August 24 is the anniversary of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, a time when in 1572 the hostilities between Roman Catholics and Huguenots reached historic proportions. Thousands of Protestants lost their lives in a string of anti-Reformed riots, aimed a eliminating the “heretics.” According to Philip Benedict, the Massacre marked a turning point in the French Reformation. After the incident, “the once buoyant Huguenot minorities that had taken control of cities like Lyon, Rouen, and Orleans in 1562 amounted to at most a few hundred families. Many of the smaller, more isolated Reformed churches had been extinguished” (146).
One of the casualties of the Massacre was Gaspard de Coligny, a military leader by most accounts of remarkable ability and courage. During Henry II’s reign, Coligny was a friend and close ally of the king. Once Coligny converted to Protestantism, he lost such access but did emerge as a patron and strategist for the Reformed cause. He even supported the establishment in 1557, of an ill-fated French colony in Brazil, complete with ministers supplied by the Company of Pastors in Geneva. On August 24, 1572 Coligny lost his life to an assassin’s sword. His death was the opening act in the subsequent massacre of Huguenots.
As much as the courage and conviction of Coligny and the Huguenots inspire today — and possibly provoke severe cases of head shaking at the thought of a Roman Catholic presiding over a Protestant college — the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre also teaches important lessons about the virtue of distinguishing the affairs of the civil polity from those of the church. Although Paul taught that “to die is gain,” he also counseled Christians to seek quiet and peaceful lives. In which case, secular regimes that are neutral to religion (as opposed to the ones that are explicitly anti-clerical) are far preferable to the confusion of kingdoms that was at least partly responsible for the good Admiral’s death.
Old Life 
Well sure, Europe was a model of peace and liberal tolerance prior to Constantinian Christianity. 😉 That’s why the Romans built gardens and libraries from Wales to the Persian Gulf, instead of walls and forts.
But seriously: Is there such a thing as a secular regime that is neutral to religion? It seems hard to tease out the “secular” from the “post-religious” in Europe and America.
Which real-life regimes most greatly approach that ideal?
LikeLike
Don’t want to speak for everyone in the States, but as far as I can tell, the worst persecution I face daily is the knowledge that if I were to call everyone in a public area suddenly to repentance and belief, I run the risk of someone questioning whether it’s really appropriate. I get by.
LikeLike
Wonder what it would have been like had John the Baptist, Stephen, and the Apostle Paul followed this advice?
LikeLike
Jeff, that secular regime would be the USofA, the greatest nation on God’s green earth.
Ben, it would be like my pastor preaching freely in Glenside, Pa, without some meglomaniacal magistrate monitoring what he says. Isn’t America great!
LikeLike
Well the FLDS and some other Religious groups would like to have a word with you about “megalomaniacal magistrates”, “Religious Freedom”, and “secular regimes”.
Psalm 2 and 8 would also like to inquire.
LikeLike
So Ben, would you prefer to live in 1st century Rome or 21st century America — as a Christian that is? You don’t really think we’re unfaithful unless we’re getting our heads cut off, do you?
LikeLike
Does the phrase “non sequitur” mean anything to you?
LikeLike
Ben, it’s the beginning of a new paragraph. It would seem that your answers to my questions might affect how much your going to hitch the wagons of your point to the fundie Mormons. Talk about not following.
LikeLike
dgh: “In which case, secular regimes that are neutral to religion (as opposed to the ones that are explicitly anti-clerical) are far preferable to the confusion of kingdoms that was at least partly responsible for the good Admiral’s death.”
But Darryl, you should know by now, THERE IS NO NEUTRALITY!!! I can see Van Til grabbing you by the throat!!!
Should Christians seek quiet and peaceful lives? Yes. But it’s irrational for you to ask Christians to prefer regimes that are “neutral” to religion when there is no neutrality. Besides, what is religion? Do we define true religion in Christian terms or in the categories preferred by secular regimes? And THAT is a question that can’t be rightly answered from general revelation only!!!
I’m only here to help you Darryl.
LikeLike
Jonah, glad to see you took the bait.
But while I have you, if there is no neutrality, are all umpires corrupt?
LikeLike
This quote from calvin is apposite I think:
“Nevertheless the problem has not yet been resolved. For either we must make Camillus equal to Catiline, or we shall have in Camillus an example proving that nature, if carefully cultivated, is not utterly devoid of goodness … Here, however, is the surest and easiest solution to this question: these are not common gifts of nature, but special graces of God, which he bestows variously and in a certain measure upon men otherwise wicked. For this reason, we are not afraid, in common parlance, to call this man wellborn, that one depraved in nature. Yet we do not hesitate to include both under the universal condition of human depravity; but we point out what special grace the Lord has bestowed upon the one, while not deigning to bestow it upon the other. “
LikeLike
dgh: “Jonah, glad to see you took the bait.”
