# The American Covenanters and Political Dissent



## TylerRay (Oct 13, 2016)

New blog post over at Thistle in Dixie.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 13, 2016)

You make a good point, this is as much a 3rd Commandment/WCF 22 issue as it is a 1st/5th Commandment/WCF 23 issue.


----------



## Edward (Oct 13, 2016)

> The two are clearly at odds. How then, can a Christian who is convinced that the Bible teaches the establishment of religion in good conscience take a vow to “preserve, protect, and defend” the above amendment to the Constitution?



I still don't see how someone that takes that view can serve in the military or the civil service. " support and defend the Constitution "


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 13, 2016)

Edward said:


> I still don't see how someone that takes that view can serve in the military or the civil service. " support and defend the Constitution "


Used to be they did not, for that very reason.

I remember being surprised (years ago) when as a young soldier I met an RPCNA Army chaplain. He told me (then) that it hadn't been too many years since the denomination had dropped its official stance re. the oath preventing him so serving.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 13, 2016)

The RPCNA has a "declaratory oath" that replaces the normal oath that one takes. It can be used for military oaths, etc... 



> Explanatory Declaration
> 
> Explanatory Declaration to be given by members of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America when asked to swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America:
> 
> "I take this oath, pledging my loyalty and allegiance to my country, but declaring my supreme allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ, Whom Almighty God has appointed Ruler of Nations, and expressing my dissent from the Constitution's failure to recognize and to acknowledge the Divine Institution of Civil Government."


----------



## Parakaleo (Oct 13, 2016)

Excellent article. I would love to see it go "viral", as I know there are great numbers of believers who are worried now more than ever that, one day, they will be ashamed for the vote they cast. 

This NY Times article from 1900 would be another good one to go "viral".


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 14, 2016)

Parakaleo said:


> This NY Times article from 1900 would be another good one to go "viral".



The _New York Times_ Archive is a great gift from God.


----------



## Warren (Oct 14, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > I still don't see how someone that takes that view can serve in the military or the civil service. " support and defend the Constitution "
> ...


Was his name Copeland?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 14, 2016)

I'm intrigued. What about the matter of Congress having to serve as the interpreter of God's law? Would all elected officials (or would there be elections)be required to give evidence of being Christians?

What about Muslims, Jews, and so forth: under Christ's law as the law of the land, would other religions be allowed to practice?


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 14, 2016)

Jeri Tanner said:


> What about the matter of Congress having to serve as the interpreter of God's law?



I think that is a valid concern with establishmentariansism. It seems either elected civil officials must fill that requirement, or if a particular church is designated for the role (which in practical terms would seem necessary) then it in essence becomes the state church - which was in fact the scenario in Westminster era England and Scotland.


----------



## Parakaleo (Oct 14, 2016)

Jeri Tanner said:


> What about Muslims, Jews, and so forth: under Christ's law as the law of the land, would other religions be allowed to practice?



Unbelievers are already forbidden from worshipping idols (regardless of what the Constitution says). It could only be merciful to compel conformity to God's revealed will in this matter. No one can manufacture a work of the Holy Spirit or inward conversion of the lost. All a government (or a father, for that matter) can do is insist upon outward reverence for God.

"As for me and my household, we shall serve the Lord," Joshua 24:15. Was Joshua being overbearing to say his children would reverence the Lord in their outward behavior?


----------



## Toasty (Oct 14, 2016)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I'm intrigued. What about the matter of Congress having to serve as the interpreter of God's law? Would all elected officials (or would there be elections)be required to give evidence of being Christians?
> 
> What about Muslims, Jews, and so forth: under Christ's law as the law of the land, would other religions be allowed to practice?



I was just wondering. Does God want the civil government to allow people to practice other religions? Obviously, it is sinful to practice false religions, but does God want the civil government to prohibit people from doing so?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 14, 2016)

Toasty said:


> I was just wondering. Does God want the civil government to allow people to practice other religions? Obviously, it is sinful to practice false religions, but does God want the civil government to prohibit people from doing so?



I am confident that what God wants, He gets. That these abominations of the one, true, faith exist is obviously due to God's will. Determining "why" of that, however, would have to comport with God's revealed will in Scripture (Deut. 29:29). From Scripture, we have some guidance, such as 1 Cor. 11:19. It may also be willed by God as His judgment upon the godlessness that is allowed by the keepers of the sword. None of which, however, should leave us to idly sit by and not raise up prayers for deliverance, for an awakening in our civil leaders, and to let our voices be heard in the public square.


