Espionage and the 9th Commandment

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Junior
While I've never been offered a job as a government spy, I know some who are in "Intelligence", and I wonder, given the 9th commandment, how I am to regard those who must dissemble in service of their country. Could a Christian be a secret agent? Reading history, it seems that the gathering of information by deceptive means is a huge part of battles won or lost, and I wonder: "would God bless with victory the government that did not engage in lying?"
We have spies in the OT: the Angel of the Lord went to Sodom and Gomorrah to check things out, and twelve were sent to spy on Canaan. Rahab saved the skins of two others at Jericho, and she lied to do it!
Next question (related): is dissembling ever innocent? Was it wrong for McDuff to disguise his men as trees so that Dunsinane could come to Macbeth's castle walls? Is it wrong to have a camouflage net to hide your equipage from prying eyes? Should the guy who stabbed the fat king in his palace garden not hidden his sword? The head spins thinking about it.
 
If a military does a "Feint," and knowingly deceives the enemy, is it a lie? Only the most hard core legalist would say so.

As someone who is connected to Russian intelligence (seriously, I can play three degrees of Kevin Bacon and get to Vladimir Putin. I really can. Yes, I did troll CNN during the election. I did it for free though, so much was my hatred of the Deep State), I take this question seriously. I think being an espionage agent can take a toll on your soul, but given that the Israelites engaged in espionage, deception tactics (with God's command, no less), then it isn't ipso facto wrong.
 
I had read John Murray’s Principles of Conduct a couple of years ago and remember his take on this, should my memory serve me correctly here. Paraphrasing him, he believes that falsehoods and untruth even in wartime still constitute as sins against God, and are not to be condoned. He explained that while Rahab was commended in the New Testament, it was for her receiving the spies and helping them, not for the lies she told, even if it had resulted in the successful operation in the end. On the other hand if she had told the truth, God would still be able to ensure the success of the operation.

I do have immense respect for Murray and have learnt deeply from him, and especially from this particular book of his, though it is with great hesitation that I disagree with him on this point. Essentially, Murray’s point was that Rahab was commended in the New Testament for receiving and helping the spies. And one has to see that the very help Rahab had rendered was essentially the lie and deception involved and nothing less than that. The truth in that situation would certainly ensure the deaths of the spies. That would certainly be no help but betrayal instead.

I am of the opinion that in certain circumstances like wartime (spying vocations included there) and also in competitive sports (those within the rules of the game of course), deceitful strategies are not to be counted as sins against God.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I find Ames helpful in clarifying lying. It doesn't exactly answer the question of espionage, but it helps clarify some of the questions related to it.

"18. A lie is properly a testimony, whereby one pronounceth otherwise than is in his heart. Acts 5. Whence is that phrase in Scripture of a double heart, of a man that is a liar. Psalm 12:3.

19. But because a thing pronounced, doth not consist only in outward words, but chiefly in their sense; therefore the same words which are true in one sense, in another sense become a lie. Matt. 26:61.

20. Ironies, fables, jests, repeating also of false things, and the like are not lies, because they are not testimonies; and they are not testimonies because they are not confirmed by the credit and authority of the speaker.

21. An intention of deceiving, although it do almost always accompany a false testimony, yet it is not of the essence of it, neither is it necessarily required to a lie; for although one knows that he with whom he hath to do cannot be deceived by his lie; yet if he have an intention in speaking to affirm that which is false, he lies no less than if he had hope of deceiving.

22. An intention of hurting doth indeed increase the mischief of a lie: but it maketh not the nature of it: for if a man out of jesting or a desire to please and be officious, confirm that by his credit which he knows to be false, it is a lie: pernicious of its own nature, if not others, yet to the author himself: as it is in those who are given to flatteries or boastings, or are delighted in confirming monstrous fables or fictions unto others.

23. An intention to speak that which is false, makes a lie, although that which is spoken be most true.

24. The asseveration of a thing uncertain for certain, is accounted with a lie although we think it to be true.

25. Also that secrecy whereby one doth not speak the truth when Justice or Charity requires it, doth partake of the nature of a lie.

26. But when neither Justice nor Charity requires to give testimony, then the truth or part of it may be concealed without sin. Jerermiah 38:27.

29. That dissembling which consists in deeds or signs, and not in words, is not properly a lie: unless the same either of their own nature, or by some certain appointment, have the force and use of speech: as, 1 Sam. 20:20-22, Matt. 26:49. Because such deeds and signs that are not verbal, have no certain and determinate signification, so as they can have the force of a testimony.