Yes, of course that’s what you were trying to do. Anyways, to be honest, I thought this was actually a decent little blog post.
dgh: “But while I have you, if there is no neutrality, are all umpires corrupt?”
How do we know that umpires ought not be corrupt? By what standard do we determine what corruption is?
LikeLike
Jonah, if you really think that umps are corrupt — and we have plenty of reason for thinking so right now in Philadelphia — then how do you ever leave the house? If the people who execute duties designed to be impartial can never be so, then what’s the point of setting up a judicial system, peer review, or the judging panel on American Idol? All of which suggests to me why worldview folks are prone to heavy doses of conspiratorial thinking.
LikeLike
I would not equate impartiality with neutrality.
The umpire may prefer the Yankees to the Phillies, but if he is applying the rules consistently and equally to both teams then he is being fair. But that fairness is measured against the application of the rules, not against his subjective preference. Of course there no umps who make all the right calls perfectly always, but this doesn’t prevent the season from going forward, as it shouldn’t.
How beneficial this analogy is with respect to a government’s treatment of different “religions” is another story. Of course, Christianity IS religion and every other “religion” that considers itself religion is really just idolatry.
dgh: “All of which suggests to me why worldview folks are prone to heavy doses of conspiratorial thinking.”
But this statement itself is conspiratorial. Besides, you know that everyone has a worldview, and you probably anticipated I would say so, and you even believe so too, which makes the statement even more odd.
LikeLike
“In which case, secular regimes that are neutral to religion (as opposed to the ones that are explicitly anti-clerical) are far preferable to the confusion of kingdoms that was at least partly responsible for the good Admiral’s death.”
And I think it far preferable to have civil magistrates that are biased favorably towards the true Reformed religion, rather than biased favorably towards Romanism (16th c. France) or humanism (21st c. America). How do Isaiah 49 and 60 read in your Bible?
LikeLike
Sean, and how does 1789 read in your grand narrative? Do you think that a Reformed state will stay Reformed? Have Reformed churches done so? So once the state goes south (anyone want to mention the Netherlands of Geneva?), what do you do? Heck, Israel isn’t that stellar a record of magistrates maintaining the true religion. So where are you going to live Sean? And how are you interpreting Is. 49 and 60 wherever you live?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, I met you at a pub in Pittsburgh with David Reese (my former pastor), Bill Chellis, and Alex Tabaka (who just graduated in May from RPTS). I was the one smoking a pipe. 🙂
I reject the amendments to the Westminster Standards made by the American General Assembly Presbyterians, as I find their amendments both incoherent and contrary to the Word of God (besides, my church has never been a part of American General Assembly Presbyterianism, and has never adopted said amendments). I find the timing of said alterations quite interesting; I’ve never been a fan of changing one’s beliefs for political expediency.
I could collapse your second and third questions thus: “Do you think that a Reformed church will stay Reformed?” Dr. Hart, the fact that churches tend to go down the path of liberalism, abandoning the basics of Christianity itself (let alone Reformed Christianity) does not somehow make them less bound and required before God to profess the faith in its purity and entirety; so likewise, the fact that nations have a bad track record does not make them less morally responsible (or culpable) in the sight of God. The same could be said for individuals or families.
Did you never read that it is written, “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law”? God’s secret will acting in providence is not the rule of our obedience; the revealed will of God in the moral law, summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, occupies that place — and it applies with equal force to civil magistrates, as such. (At least, according to all of the historic Reformed churches, confessions, theologians, etc.)
LikeLike
Come now, Sean. The Covenanters also changed their views of the American polity at — ahem — convenient times.
But it’s curious that the apostles never measure up to the standards set by the Covenanters and lots of other Reformed views of the magistrate. Could it be that they understood the lordship of Christ better than those who still read the OT like it was the model for post-Christ monarchy?
LikeLike
You’re ignoring my response, Dr. Hart.
1. Is it not likely that the 1789 amendments to the Westminster Standards were made for political expediency (occurring, as it did, in conjunction with the receiving of the U.S. Constitution)?
2. Would not your attempt to use the history of such nations as have professed the Reformed faith against their obligation (or permission, even) to do so, inveigh with like force against churches professing the Reformed faith (since they have alike proved unfaithful)?