----------



## MW (Oct 14, 2016)

Phil D. said:


> Jeri Tanner said:
> 
> 
> > What about the matter of Congress having to serve as the interpreter of God's law?
> ...



Everyone in authority interprets God's law and imposes it upon others. Moreover, the system of pluralism is an establishment, since it has law and authority to support it, and law and authority has determined to restrain certain forms of religious expression in opposition to it. Establishment is an inevitability. The question is whether the establishment is good.


----------



## Toasty (Oct 14, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> > I was just wondering. Does God want the civil government to allow people to practice other religions? Obviously, it is sinful to practice false religions, but does God want the civil government to prohibit people from doing so?
> ...



Did God give the civil government the moral obligation to prohibit the practice of false religions?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 14, 2016)

Toasty said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > Toasty said:
> ...



With the question, the discussion likely falls into the realm of differing views of the WCF that have been adopted by U.S. groups. Relying upon the non-American revisions of the WCF, the obligation to suppress false religions falls to the civil magistrate.

*WCF 23.3*
The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven (2 Chron. 26:18 with Matthew 18:17 and Mathew 16:19; 1 Cor. 12:28,29; Eph. 4:11,12; 1 Cor. 4:1,2; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4): yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed (Isa. 49:23; Ps. 122:9; Ezra 7:23,25-28; Lev. 24:16; Deut. 13:5,6,12; 2 Kings 18:4; 1 Chron. 13:1-9; 2 Kings 23:1-26; 2 Chron. 34:33; 2 Chron. 15:12,13). For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God (2 Chron. 14:8-11; 2 Chron. 29 and 30; Mt. 2:4,5).


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Oct 16, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > I still don't see how someone that takes that view can serve in the military or the civil service. " support and defend the Constitution "
> ...




This isn't totally accurate. It's a known fact that Covenanters fought in the Revolutionary War as well as the Civil War (which, by the way, the RPCNA was one... if not the only... of the strongest supporters against Slavery and the confederacy). 

Also, as Ben has pointed out, they can take the "declaratory oath" which gives allegiance to Christ and not the constitution.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Oct 16, 2016)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



The Revolutionary war was prior to the Constitution. The covenanters were ardent opponents of the constitution such that many RPs in the early republic even questioned whether civil submission to a godless government so constituted was necessary, much less was the idea of participation in such a government countenanced. They certainly softened over time, but many felt betrayed by the outcome of the Revolution that in their resistance to a government which had neglected its covenant with the Lord they had found themselves in one that was essentially atheistic (in their view). Covenanters even refused to vote, serve in militias and juries in the early republic (things that didn't at the time require an oath to uphold the constitution) because it was seen as participation in and tacit approval of a godless system. Here's some of the strong language used: 

"The Reformed Presbytery, its churches strengthened by immigration and its ministry repopulated by Scottish and Irish ministers, attempted to capitalize on Christians’ angst by stating definitively the problems of godless government. The United States’ open affronts to God’s law, RPs warned, “perhaps exceed, anything that has ever been attempted in any country professing Christianity.” During their 1795 annual meeting in North Carolina, RPs called for a day of public fasting over the nation’s sins. Leaders were atheists. The Sabbath was more disregarded in America than in any Western country. Slavery continued strong. Even Catholic nations observed God’s commandments more closely. All Americans shared in this shame, they insisted, as “Rulers seem to have no idea, nor ruled any desire, that civil power should be morally qualified.” This mistake started with the Constitution. At Philadelphia, the nation’s leaders made “poor improvement of the noble opportunity they enjoyed of setting up a good moral civil constitution.” By 1807, the RPs codified religious dissent into their testimony and membership requirements. They stated in an official document that there were “moral evils essential to the constitution of the United States, which render it necessary to refuse allegiance to the whole system" (from Founding Sins by Joseph Moore).


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Oct 16, 2016)

TheOldCourse said:


> The Revolutionary war was prior to the Constitution.



I never suggested that they were fighting for or agree with the constitution. This is a non sequitur. 




TheOldCourse said:


> The covenanters were ardent opponents of the constitution such that many RPs in the early republic even questioned whether civil submission to a godless government so constituted was necessary, much less was the idea of participation in such a government countenanced.