30. Therefore such dissembling is sometime lawful, as in warlike stratagems. Josh. 8:31. But it is made unlawful when in respect of the end or manner, it fights with religion, Justice or Charity." (William Ames. The Marrow of Sacred Divinity. Found here: Marrow of Theology. Book II. Section XXI: Telling the Truth. p. 325-327 of the Eusden edition, 1968 United Church Press. Or p. 263-266 here)

Ames has a lengthier discussion in his Conscience: https://archive.org/stream/conscpo00ames#page/268/mode/2up
 
Thanks all for the replies, and Patrick for the link. It seems the consensus then that deceit is sometimes necessary for wartime strategy and the preservation of life. I don't disagree, but I wonder if I would be able to properly separate what was deceit for the greater good from what was for personal gain, if once I started down that path.
I read something from Tozer where he claimed that even actors in a play were in sin for pretending to be other than they were, even though everyone knows they're acting and the intent is not to deceive.
As for not owing the enemy the truth, is that the point? Don't we owe God the truth, regardless of whom we are speaking it to? The requirement is "Truth in the inward parts" which seems to preclude all intent to deceive.
But again, I have a hard time disagreeing with all the good reasons to dissemble.
 
Our first duty is to those things which have been revealed. Utilitarianism (or pragmatism for that matter) just will not do. Our boundary for all thoughts, words, and deeds stops at what God has commanded. We dare not transgress that boundary and thereby presume to know the secret will of God. After all, we can remain silent rather than lie, for we have no obligation to speak when a lie is at the door of our minds. Or, we could instruct the one that temps us to lie of their duty.

WLC 99.5 states "That what God forbids, is at no time to be done; what he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times."

A prudent man conceals knowledge, But the heart of fools proclaims foolishness (Proverbs 7:23).

I find it very difficult to accept any moral duty or permission argument in support of lying.
 
While I've never been offered a job as a government spy, I know some who are in "Intelligence", and I wonder, given the 9th commandment, how I am to regard those who must dissemble in service of their country. Could a Christian be a secret agent?

I believe a Christian should not work/serve in any capacity that requires them to lie, manipulate, or deceive -- period. I don't care what the job is or how important the perceived objective is. In the context of working in an intelligence specialty that requires one to dissemble (it's important to note most jobs in the IC don't require one to) I fail to find any biblical warrant that would permit that kind of conduct in service to our nation today. How do lies, manipulation, and deceit glorify God? Before becoming a Christian I served as a CI/HUMINT specialist in the U.S. Marine Corps and I often think back to those days with deep disgust.
 
Ben,
One must distinguish between fibs, little white lies and zingers:

Fibs- insignificant stretching of truth and/or manipulating of data. These are acceptable, so long as noboby knows you are engaging in such.
Little White Lies- while more serious and more substantial than fibs, LWL's are still generally acceptable, so long as nobody gets hurt.
Zingers- these are always wrong, unless you're a politician. In those cases, they are not only acceptable, but expected and required.

If ever questioned about any of these infractory behaviors, one may say "I did not inhale" or "I did not have relations with.....".
 
How do lies, manipulation, and deceit glorify God? Before becoming a Christian I served as a CI/HUMINT specialist in the U.S. Marine Corps and I often think back to those days with deep disgust.

Years ago I did collections and skip tracing working that involved lying or pretexting as it is called. Not something I now think of as right even though I was trying to recover debts and stolen property.
 
William Perkins denies that lying is permissible as a spy in wartime: (from The Government of the Tongue)

upload_2018-2-17_20-56-37.png
upload_2018-2-17_20-57-58.png
 
Last edited:
I believe a Christian should not work/serve in any capacity that requires them to lie, manipulate, or deceive -- period. I don't care what the job is or how important the perceived objective is. In the context of working in an intelligence specialty that requires one to dissemble (it's important to note most jobs in the IC don't require one to) I fail to find any biblical warrant that would permit that kind of conduct in service to our nation today. How do lies, manipulation, and deceit glorify God? Before becoming a Christian I served as a CI/HUMINT specialist in the U.S. Marine Corps and I often think back to those days with deep disgust.
That is a silly conviction.

We need MORE Christians to work in the military and as intel officers and even as spies.
 
That is a silly conviction.

We need MORE Christians to work in the military and as intel officers and even as spies.

What part of what I posted exactly is silly? The part about not finding any biblical warrant for Christians to engage in lies, manipulation, and deceit?

Can you expound on why you believe we need more Christians serving in these vocations?
 
Unless you take on anabaptist convictions, even army uniforms are deceitful (camo) and the entire military profession revolves around fooling the enemy. Under your convictions you'd have to choose to be a good soldier or a good Christian, there is no way to be both under your rationale, whereas we see the armies of the OT using subterfuge and hiding.

