Preface: A Day of Infamy
Preface: A Day of Infamy By Bob Freiberg Excerpted from: https://socalsem.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/A-Day-of-Infamy-the-declaration-and-the-gospel.pdf
In a busy Paris street of Aug 22, 1572, an assassin on orders of the Queen mother,
Catherine Medici, shot Admiral Gaspar II de Coligny of the French Royal Forces. While recovering, the king sent his soldiers to finish the job two days later in the early morning of Aug 24, 1572. He was murdered in his own bed and then his body was unceremoniously mutilated by the angry mob. His crime? He was the leader of a growing group of French
Protestants known as the Huguenots who preached salvation by faith alone in Jesus
Christ. Something which both the Roman Catholic clergy and the French Catholic Henry could not tolerate.
After this, a signal was given through the church bells of St Germaine l'Auxerrois in Paris for all Catholic citizens and local militia to hunt down and murder as many Huguenots as possible. The terrible tragedy in Paris alone accounted for over 6,000 men, women and children of the Protestant persuasion were killed. More were butchered like chickens in the streets and homes throughout the whole nation of France. In over a year almost 1 million Huguenots were 0killed and it would start a blood bath of religious wars lasting for decades. This event was to be known in history as the "St Bartholomew Massacre." 1
Little did the unsuspecting world know this event would trigger one of the most seminal moments of all events in human history and give rise to a new world order. It was in reality the spark of an ember once lit which would eventually become the torch of freedom for the western world. Once started, this subsequent bonfire lit from religious persecution would change the course of the world in due time and become the rallying point for freedom loving people all over the world. The spread of the Gospel in this age would have far reaching consequences for all people living in a dark and hopeless night and give hope.
This idea would eventually come to Full and complete fruition and be called "America."
Protestant Reaction to St. Bartholomew In the space of a week for the rest of France, many more Huguenots would be slaughtered, their homes and properties would be confiscated. As a result, many would flee for their lives and for the most part, France would lose their middle class of artisans, skilled laborers, tradesmen and craftsmen. This would leave an economic void, but more importantly, it would leave France in a spiritual darkness ending only later with the "Edict of Nantes."
For the present however, the event brought despair to those the persecuted. While the Protestant Henry of Navarre and the Catholic Duke of Guise, Henri jockeyed for royal power, the rank and file struggled to survive by hiding in the country and those with means made a mass exodus to Protestant safe havens in Europe. In England, many of the Huguenots asked and received religious asylum where they and their descendants would
1 Scott Michael Manetsch, Theodore Beza and the Quest for Peace in France-1572-1598, (Ph.D diss., University of Arizona, 1997), UMI Company, Ann Arbor, MI. p. 53.
make significant contributions to not only the economy, but to the winning of future wars against France.1
In Geneva, the leaders braced for a long war. In the seminary started by John Calvin, the situation was glum. The gains made by over 5,000 Protestant preachers in France over the past twenty years was now lost. The mantle of leadership now for the theological school was a man by the name of Theodore Beza. He had been the lieutenant of John
Calvin, and had taken the responsibility to convert France from a Roman Catholic country to a Protestantism one after Calvin had died. He was a man of prolific intellect and pen with political and religious connections into the highest levels of French government. He was especially discouraged and troubled by what had happened. His prayer of a Protestant
France was dashed on this tragic and unexpected event. It was in this time of desperate reflection he sought an answer from the Lord. As a result of this introspection he responded with one of the best ways he could: he wrote.
A common maxim is "one can kill people, but no one can kill an idea." This was the time to put forward an idea whose time had come. In the crucible of persecution against the idea of Protestantism in Europe during this time, the Catholic Church had killed many of those who embraced the new faith. What Luther started in 1517 had spread to all of Europe and in Geneva a branch of it had not only germinated, but flourished. It was based on the inerrant Scriptures and because it was truth based on the nature and character of God
Himself, it couldn't be stamped out by the feeble attempts of Man.