Do you not make a distinction between Camerionians and other covenanters? It's the difference between no "submission to a godless government" and respect for civil authorities.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Oct 16, 2016)

Ha. I was going to post the same section from Moore's Founding Sins, but I needed to re-download Kindle because I let you trick me into not having a hard copy. Worst.Mistake.Ever.

I'd only add that William Findley's _Observations on “The Two Sons of Oil”: containing a Vindication of the American Constitutions, and Defending the Blessings of Religious Liberty and Toleration, against the Illiberal Strictures of the Rev. Samuel B. Wylie_ offers a very helpful response to popular Covenanter sentiment and perhaps a few correctives. It is difficult now for many to understand Covenanter political thought, and I have my own reasons for believing so, but I do believe much of the issue hinges on the transmission and application of circumstantial principles to a new land.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Oct 16, 2016)

Andrew, I cannot speak for TheOldCourse, but you used the Revolutionary War as evidence that Covenanters fought despite being against the constitution. It doesn't matter the reason for which they were fighting. The argument was that they would not fight because of "defend the Constitution." TheOldCourse made the point that the RW took place prior to the Constitution. If that is a non-sequitur, then I am not sure what non-sequitur means.

I think you can still raise your Civil War point, but the RW would not logically follow, as it precedes in date the argument of the OP.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Oct 16, 2016)

Andrew P.C. said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> > The Revolutionary war was prior to the Constitution.
> ...



I'm not sure what your original objection to Bruce means then. You put forth the Revolutionary War as a counter-example to Bruce's point that RP folk didn't participate in the military and civil service in the past because of the vow to uphold the Constitution. The fact that there was no Constitution at the time is clearly relevant. 

I also was not intending to imply that such was the view of all covenanters, but merely trying to demonstrate that such a view did widely exist, particularly amongst the RPs which I explicitly mentioned, at the time. The work that the OP cites by Wylie argues that a godly man of good conscience cannot yield obedience or submit to such a country. The Seceders/AP certainly took a more nuanced and, in my estimation, appropriate, tack when they argued that religion is indispensable to good government but not required for government to be obeyed. Of course Wylie later, as I understand it, moderated his own view to allow voting and other measures such that he was even attacked in the RP church for being too pro-participatory. While the RPs continued to be less keen on government participation, by the Civil War things had changed substantially.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 16, 2016)

The RPCNA only began to allow its members to join the U. S. Military in 1863, and then only if they used an alternate oath in which they did not vow to defend the Constitution.


----------



## Edward (Oct 16, 2016)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The RPCNA has a "declaratory oath" that replaces the normal oath that one takes. It can be used for military oaths, etc...



Does any have handy a legal citation allowing the alternative oath? It's a little outside my usual fields of operation, and I've never seen the issue raised before in the 40 plus years I've been subscribing to oaths.


----------



## Toasty (Oct 17, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> > Ask Mr. Religion said:
> ...



Where would you draw the line between a belief that is false and a blasphemy or heresy? 

Are Christians obligated to persuade the civil magistrate to suppress blasphemies or heresies?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 17, 2016)

Edward said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > The RPCNA has a "declaratory oath" that replaces the normal oath that one takes. It can be used for military oaths, etc...
> ...



I do not know where one could find a legal citation (though I would be interested in seeing it myself), but the one I quoted has and continues to be used, especially in military enlistment ceremonies. I know of lots of anecdotal examples of its being accepted.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 20, 2016)

Toasty said:


> Where would you draw the line between a belief that is false and a blasphemy or heresy?
> 
> Are Christians obligated to persuade the civil magistrate to suppress blasphemies or heresies?



Would seem to me that a false belief would be one in direct contradiction to the many summaries of Scripture found in our confession. Blasphemies would be that discussed in the WLC 111-114. Formally, heresies are those so declared by church councils, synods, courts, etc.

I think from the WLC #91, given that our duty is to obedience then to adopt a pacifist view by not speaking out has no warrant from Scripture.


----------



## ThomasT (Oct 25, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> > Where would you draw the line between a belief that is false and a blasphemy or heresy?
> ...



My father's a Sabellian (I've tried talking to him -- no use). Should I ask my Congressman to send him to a gulag? How far does the authoritarianism go?


----------



## earl40 (Oct 25, 2016)

ThomasT said:


> My father's a Sabellian (I've tried talking to him -- no use). Should I ask my Congressman to send him to a gulag? How far does the authoritarianism go?



