachusetts,” in which he addresses the question,
“whether we as Christians or as a people of God are not bound to establish laws and penalties set down in the Scripture as they were given to the Jews,”
and then offers nine supporting reasons why the answer must be affirmative. That same year Cotton produced a model civil code for his colony entitled Moses His Judicials, which contained entire sections verbatim from the Mosaic law. In his 1663 publication, A discourse about Civil Government, Cotton wrote that the best form of government for Christians to endorse was one where the laws by which men rule are the laws of God.
John Cotton also wrote
“The more any Law smells of man the more unprofitable.”
“If it was a part of the misery of gentiles to be aliens from the commonwealth of Israel (Eph. 2:12), then it is a part of the happiness of Christian nations that they are subject to the laws of that commonwealth of Israel…. Christ is king of church and commonwealth…. Christ is head of all principalities and powers for the church, and he will subordinate all kingdoms one day to the church.”
William Ames (1576-1633) assisted at the Synod of Dordt and was highly influential in Dutch Reformed as well as Old & New England. In De Conscientia (1630) he taught:
“the judicial laws of the Old Testament are just as moral in basic character as the Decalogue, but they were revealed often in a particularly Jewish form or character.”
Thomas Shepard (1605 – 1649) the prominent Newtown pastor & American Puritan within the same decade as the Westminster Assembly, wrote:
“The judicial laws, some of them being hedges and fences to safeguard both moral and ceremonial precepts, their binding power was therefore mixed and various, for those which did safeguard any moral law, (which is perpetual,) whether by just punishments or otherwise, do still morally bind all nations:…and hence God would have all nations preserve their fences forever, as he would have that law preserved forever which these safeguard…. The learned generally doubt not to affirm that Moses’ judicials bind all nations, so far goeth as they contain any moral equity in them…. “
[I found myself laughing out loud when I read that last sentence]
the New Haven Colony Records for 1641, we read:
“And according to the fundamental agreement, made and published by full and general consent…that the judicial law of God given by Moses and expounded in other parts of Scripture, so far as it is a hedge and a fence to the moral law, and neither ceremonial nor typical nor had any reference to Canaan, hath an everlasting equity in it, and should be the rule of their proceedings.”
Samuel Bolton (1606 -1654), a theologian who participated in the writing of the Westminster Confession of Faith in his True Bounds of Christian Freedom, said:
“As for the judicial law, which was an appendix to the second table, it was an ordinance containing precepts concerning the government of the people in things civil, and it served three purposes: it gave the people a rule of common and public equity, it distinguished them from other peoples, and it gave them a type of the government of Christ. That part of the judicial law which was typical of Christ’s government has ceased, but that part which is of common and general equity remains still in force.”
(“common and general equity,” sound familiar? This is a good window into the thoughts of the Westminster authors and how they understood the term and the confession 19:4)
Samuel Bolton, also asserted that:
“A magistrate may require those things at our hands which are clearly revealed to be the will of God….The people were bound to obey the magistrates when they commanded obedience to that which God had commanded….He is but a subordinate, and Christ is the supreme Master. The magistrate tells us what is God’s will, not what is his will. He tells us it is his will, too, but only because it is God’s will first.”
John Owen in 1653 preached a sermon before Parliament, in which he declared:
“Although the institutions and examples of the Old Testament, of the duty of the magistrates in the things and about the worship of God, are not, in their whole latitude and extent, to be drawn into rules that should be obligatory to all magistrates now,…yet, doubtless, there is something moral in those institutions, which, being unclothed of their Judaical form, is still binding to all in the like kind, as to some analogy and proportion. Subduct from those administrations what was proper to, and lies upon the account of, the church and nation of the Jews, and what remains upon the general notion of a church and nation must be “everlastingly binding.””
Samuel Rutherford & George Gillespie
Of all the Westminster Divines, Samuel Rutherford and George Gillespie are among the most influential and well known. The success of the Westminster Assembly is due in large part to their contributions, both scholarly and leadership.
Samuel Rutherford In his Divine Right of Church Government (1646), maintained that the Old Testament requirement for
“punishing of a sin against the Moral Law by the magistrate is moral and perpetual,”
It was Rutherford’s opinion that the judicial law as far as its judicial character and as far as it pertained exclusively to the Jewish Republic were not binding,
“though the moral equity of all those [laws] be not abolished.”
George Gillespie, in 1646 published his Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, wherein he stated:
“I know some divines hold that the judicial law of Moses, so far as concerneth the punishment of sins against the moral law…ought to be the rule to the Christian magistrate; and for my part, I wish more respect were had to it, and that it were more consulteth with” (I.1).
In 111 Propositions:
“47 …It is one thing to govern the commonwealth, and to make political and civil laws; another thing to interpret the word of God, and out of it to show the magistrate his duty, to wit, how he ought to govern the commonwealth, and in what manner he ought to use the sword….”
“48. For to that end also is the holy Scripture profitable, to show which is the best manner of governing a commonwealth, and that the magistrate, as being God’s minister, may by this guiding star be so directed, as that he may execute the parts of his office according to the will of God, and may perfectly be instructed in every good work….”
In a tract entitled: “Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty” he says:
“whether the Christian Magistrate is bound to observe the judicial laws of Moses, as well as the Jewish Magistrate was,”
Gillespie declared that
“he is obliged to those things in the judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all nations; but not to those things which are mutable, or proper to the Jewish Republic”
And also:
“the Christian Magistrate is bound to observe these judicial laws of Moses which appoint the punishments of sins against the moral law.”
Referring to Matthew 5:17 he says:
“He who will hold that the Christian Magistrate is not bound to inflict such punishments for such sins is bound to prove that those former laws of God are abolished, and to show some Scripture for it.” (doesn’t this sound like Bahnsen?)
“Though we have clear and full scriptures in the New Testament for abolishing the ceremonial law, yet we no where read in all the New Testament of the abolishing of the judicial law, so far as it did concern the punishing of sins against the moral law.”
“the will of God concerning civil justice and punishments is no where so fully and clearly revealed as in the judicial law of Moses. This therefore must be the surest prop and stay to the conscience of the Christian Magistrate.”
“he who was punishable by death under the judicial law is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now.” (this is “equity” not equivalence)
Conclusion
The outlook of those who authored the Westminster Confession of Faith was clearly that the civil magistrate is morally bound to obey the law of God as it bears on civil morality.
Next to come will be the post reformers.