In these 16 passages of Scripture we see God's people lying or deceiving the enemy without any judgment upon them: (1) Exod. 1:15-21; (2) Josh. 2:4-6; 6:17, 25; Heb. 11:31; James 2:25; (3) Josh. 8:3-8; (4) Judges 4:18-21; 5:24-27; (5) 1 Sam. 16:1-5; (6) 1 Sam. 19:12-17; (7) 1 Sam. 20:6; (8) 1 Sam. 21:13; (9) 1 Sam. 27:10; (10) 2 Sam. 5:22-25; (11) 2 Sam. 15:34; (12) 2 Sam. 17:19-20; (13) 1 Kings 22:19-23; (14) 2 Kings 6:14-20; (15) Jer. 38:24-28; (16) 2 Thess. 2:11.

And may God send sinners "a strong delusion that they may believe a lie" and still be a holy God? If so, why can't His people do the same?

Finally, throughout the Scripture we see God's people in key places in government, even enforcing decrees and fighting enemies. If you feel that lying is intrinsic to the governmental positions of military or spying or statecraft, then you'd have to withdraw Christians from all of these positions of government to prevent them from sinning, whereas it seems God has always blessed his people through well-placed believers in places of power at key moments in history.

Your position leads to an anabaptistic view of the Christian's participation in government.
 
Just as it is not a violation of the sixth commandment when the state, which properly wields the sword, executes capital criminals or kills those in lawful war, it is not a violation of the ninth commandment when those who are agents of the state do not reveal state secrets to her national enemies.

WLC 145, in fact, makes it clear that the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment include an unseasonable speaking of the truth, which would be at issue in matters of state secrets: "speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful or equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of the truth or justice..."

In other words, one can "speak the truth unseasonably... to a wrong end..., to the prejudice... of justice." This trumps all individual interpreters and theologians and sets forth the combined witness of our Reformed faith.

Peace,
Alan
 
William Perkins denies that lying is permissible as a spy in wartime: (from The Government of the Tongue)

View attachment 5462
View attachment 5463
I am not sure that is the correct take away from that quote of Perkins.

Rahab invented a lie to save some spies from their pursuers. She was not a state agent at war, which is entirely different when it comes to deception as being acceptable. Paul's commending of her is not for the lie, but for receiving the spies by faith in peace.

Ridgeley further explains in his commentary (vol. 2) on the WLC #145:
"This I conceive to be a better vindication of Kahab's conduct than that which is alleged by some, who suppose that, by entering into confederacy with the spies, she put herself into a state of war with her own countrymen, and so was not obliged to speak truth to the men of Jericho. Such an interpretation is followed by many ill consequences, and gives too much countenance to persons deceiving others, under pretence of being in a state of war with them."​
 
I don't think there is a problem with the idea of Christians in intelligence agencies. We need good people to fight the Deep State and shadow govt. I do think there would be problems with working with some intelligence agencies that were connected with MK-ULTRA and other programs.
 
Just as it is not a violation of the sixth commandment when the state, which properly wields the sword, executes capital criminals or kills those in lawful war, it is not a violation of the ninth commandment when those who are agents of the state do not reveal state secrets to her national enemies.

WLC 145, in fact, makes it clear that the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment include an unseasonable speaking of the truth, which would be at issue in matters of state secrets: "speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful or equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of the truth or justice..."

In other words, one can "speak the truth unseasonably... to a wrong end..., to the prejudice... of justice." This trumps all individual interpreters and theologians and sets forth the combined witness of our Reformed faith.

Peace,
Alan


I mean no disrespect, but I giggled when I read the passage in WLC 145. The "unseasonable speaking of the truth" sounds so "gentleman like." My specialty in the military was in the realm of human intelligence, interrogation specifically. Some of the worst offenses I've ever witnessed was while serving as an "agent" in this way. It was rare to encounter a Christian in this work and on the rare occasion I did they never lasted long. I think it's important to note that it was rare for the 9th Commandment to be broken in isolation from the others. The web of deception could at times be much more elaborate and combine with the breaking of the 1st, 2nd, 7th, and/or 8th Commandments. Depending on the setting, drinking to excess was the norm as well.

As I mentioned earlier, there are plenty of jobs in the intelligence field that would be "safe" for Christians; however, I don't count human intelligence to be among them.
 
Last edited:
Unless you take on anabaptist convictions, even army uniforms are deceitful (camo) and the entire military profession revolves around fooling the enemy. Under your convictions you'd have to choose to be a good soldier or a good Christian, there is no way to be both under your rationale, whereas we see the armies of the OT using subterfuge and hiding.

Your position leads to an anabaptistic view of the Christian's participation in government.

I think you've made a caricature out of my position. I've been working in the Department of Defense, in both a military and civilian capacity, for the past 22 years. Thankfully, I've been able to spend the past 13 years working in a capacity that doesn't involve conduct that would violate my conscience. To say the entire military profession revolves around fooling the enemy isn't accurate. One need not lie, manipulate, or deceive in order to be a good soldier.
 
I am not sure that is the correct take away from that quote of Perkins.