For centuries, the Roman Church had merged Church and State into a geopolitical force where the State took its authority from the Roman Church while the State gave power back to the Church. With the decree of "Divine Right Monarchy," the Church at Rome had given religious authority and rationale for the sovereign ruler of any country the legitimacy to rule over its subjects. This authority was absolute because the King represented God in a mediatorial role while in power on his earth.
Of course this rule was abused because of the sinfulness of the sovereign to abuse power and authority. The Catholic Church itself was rife with corruption of every kind. Kings and Queens were human and therefore ruled imperfectly. However the validity to rule, whether perfect or imperfect was given by the Church as long as the Sovereign recognized the Roman Church in return. It was a mature commensalism leading to a consummate synergism for each side. Each benefitted from the other and thus it was a perfect match for each institution. What better way to oppress people than to make them believe it is
God's will for them to obey those who had influence in their affairs not only here on the earth, but also in the life to come? To an uneducated mass it only made sense. However, that was about to change.
In response to the horrific "St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre," Beza penned this pamphlet.
1 John Feltwell, The Story of Silk (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991).
Question 1. Must Magistrates 1 always be obeyed as unconditionally as God?
Inasmuch as only the will of almighty God is the eternal and immutable Rule of all Justice, we declare that it must be unconditionally obeyed. However, as regards the obedience due to Princes, they too would doubtless have to be obeyed, always and unconditionally, if they ruled constantly in accordance with the utterance of God. Since, however, theirs is often the contrary case, such obedience must be made subject to the following condition: namely, that they command nothing impious, nothing unjust. I call impious or sinful those which God forbids in the First Tablet of His Law, or which forbid those which God commands there. However, I call unjust behests, those which either prevent or forbid the performance of that which every man, in accordance with his calling — either public or private — is bound to render to his neighbor in charity. 2
To prove this with rational arguments as well as clear examples, will not be difficult. The Lord says by the prophet Isaiah, "I will not give my glory to another." 3 Although the Lord hasn't spoken so clearly, yet in fact, it allows no doubt that commands emanating from purely human authority, cannot without sin be regarded as of equal weight with those which God Himself has given. But the authority of God and men would be equal and alike, if it were required that men always and unconditionally obey men, as they would God. I add further, that whenever the behests of God are neglected in favor of the commands of men, those men are being exalted above the throne of God.
Let us now address our examples.
Pharaoh's command to slay all the male offspring of the Jews was unjust; and the midwives rightly refused to obey him, whose houses or families God therefore blessed.4
But Nebuchadnezzar's edict that the statue of gold be worshipped, was clearly impious and sinful. And therefore the companions of Daniel, refusing to obey him, found that God approved of their piety and steadfastness, through an unmistakable miracle.5 The command of Jezebel, however, to slay the prophets of God, was both impious and unjust.
Therefore Obadiah, who not only refrained from slaying them, but concealed them alive and nourished them, acted piously.6 Further, when Antiochus commanded that sacrifices be offered to the images, that hallowed ceremonies be desecrated, and the inspired writings of the Prophets and the Law be consumed by fire, the faithful who remained, acted justly in that, at length, under the leadership of Mathathias, they set themselves against Antiochus' madness.7 Also, when the leaders of the priests and the supreme council of the scribes, by their threats, would prevent the preaching of the Gospel, Christ was so far from paying heed, that often against their will, he publicly addressed the
1 The magistrate is the civil authority that administers the law, whether individually, or as "the state." Individuals may violate the duties of their office; but the state may also exceed its God-given authority over the people. See Ques. 6, the subsection, "Concerning subordinate magistrates." – WHG
