A Reply to his Chap. 47.: The bloody tenet, washed, and made white in the blood of… by John Cotton | AskReformation

Skip to content

:654p. 97–98

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 own true meaning and scope) therefore it doth nor concern Church-Government. Therefore such Church-Governors as upon pretence of this Text do make Laws, without the word, and besides the word, to bind Conscience, and to usurp power over Consciences, they in vain go about to establish their sacrilegious Tyranny from this place. But what is this to the point in hand? Church-Governors do in vain go about from this place to establish their Sacrilegious Tyranny by giving Laws 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 vain go about to establish it from this place, when from the word of God, they establish true Religion, and go about to punish the Fundamental subverters of the same. But how far off Calvins Judgement was to restrain Civill Magistrates from meddling in matters of Religion, let him interpret himself in his own ⟨p. 98⟩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.

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 ⟨p. 98⟩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.

:661p. 99–100

The Discusser might as well argue, that the duties of Subjects to Magistrates, are duties of the second Table: therefore it is not the Duty 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 Heresy be sins 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 fear of God, are not all Duties of Righteousness to man commanded in the second Table, as well as all Duties of Holiness to God, commanded in the first Table? If so, I demand again, whether it be not a Duty of Righteousness belonging to the people of God, to enjoy the free passage of Religion, Truth of Doctrine, Holiness 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 Heresy? the holiness of worship with Idolatry? the Purity of Government with Tyranny? If all these be granted, then it unavoidably followeth, that all these ways of unrighteousness are justly punishable by the second Table. Let not therefore the Discusser please himself in deluding himself, and the world, that Beza, and Calvin did absolutely deny the 13. of the Romans to concern any matter of the first Table. For though the Duties of Loyalty to Magistrates, and of love to all, concern the second Table, yet it was neither the word nor Judgement of Calvin, or Beza, so to interpret Rom. 13. As to exempt Magistrates from Power of punishing Heresy, and Idolatry. Calvins Interpretation ⟨p. 100⟩of Rom. 13.4. and his Argument from thence against Servetus, is declared above in this chapter. Hear now how Beza interpreteth the same Text in his Book 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.

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 ⟨p. 100⟩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.