In our country no you should not ask to send him to the gulag, but the question is was it wrong in countries that had establishment of religion, such as Scotland, to outlaw the practice of false religion.


----------



## ThomasT (Oct 25, 2016)

earl40 said:


> ThomasT said:
> 
> 
> > My father's a Sabellian (I've tried talking to him -- no use). Should I ask my Congressman to send him to a gulag? How far does the authoritarianism go?
> ...



Suppose we say that it’s not wrong for theocracies to outlaw heresies. Next question: How would governments actually go about achieving the suppression of these heresies? We know from countless historical examples that when people have strong religious beliefs they’re often prepared to die for them. Imposing a fine won’t stop people from preaching. It may stop some, but certainly not all. So then the state is stuck with imprisonment or death as the only means of silencing its dissenters. The New England Puritans resorted to hanging to keep Quakers from proselytizing. 

My father’s almost 80, but if you told him he couldn’t make public statements in favor of Sabellianism, he’d stand on a street corner with a bullhorn. You’d _have_ to send him to a gulag. (Or a gas chamber.)

Is this what we’re prepared to do?


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 25, 2016)

Thomas,

The Westminster Confession is extremely vague on the measures that a godly magistrate would take in order to suppress heresy. One thing we ought to be clear on, however, is that we're not talking about thought crimes. The Confession is simply teaching that the practice of false religion falls within the moral jurisdiction of the civil magistrate.

When it comes to administering the death penalty, Paul is clear that God has given the civil magistrate the power of the sword to punish evildoers. However, a magistrate should exercise tremendous care and wisdom in determining what punishments will best direct his people toward Biblical morality.


----------



## ThomasT (Oct 25, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> Thomas,
> 
> The Westminster Confession is extremely vague on the measures that a godly magistrate would take in order to suppress heresy. One thing we ought to be clear on, however, is that we're not talking about thought crimes. The Confession is simply teaching that the practice of false religion falls within the moral jurisdiction of the civil magistrate.
> 
> When it comes to administering the death penalty, Paul is clear that God has given the civil magistrate the power of the sword to punish evildoers. However, a magistrate should exercise tremendous care and wisdom in determining what punishments will best direct his people toward Biblical morality.



The silence of the WCF on the various means available to governments of enforcing public orthodoxy reflects the wisdom of its authors. But the task of figuring out how to suppress heresy is a question _someone_ has to answer.

And we know that heretics (like the orthodox) delight in _public expression_ of their views. We know as well that heretics won’t be silenced easily. So I think we have to consider what the effective suppression of public heresy would actually entail.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 25, 2016)

ThomasT said:


> But the task of figuring out how to suppress heresy is a question someone has to answer.





ThomasT said:


> So I think we have to consider what the effective suppression of public heresy would actually entail.



Actually, to be honest, I've often taken comfort in the fact that I _don't_ have to come up with an answer to those questions! It's an extremely difficult problem, and would take an exceedingly wise magistrate. Also, the answer to those questions will vary from society to society.

It is worth noting that a society will not have an establishment of the true religion where irreligion reigns supreme. That is to say, there will be less heresy to suppress in a commonwealth godly enough to have a godly establishment.


----------



## ThomasT (Oct 26, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> ThomasT said:
> 
> 
> > But the task of figuring out how to suppress heresy is a question someone has to answer.
> ...



If the system we’re trying to achieve rests on the appearance of an exceedingly wise magistrate, followed (presumably) by a perpetual succession of similarly wise magistrates, how reasonable is it to expect that such a system can be realized? 

While we're waiting for this exceedingly wise magistrate to show up, we may do well to remind ourselves of what we know already from history, which is that the effective suppression of heresy succeeds only a) in small isolated groups of like-minded confessors and b) in places where magistrates resort to terror.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 26, 2016)

ThomasT said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > ThomasT said:
> ...



Thomas,

When a society gets to the point at which the establishment of religion is truly feasible, one would think that there would have already been plenty of rich discussion to help guide that magistrate.

You bring up an interesting point about small commonwealths. It's my opinion that the United States is way too large to have an effective centralized government. This is true both in terms of the geographic spread, and the differing people groups and worldviews represented.