2 Under the Second Tablet of the Law.
3 Isa 48:11; also Isa 42:8.
4 Exo 1:21.
5 Daniel 3 [Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego preserved in the furnace].
6 1Kng 18:4, 13 7 1Mac 2:15-28
multitude in the temple. 1 And after him, the Apostles openly answered that they would rather obey God than men.2 The holy Martyrs afterwards followed their example most steadfastly. Therefore, I again infer that the authority of all magistrates (however great the power and sovereignty they are vested with) is hedged in, as it were, by these two limits set by God himself: namely Piety and Charity.3 And if they themselves chanced to transgress these, it would be well to call to mind what the Apostles said: "It is better to obey God than men," 4 lest we join the band of those whom the Lord cursed by the mouth of Micah because they obeyed the impious commands of their King;5 or lest we follow the perverse examples of those who worshipped even the cruelest tyrants as if they were gods, ascribing to them the titles and acts of God. The notorious foul-mouthed poet Martial affirms this, concerning Domitian 6 in particular, when he had the audacity to write, "The Command of our lord and god." 7 I wish that in our own time, men were not found who are not far removed from flattery of that kind.8
Question 2. Is a Magistrate held responsible to render account for all his laws to his subjects? And how far are they to presume such laws to be just?
After this foundation has been laid, we would also inquire into certain other questions which would appear to be germane to this discourse, so that the consciences of many may be satisfied. First, the question is raised, Whether the magistrate may be held to account for all his laws, to any man whatsoever, so as to offer proof that they are fair and in accordance with the precepts of religion? I answer that he is not so held; moreover, it is fair that all virtuous subjects should regard their lords in the light of virtue, and not presume to suspect anything unjust concerning them. Indeed, it is not becoming for men in private station,9 to inquire over-curiously, even concerning debatable matters, beyond their comprehension or station in life. If, however, the conscience of some are at a loss, they can examine, and are even under an obligation to examine (though discreetly and in a peaceful manner) what elements of reason and justice are to be found in the command by which they are bidden or forbidden to do something. For the word of the Apostle abides: "Whatever is not of faith," that is while the conscience doubts whether what is being done is just or not, "is sin." 10 But if what is commanded is openly sinful or unjust, then what has been said above indeed applies.
1 Joh 9:12
2 Acts 5:29.
3 These are exemplified in the First and Second Tablets of the Law, respectively.
4 Acts 5:29.
5 Mic 6:16.
6 Emperor of Rome; son of Vespasian who succeeded his brother Titus; instigated a reign of terror and was assassinated as a tyrant (51-96). – WHG 7 Martial, Epigrammes, lib. V, 8, 1.
8 Referring to those who speak of the divine right of kings, or of the Pope's absolute authority. – WHG
9 That is, private citizens; those not serving in public office, nor bearing societal authority (aristocrats). – WHG
10 Rom 14:23.
Question 3.
How far must obedience be rendered or refused to unjust or impious commands?
A further question is raised as to what limits this notion of disregarding sinful or unjust commands of Rulers should be extended. Here I reply: Each man must consider what his station and calling demands, be it general and public, or private. Does the Ruler command what God forbids (as Pharaoh did to the midwives of Egypt,1 and Herod did to his accomplices when bidding them to slay all who were two years old)? 2 You will rightly perform your duty if you do not carry out a command of that kind, as we read concerning the illustrious jurisconsult Papinian. Though he was not a Christian, he would rather be slain by the tyrant Caracalla, than either to approve of the fratricide which he had committed, or justify it by his advocacy.3
But if the tyrant forbids what God commands, you should not at all judge that you have performed your duty if you have merely refused to obey the tyrant — unless, at the same time, you obey the command of God as we declared Obadiah did. He not merely refrained from slaying the prophets of God, but he even protected and nourished them in defiance of the command of Ahab and Jezebel.4 The Lord bids us, each as far as his calling permits, to bring succor to his brethren in peril. Thus too, the Apostles, as we said above, did not merely desist from preaching the Gospel so that they might heed the priests;5 but on the contrary, they steadfastly preached everywhere, since they had expressly received this command from the Lord: "Go and preach the Gospel to every creature" etc. 6 Therefore today, when we see many Rulers so bewitched by the Roman Antichrist, that by the sternest commands they compel their subjects to attend the execrable sacrifice of Mass, the duty of all pious men doesn't merely require that they not carry out that command; but further, in accordance with the example of Elijah and Elisha, even of the entire pure and true Church of old, that they should even join in pious gatherings, and there hear the word of God, and have communion of the sacraments, as Christ ordained it should be done in the Church.