3. Is not such a view confusing God’s secret will for our revealed will?
4. Are civil magistrates bound to obey both table of the law for themselves?
5. Why would this not include their ensuring that it be observed by all under their charge (as in the cases of rulers of families or churches); or that they must obey it in their capacity as civil magistrates?
And to answer your last point (which I don’t really have to do, since you still haven’t answered me): Not only did the apostles not set this teaching aside (which continued unmolested from the Old Testament), Paul taught that the magistrate is to reward “good,” and punish “evil” (Rom. 13:4). What are your definitions of “good” and “evil,” Dr. Hart? Do they somehow exclude obedience or disobedience to the first table of the law? — And before you say that the passage afterwards limits the discussion to the second table (verses 8-10), that is clearly speaking of the duty of the Christians to whom Paul was writing (which is certainly not limited to obedience to the second table), and not the duty of magistrates in the former part of the chapter.
“Lots of other Reformed views of the magistrate” should read “the Reformed view of the magistrate” — unless you’re aware of some church, confession, or even theologian of the Reformed (magisterial or scholastic) which set forth your Anabaptist view of the magistrate.
LikeLike
Jonah, just so I follow, a state that is tolerating false religion is wicked, right? So where will you live? Or when will you take up arms?
LikeLike
Sean,
It seems to me that lots of politics also informed the way the Westminster Standards came out. So I think singling out the American revisions on those grounds only opens up the Assembly to the same charge. Now, you may happen to like the 1640s arrangements more than 1789. But both sets of divines knew which way the political winds were blowing.
As for everyone under the godly or God-fearing magistrates’ charge obeying the commandments, do you really think it is possible to do good without regeneration? So aren’t you actually advocating neo-nomianism as a state policy? That’s not very Reformed. Unless, of course, Paul had different notions of good and evil in mind when he talked about the wicked Roman emperors acting justly.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
1. You seem to concede that the 1789 amendments were made for political expediency, rather than for theological conviction; you have avoided answering my questions concerning the force which your objections would bear upon the Reformed churches maintaining the Reformed faith, and your confusion of the secret and revealed will of God. Should I consider this to be a concession of your error on those points?
2. As I already said, this view is not peculiar to Westminster — if you can find a “church, confession, or even theologian of the Reformed (magisterial or scholastic) which set forth your Anabaptist view of the magistrate,” I will be surprised. So no, it is quite inaccurate to claim “that lots of politics also informed the way the Westminster Standards came out,” when they merely set forth the doctrine of the civil magistrate which had been maintained by the Reformed churches, ever since there were such things as Reformed churches. As the Assembly made a number of decisions contrary to both King and Parliament, I don’t think they were attempting to curry political favor.
Find a credible Reformed church, confession, or theologian which held your Disestablishmentarian principles — I will not honor it with the name “two kingdoms,” because you have imported a meaning into that phrase radically different from that meant by the Reformers, as the Particular Baptists gave the phrase “covenant of grace” a radically different meaning than that intended by the Reformers. You’re the church historian… should be an easy task, right?
3. Are not heads of households bound to see that the commandments are kept by all under their authority? Does this requirement hinge on the regeneration of those under their authority? Or again: Are not church rulers bound to see that the commandments are kept by all under their authority? Does this requirement hinge on the regeneration of those under their authority? Then why would there be a radically different method of procedure for the treatment by civil magistrates of those under their authority?
I am reminded by the words of Symington, concerning the magistrate’s duty to enforce the Sabbath: “It is vain to tell us, that the magistrate cannot enforce the spiritual observance of the Sabbath, and that the Sabbath is not kept as it ought, if kept only outwardly. This is a drivelling evasion of our argument. We know that the magistrate cannot enforce the spiritual observance of the Sabbath, and we do not ask him to do so. We know that secular authority can reach only to what is external. We know that it is the prerogative of God to touch, as it is his only to judge, the heart. But does not this hold true in other matters besides the observance of the Sabbath,–matters, too, in which magistratical interference is admitted to be lawful? Might it not as well be pleaded that the magistrate should not make laws for the protection of human life, because he cannot restrain man from cherishing deadly hatred towards his brother man; or laws for the protection of property, because he cannot secure moral honesty; or laws against perjury, because he cannot impart to men a sacred regard to truth; as that he may not legislate on the subject of the Sabbath, because he cannot secure its spiritual observance? Although he cannot do this, we contend that it is still competent for him to interpose the solemn voice of law, and the strong arm of power, in order to secure to the nation a season of rest from public business and public amusements; and that, too, on distinctly religious grounds: and we ask him to do what he can.” (William Symington, “Messiah the Prince,” p. 291).