----------



## MW (Oct 26, 2016)

To clarify, a church establishment is not a theocracy. The spheres of civil government and church government are separate and distinct. One is by nature and the other is by grace. One belongs to the providential kingdom and the other belongs to the mediatorial kingdom. The church herself is a theocracy; in fact she is a Christocracy, being governed by Christ alone as her sole Head. But the civil government is a natural institution and the power of those in authority comes from God providentially. As such it is free to the society to follow a form of government which best suits its conditions and to make wholesome laws which are for the good of the common well being.

There is no system one is trying to achieve. The profession of Christianity introduces a super-added obligation on the magistrate to use his office according to his profession. A father is a father whether he is a Christian or not, but a Christian who is a father uses his place to bring Christ to his children. Likewise a magistrate is a magistrate whether he is a Christian or not, but a Christian who is a magistrate uses his place to bring Christ to his people. And just as the father recognises the institution and importance of the church, and does what he can to support and encourage the church in her endeavours according to his ability and calling, so the magistrate does the same. But it is obvious this can only be done as God puts it into the hearts of those who govern and as the laws of the realm enable a government to carry it out.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 26, 2016)

Matthew, I shared this on FB (clearly identifying it as a FC view) and got some friendly chiding from RP friends. How do you answer their view which apparently they've made part of their standards, that Christ does rule the state as mediator and I'm told holding Gillespie's view confounds the economic role with the ontological. I have not read their primary defendant, Symington; it's never been high on my list but this has come up here before I know. I do recall folks implying this was just an in school disagreement between Gillespie and Cameronians; but sounds like to me its simple rejection of Gillespie. Granted non RP Presbyterians have not raised Gillespie's view or otherwise to a doctrinal standards. Sorry I've never educated myself to be clearer in this question.

Edit; a search on Symington brought an unbelievable number of threads but I did find your comments here. Is the David McKay the same as wrote the book on Gillespie (the only book length work on his thought still)?
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...s-Rod-Blossoming-Week-5?p=1103789#post1103789


----------



## MW (Oct 26, 2016)

Chris, it is hard to get a handle on the term "Cameronian." There is nothing new in that if we consider the Cameronian ministers joined the post-Revolution Church of Scotland and thought they were being consistent with their principles; and on the other side there were those who thought they were betraying their principles.

If certain Cameronians are not going to recognise the validity of the Rutherford/Gillespie position then I find there is little point discussing it with them. By their own acknowledgment they are not "original covenanters."

On the other hand, there are some who acknowledge the magistrate's obligation to Christ is superadded, and for them it is an historical question of covenanted obligation where the civil constitution has already pledged itself to be obedient to Christ. That is a different question, and I think it then becomes a matter of historical and constitutional discussion. But as we know from other forums that discussion can run around in circles.

Edit: Yes, same gentleman; the RP professor.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 26, 2016)

Okay; thanks Matthew; see my added question above on the Mckay and a previous thread.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 26, 2016)

Matthew, btw, and I know I've sent this on a rabbit trail but have you read Holfelder's thesis (Factionalism in the Kirk during the Cromwellian Invasion and Occupation of
Scotland, 1650 to 1660: The Protester-Resolutioner Controversy, 1998) on the Resolutioner Protester period? Many of the original sources still had not been much explored up to then most Presbyterians choosing rather to forget the embarassing affair and cover it in maybe too rose colored a look. Everyone knows that the Resolutioners fault was simply tying themselves to a prevaricating King elect but the Protestors had a wing heavily influenced if not infiltrated by views of the English Sectarians, to the extent some were willing and actually did try to throw the war to Cromwell, and because of them it became in fact impossible to fight the usurper and the Scots inevitably lost to the English and lost their nationhood. I highly suspect this radical wing was more than likely strongly influential in the fields being more likely than not to head there. I know Mrs. Durham and John Carstares found some of the preaching far too radical and the latter was a leading Protestor in Glasgow in the 1650s and suffered mightily for his stances. That the Cameronians of later days (Clarkson) disparaged him shows how weak they still were on the ethical and theological level 50 years after Shields et al came in from the cold.