The same principle must also be observed in the duties which men owe to their fellow men, both by the law of God and by the law of nature. For example, the duties children owe to their parents, a wife to her husband, the shepherd to his flock, and in fine, one neighbor to another. For it is not fitting that we be deterred or led astray from those duties by means of any commands or threats, or even by the most unjust punishment. Only, let obedience (which we owe above all to God, who is greater than all these) not be at all excluded from the performances of duties of this kind which we carry out.
1 Exo 1:16.
2 Mat 2:17.
3 A reference to Aemilius Papianianus (212 A.D.). See Historia Augustae, Caracalla, VIII, 5-6.
4 1Kng 18:4, 13.
5 Acts 5:42.
6 Mat 28: 19; Mar 16.15.
Question 4. How can one who has suffered wrong at the hands of a ruler, defend himself against him?
Thereupon, a further question is commonly asked: What is a virtuous man with a good conscience, bound and able to do when the Ruler doesn't make him the instrument of his injustice, but is indeed unjust towards him? Since this question consists of several parts, we must distinguish them. Therefore, if the Ruler who has wronged the subject is subordinate to a superior, the sufferer of wrong will, in accordance with the laws, is entitled to have recourse to the supreme Ruler. We read that St. Paul did this when he appealed to Caesar from Festus, the governor of Judea, that he might ward off the injustice of Festus.1 But let those subjects whose station is private, observe two principles here above all. First, let them not make it a test of strength, except by way of the courts of justice. Second, let them regard not merely what is permissible, but especially what is expedient. For when at Philippi, through the folly of the magistrate, that same St. Paul had been beaten with rods, 2 shamefully and unheard, in violation of the right of Roman citizens. He judged that he would rather enhance the glory of God by patience; and so he did not further assert his right, but contented himself with rebuking the magistrate for the injustice committed in violation of the laws.
But if it were to happen (as it happens only too frequently in our times) that one lower magistrate undertakes some act of violence against another — against the express will of their superior — then I would assuredly say that the magistrate who had been wronged, after he has exhausted all legitimate and peaceful means, is entitled to equip himself with the armor of the laws. He is entitled to oppose unjust violence with a just defence, as was done by Nehemiah against Sanballat and his associates. 3
What then must be done if it is the supreme Ruler 4 from whom the injustice comes? The Lord Jesus, and after Him all the Martyrs, have clearly shown by their example that injustices should be patiently borne; and this is the highest glory of Christians — namely, to endure injury from all, but to cause it to none. 'What then,' someone will ask, 'is there no remedy remaining against the supreme Ruler who abuses his authority and power in violation of all the precepts of divine and human rights?' Doubtless there is a remedy remaining, that is derived from human institutions. But when I say this, let no one be of the opinion that I wish to favor the fanatical Anabaptists, or other factious and mutinous men, whom I rather esteem most worthy of the hatred of all their fellowmen, and even of the severest punishments. To be sure, I must speak the truth because the matter rests on this argument: It must not be supposed that those who show in what ways evident tyranny may be opposed without violating one's conscience, are somehow depriving good and legitimate rulers of that authority which God has granted them. Nor should it be supposed that they are paving the way for seditious uprisings. Indeed, it is rather certain that the authority of Rulers cannot be rendered secure, nor can the public peace be maintained
(which is the chief goal of all well-established politics), unless careful precautions are taken so that tyranny may not steal in. Or if it has already stolen in, that it may either be abolished or expelled. The question, therefore, is whether subjects can by some just
1 Acts 25:10.
2 Acts 16:22.
3 Nehemiah 4.
4 Supreme Ruler refers to the highest ruling authority in an earthly nation, e.g., a monarch. – WHG