I find it the height of irony: Many of those who most adamantly insist that we NOT be products of our American, watered-down Christianity, go back to the sources (ad fontes), and be humble LEARNERS of what God has taught His Church in centuries past through our Reformed fathers of the faith, will entirely reverse themselves when it comes to questions regarding civil magistracy (or anything else where they find their particular idols to be threatened). I have seen Dr. Clark actually say that they retained such views coming out of Romanism, that they were inconsistent but we know better now, etc. I hear Baptists say the same thing, with regard to our Reformers’ adherence to infant baptism — a palpable falsehood, but no less false than what is said of our Reformers’ views on the civil magistrate. Disestablishmentarianism is contrary to our history, to our theologians, and to our confessions… I might say, as the Confession says of transubstantiation, it “is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason.”
LikeLike
“Disestablishmentarianism is contrary to our history,”
Would you care to summarize how established churches have benefited the promulgation of the Reformed faith, historically? I’m not sure they worked out so well for said Divines.
LikeLike
Would you care to answer any of the questions I’ve already posed that actually concern the subject at hand instead of engaging in cherry picking, Mike?
LikeLike
…if you can find a “church, confession, or even theologian of the Reformed (magisterial or scholastic) which set forth your Anabaptist view of the magistrate,†I will be surprised…Disestablishmentarianism is contrary to our history, to our theologians, and to our confessions.
Surprise. How about Kuyper, who, among other things, said in service of revising Belgic 36, “We oppose this Confession out of complete conviction, prepared to bear the consequences of our convictions, even when we will be denounced and mocked on that account as unReformed. We would rather be considered not Reformed and insist that men ought not to kill heretics, than that we are left with the Reformed name as the prize for assisting in the shedding of the blood of heretics…We do not at all hide the fact that we disagree with Calvin, our Confessions, and our Reformed theologians.â€
http://sb.rfpa.org/index.cfm?mode=narrow&volume=62&issue=457&article=4393&book=0&search=&page=1&chapter=0&text_search=0
LikeLike
Sean,
Why don’t you treat this more like a pub discussion than a public debate. If you want to construe my views about the hidden will of God have at it. You win. But before you run and call my session, chillax.
In addition to Kuyper (thanks Zrim), maybe you’ve heard of Machen.
Look, political expediency informed all the Reformed creeds. So why bust on the Americans? Didn’t politics tell the Covenanters to back off their ban on voting in U.S. elections?
As for your example of a parent and children under his charge, have you not heard about democracy? Whether you like it or not, we do live in different times from the 16th c. And even today I bet most fathers have trouble telling their 25 year old son to brush his teeth or go to Sunday school.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, I ordinarily like to provide some substance to what I write, lest I seem to be discussing an important Scripture question in a cavalier manner.
You never responded to my reply that your argument was confusing the secret and revealed wills of God; that’s why I was being a bit “summary” there. And I still say that trying to argue that civil magistrates have such-and-such a duty, based upon what has actually occurred in God’s providence, confuses the two, rather nullifying that argument.
Drs. Kuyper and Machen don’t actually count as “magisterial” or “scholastic” Reformed.
But as per the Kuyper quote, don’t feel bad when we call you un-Reformed. I don’t mock you; I just want facts to be clear, that because you reject a doctrine intrinsic to the Reformed faith for the first couple hundred years, you don’t actually qualify as being Reformed. Reformed-leaning, perhaps (like a lot of Baptists I know), but not Reformed.
You’ll have to tell me on why we backed off our ban on voting in U.S. elections. I still don’t vote, and most Covenanters I know that have given any thought to the question don’t, either. (And if you know, could you provide references to our Minutes of Synod? I have them all saved on my laptop, 1896-2006.)
I’m not really sure what democracy has to do with the question of obedience to the fifth commandment, or biblical male headship. I truly hope you’re not suggesting that such a principle was “cool for then, not for now.”
I wish to clarify: I’m not a Theonomist, I’m an Establishmentarian (and an Amillennialist). But your answers (or non-answers) might yet push me toward that camp. I would like a serious, honest response to my questions:
1. Why is the civil magistrate not bound to keep the first table of the law, in his capacity as civil magistrate?
2. Why is it not the duty of the state (as well as of individuals) to embrace the true religion?
3. Why is it that in the Old Testament litanies of kings, “good” kings suppressed idolatry, while “bad” kings tolerated or supported idolatry?
4. On what basis do you reject such as normative for rulers today?
5. Whatever that basis is, how is it consistent with your embracing paedobaptism, and the binding authority and normative character of the Scriptures of the Old Testament?