----------



## ThomasT (Oct 26, 2016)

MW said:


> To clarify, a church establishment is not a theocracy. The spheres of civil government and church government are separate and distinct. One is by nature and the other is by grace. One belongs to the providential kingdom and the other belongs to the mediatorial kingdom. The church herself is a theocracy; in fact she is a Christocracy, being governed by Christ alone as her sole Head. But the civil government is a natural institution and the power of those in authority comes from God providentially. As such it is free to the society to follow a form of government which best suits its conditions and to make wholesome laws which are for the good of the common well being.
> 
> There is no system one is trying to achieve. The profession of Christianity introduces a super-added obligation on the magistrate to use his office according to his profession. A father is a father whether he is a Christian or not, but a Christian who is a father uses his place to bring Christ to his children. Likewise a magistrate is a magistrate whether he is a Christian or not, but a Christian who is a magistrate uses his place to bring Christ to his people. And just as the father recognises the institution and importance of the church, and does what he can to support and encourage the church in her endeavours according to his ability and calling, so the magistrate does the same. But it is obvious this can only be done as God puts it into the hearts of those who govern and as the laws of the realm enable a government to carry it out.



I was using the term “theocracy” in a loose sense, admittedly, but also in response to the specific question of how to suppress heresy. Heresy would have to be defined by a church board of some kind; otherwise we’d have magistrates playing the role of theologian.

And if it’s a church board that defines heresy, and the magistrates then go about suppressing the public expression of heresy as a matter of obligation to the establishmentarian nature of the state, the church board would now become, at least with respect to the issue of heresy, a kind of supreme court. Which means we’d be ruled by priests. Call such a system a “clerocracy” if you like, rather than a theocracy, but the civil magistrates would still be subordinate to church authorities. 

Heresy isn’t just a list of false beliefs. There’s also the question of how to interpret specific statements made by members of the public with respect to whether these statements qualify as heresy. We have this situation now with respect to the law. People disagree about whether the law prohibits how someone wants to express himself. (Does this picture qualify as p0rnography? Does this statement qualify as a threat of force?) Which is precisely why we have courts. And it’s precisely why we’d need church courts, too. 

If the people themselves determined how heresy is to be defined and applied, on the other hand, we’d be at the mercy of mob theology. People would either appoint whoever they wanted to the church courts or they’d vote on heresy questions directly (by referendum). Either way we’d have a fluid and far from reliable approach to the definition of heresy and the application of that definition to public behavior. 

So we’d be stuck with either magistrates taking orders from the church courts (clerocracy), the magistrates ignoring or not ignoring church authority as it pleased them (no change from the system we have now), or the people taking on the heresy problem directly and/or indirectly (mob theology).

Point of all this being that while the suppression of heresy may be an ideal of some kind, we don’t have the slightest idea how to achieve it. Not in a large and diverse country, at least.


----------



## MW (Oct 27, 2016)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Matthew, btw, and I know I've sent this on a rabbit trail but have you read Holfelder's thesis (Factionalism in the Kirk during the Cromwellian Invasion and Occupation of
> Scotland, 1650 to 1660: The Protester-Resolutioner Controversy, 1998) on the Resolutioner Protester period?



Chris, apart from searches taking me to it, I haven't read it. My loss, I think. A little disappointing feature of the thesis which I found in my searches is that Binning receives scant mention and his position is not carefully examined. But that is probably outside the scope of the narrative.

Thanks for the reference to Carstares. I might follow that up. Clarkson is interesting in that he repudiated his dissenting principles to become a minister with the Associate Presbytery.

The historiography of the controversy would be worthy of a paper in itself.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 27, 2016)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Matthew, I shared this on FB (clearly identifying it as a FC view) and got some friendly chiding from RP friends. How do you answer their view which apparently they've made part of their standards, that Christ does rule the state as mediator and I'm told holding Gillespie's view confounds the economic role with the ontological. I have not read their primary defendant, Symington; it's never been high on my list but this has come up here before I know. I do recall folks implying this was just an in school disagreement between Gillespie and Cameronians; but sounds like to me its simple rejection of Gillespie. Granted non RP Presbyterians have not raised Gillespie's view or otherwise to a doctrinal standards. Sorry I've never educated myself to be clearer in this question.
> 
> Edit; a search on Symington brought an unbelievable number of threads but I did find your comments here. Is the David McKay the same as wrote the book on Gillespie (the only book length work on his thought still)?
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...s-Rod-Blossoming-Week-5?p=1103789#post1103789



Is this the McKay book?

https://smile.amazon.com/Ecclesiast...5&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=David+McKay+gillespie


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 27, 2016)

That's it.


Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Is this the McKay book?
> 
> https://smile.amazon.com/Ecclesiasti...cKay+gillespie


----------

