Samuel Rutherford on Applying Deuteronomy 13

[RamistThomist]

“…the question now is of bodily punishing, hanging and burning quick are particular kinds of punishing, in which I should be as sparing as another man, but the question may draw to this, whether the Laws of England and Scotland be bloody and unjust, that ordains seminary Priests and Jesuits, whose trade it is to seduce souls to the whole body of Popery, to be hanged. I conceive they are most just laws, and warranted by Deut. 13. and many other Scriptures, and that the King and Parliaments of either Kingdoms serve Christ, and kiss the Son in making and executing these Laws.”

Samuel Rutherford,
Free Disputation Chapter 6, pages 70-71

 

[FCC]

Oh a not so popular idea in today's world of pluralism and every man doing what is right in his own eyes!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

If someone will thank Rutherford for one piece of his thinking, let him do so in the full context of his thought:

“He that is circumcised becomes debtor to the whole law, sure to all the ceremonies of Moses his law: So I argue, a peri, from the like: He that will keep one judicial law, because judicial and given by Moses, becometh debtor to keep the whole judicial law under pain of God’s eternal wrath.”​

Rutherford lived in a time when he could look to the magistrate to enforce 1st Table matters. Whether this must be the case in every time and place is near the heart of modern debates. Should the church pray for a return to Establishmentarianism, or simply for good government? Do we need particular sanctions or outcomes because Moses' law contained those particulars? Certainly Calvin did not think so:

“For the statement of some, that the law of God given through Moses is dishonored when it is abrogated and new laws preferred to it, is utterly vain. For others are not preferred to it when they are more approved, not by a simple comparison, but with regard to the condition of times, place, and nation; or when that law is abrogated which was never enacted for us. For the Lord through the hand of Moses did not give that law to be proclaimed among all nations and to be in force everywhere.”​

There might be (?) salutary benefits if the State abolished general freedom of religion. At this point in historical progress of the NT age, I question whether the alleged benefits outweigh the detriments. A State (Beast) big and willing enough to forcibly take away someone else's freedom of religion, is big enough take mine away--that's not a situation I want to test. A less-central society, self-governing, confident, and capable of ostracizing Christ-despisers, is far closer to my ideal.


But more attention to the quote I've adduced above: Rutherford does NOT advocate the specific introduction of "Mosaic penal sanctions," ala modern Theonomy. He might prefer the State to destroy the heretics (under the then-current definition), but he does not appeal to Dt.13 as the demand, but as the warrant for those laws. He is not contradicting himself in the two quotes. But he especially warns Christians in the latter quote against returning under Moses at any point.

 

[RamistThomist]

but he does not appeal to Dt.13 as the demand, but as the warrant for those laws.

Two observations:

1) I didn't say Rutherford was a theonomist (in fact, I didn't even use the "t" word at all).
2) I am not sure the Jesuit swinging from the scaffold would make that distinction that you made. Anyway, Jesuits were spies whose sole existence is the destruction of the Protestant faith and Protestant nations.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Here is the time when we use "Institutes of Christian Religion" Calvin against "Commentaries" and "Sermons" Calvin. Of course the truth is that John Calvin does not contradict himself when in his commentaries and sermons he advocates for the State to execute violators of the first table or the second table.

And then when this is pointed out E2K folks just say, "well Calvin is wrong".

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

As an addendum there seems to be an inability to understand that the big "T" Theonomic system of Rushdoony/Bahnsen and the Christian Reconstruction school has little to nothing in common with the Rutherford/Gillespie/RP Covenanter system of National Establishment.

 

[Pergamum]

Jacob,

Can you prove the 2nd point (that all Jesuits were spies)?

 

[RamistThomist]

Jacob,

Can you prove the 2nd point (that all Jesuits were spies)?

Yes, I can. ALL Jesuits spies? I doubt it, since I can't speak for every individual. I can marshal the resources later. But the Jesuits were created to destroy you, well Protestantism anyway. You might want to look into the terminology regarding "The Black Pope." Also get ahold of Fr Malachi Martin's The Jesuits/ He was a former Jesuit who exposed the order. Also pick up Martin's Windswept House. While a novel, it is based on true events. Documents a lot of the doings in 20th century Jesuit/Vatican II Catholicism. Even hints at the use of sex magic in the Roman Church. And it is based off of true events. Can't go into more detail right now.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Rutherford and Calvin were men of their time, men with many timeless insights by my judgment, and some more provincial thoughts (by the same lights).

They are my fathers-in-the-faith, whatever blemishes appear to me. I stand in honor to the attendance of their very memory. I look up to them, not down on them.

I take them as they were, and not how I'd wish they'd been. I've no interest in pitting one word of theirs against another. I know they loved the harmony of the faith they confessed.

I hope these venerable pastors greet me with a gracious spirit someday, and spare me my faults. I've accustomed myself to my providential hour. The one thing of theirs I wish to share in is their suffering.

Peace to you all, brothers.