And whatever you do, don’t just say “two kingdoms.” Gillespie and Rutherford held to “two kingdoms,” besides writing “Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty” and “Dispute against Pretended Liberty of Conscience.” Historically, the doctrine of “two kingdoms” was held hand-in-hand with Establishmentarianism, civil magistrate upholding both tables, etc.
LikeLike
Sean,
Sorry to say, but your thinking on this seems awfully wooden and Old Testamentistic.
First, have you considered that magistrates enforcing the true religion was in the air ever after Constantine? Do you know that Lutherans — than which no greater 2k Christians can be conceived — also thought the magistrate should establish the true religion. The Treatise on the Power of the Papacy (1537) reads:
“But especially the chief members of the Church, kings and princes, ought to guard the interests of the Church, and to see to it that errors be removed and consciences be healed [rightly instructed], as God expressly exhorts kings, Ps. 2:10: Be wise, now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. For it should be the first care of kings [and great lords] to advance the glory of God. Therefore it would be very shameful for them to lend their influence and power to confirm idolatry and infinite other crimes, and to slaughter saints.”
So if your position is intrinsic to being Reformed, let’s make room for Lutherans.
Second, I can answer all of your questions by saying I am only doing what Jesus and the apostles did. They didn’t say the magistrate should keep both tables of the law. They had plenty of chances to. They didn’t think that Nero was obliged to embrace the true religion any more than any person would who wanted to be saved. They knew about the good and bad OT kings and still told Christians to submit to bad, pagan emperors. So the basis on which I reject your Judaic reading of the magistrate is the New Testament. It really does matter that Jesus came and fulfilled the political and ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant.
And by the way, I practice and support infant baptism because Jesus and the apostles did.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
1. Obviously the Reformed understanding of church and state relations is distinct from that of the Papists. I’m not as familiar with the position of the Lutherans; I know that Anglicans traditionally maintained that “the civil magistrate should establish the true religion,” without maintaining the Reformed view on the subject (since Anglicanism has always been Erastian).
2. You’re not “answer[ing] all of [my] questions by saying [you are] only doing what Jesus and the apostles did;” you are arguing from what they DIDN’T do… which is also my argument. I argue that magistracy has not undergone a radical New Testament revision, because I don’t find any evidence for such in the New Testament. You look at the same lack of data and conclude radical revision (rather like the Anti-Paedobaptists). That was part of my reason for the last question — aside from your confusing of church and state under the Old Testament, which is likewise part and parcel with the Anti-Paedobaptist position.
3. The quote you took from the Smalcald Articles brings up an interesting point. Is the exhortation of Psalm 2 (directed toward kings and judges) only applicable under the Old Testament, since the apostles and early church saw that Psalm as having particular fulfillment and application in their own time (Acts 4:24-28)? If it is only applicable under the Old Testament, how can we avoid the conclusion that the final promise of the Psalm, “Blessed are all they that put their trust in him,” is likewise applicable only under the Old Testament? Or conversely, since that concluding promise is plainly not limited to the Old Testament, why would we not conclude that the exhortations to kings and judges conjoined with the promise (vs. 10-12) are also not limited to the Old Testament?
LikeLike
Sean, yes, I know I never answer questions. But when I try people tell me I don’t. What is this? A chess match? You want a certain answer so you can declare check mate?
The problem with your view is that your problems with me also extend to Jesus and the apostles. If I dont’t tell the king to kiss Jesus’ feet, that’s bad. But Jesus and the apostles didn’t tell the emperor to kiss Jesus’ feet. Couldn’t that be because things had changed and they were working with a differnt political theology? I mean, if the Judaic pattern was still in effect, the apostles surely were ineffective and even unfaithful (on your view).
Surerly there’s lots in the OT that you dont’ think is still binding. So why do you insist on this one part regarding the magistrate?
And if you hold that the magistracy has not undergone a radical revision, then you are looking for a king in Israel, right? And that would be the only legitimate form of government, right? I mean, how many covenanters beleive that? A king in Scotland holding to the National Covenant is a long way from David in Jerusalem, last time I checked.
LikeLike
Sean, I know, I didn’t answer you question. Take it up with Paul.
LikeLike
Lest we forget our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, infants. Our kingdom above is not of this world.
And the pope commanded “Te Deums” sung in the Sistine when news of the bloodbath arrived at the Vatican. “Glory to God! the Seine runs red with blood of Prots”
Romanism is from hell beneath.
LikeLike
Hi Sean,
Is Willaim Chellis now a Roman Catholic?
LikeLike