Rahab invented a lie to save some spies from their pursuers. She was not a state agent at war, which is entirely different when it comes to deception as being acceptable. Paul's commending of her is not for the lie, but for receiving the spies by faith in peace.

Ridgeley further explains in his commentary (vol. 2) on the WLC #145:
"This I conceive to be a better vindication of Kahab's conduct than that which is alleged by some, who suppose that, by entering into confederacy with the spies, she put herself into a state of war with her own countrymen, and so was not obliged to speak truth to the men of Jericho. Such an interpretation is followed by many ill consequences, and gives too much countenance to persons deceiving others, under pretence of being in a state of war with them."​
I considered Perkins comments about Rahab to be relating to his more general claim that we may not lie for either the good of our neighbor or our nation. In such a case lying would not be permissible even for state actors. In that particular case, the Israelite spies were not sent so much to deceive as to observe and it seems that, when observed, they were readily recognizable as Israelites. I would note that even in modern warfare spies that are deceptive with regard to their identity are treated as criminals rather than enemy combatants according to the Geneva convention and afforded no protection.

Both Perkins and Ridgley acknowledge that Rahab was not commended for her lie, but rather her faith in receiving the Israelite spies. She was guilty of a lie and would have had no guilt had she simply stayed silent before the inquisitors. Even if my reading is incorrect with regard to the application to state-sanctions espionage, it still would seem that both would disapprove of the lies to conceal a Jew from Nazis considered in the older thread.
 
I considered Perkins comments about Rahab to be relating to his more general claim that we may not lie for either the good of our neighbor or our nation. In such a case lying would not be permissible even for state actors. In that particular case, the Israelite spies were not sent so much to deceive as to observe and it seems that, when observed, they were readily recognizable as Israelites. I would note that even in modern warfare spies that are deceptive with regard to their identity are treated as criminals rather than enemy combatants according to the Geneva convention and afforded no protection.

Both Perkins and Ridgley acknowledge that Rahab was not commended for her lie, but rather her faith in receiving the Israelite spies. She was guilty of a lie and would have had no guilt had she simply stayed silent before the inquisitors. Even if my reading is incorrect with regard to the application to state-sanctions espionage, it still would seem that both would disapprove of the lies to conceal a Jew from Nazis considered in the older thread.
Maybe I have misunderstood.

You stated:
"William Perkins denies that lying is permissible as a spy in wartime"

I think Ridegley says the something quite different when reading between the lines, he writes:
"This I conceive to be a better vindication of Kahab's conduct than that which is alleged by some, who suppose that, by entering into confederacy with the spies, she put herself into a state of war with her own countrymen, and so was not obliged to speak truth to the men of Jericho. Such an interpretation is followed by many ill consequences, and gives too much countenance to persons deceiving others, under pretence of being in a state of war with them."

It seems to me that the above implies being in a state of war obviates the obligation to speak the truth circumstantially. Naturally, Ridgeley notes that one cannot simply assume their status at war, and then go off using it as a pretense to deceive others.

Ridgeley here is clearer than your Perkins quote. Perkins does not go as far as I think you are claiming he does. I see nothing in his quote dealing with agents of a state at war. I would not want to put words into his mouth when he seems silent on the matter.

Naturally, I may be mistaken and can possibly see how someone can interpret Ridgeley as implying that even a state of war scenario is no warrant for deception. Yet that seems to clash with his pretence [sic] comment: by that pretense comment, Ridgeley appears to affirm it was not true that Rahab was an agent of a civil magistrate waging war and therefore had no warrant for deception that could be used willy-nilly.

I think, but am open to correction, the above aligns with what Rev. Strange has observed earlier, too.
 
Maybe I have misunderstood.

You stated:
"William Perkins denies that lying is permissible as a spy in wartime"

I think Ridegley says the something quite different when reading between the lines, he writes:
"This I conceive to be a better vindication of Kahab's conduct than that which is alleged by some, who suppose that, by entering into confederacy with the spies, she put herself into a state of war with her own countrymen, and so was not obliged to speak truth to the men of Jericho. Such an interpretation is followed by many ill consequences, and gives too much countenance to persons deceiving others, under pretence of being in a state of war with them."

It seems to me that the above implies being in a state of war obviates the obligation to speak the truth circumstantially. Naturally, Ridgeley notes that one cannot simply assume their status at war, and then go off using it as a pretense to deceive others.

Ridgeley here is clearer than your Perkins quote. Perkins does not go as far as I think you are claiming he does. I see nothing in his quote dealing with agents of a state at war. I would not want to put words into his mouth when he seems silent on the matter.

Naturally, I may be mistaken and can possibly see how someone can interpret Ridgeley as implying that even a state of war scenario is no warrant for deception. Yet that seems to clash with his pretence [sic] comment: by that pretense comment, Ridgeley appears to affirm it was not true that Rahab was an agent of a civil magistrate waging war and therefore had no warrant for deception that could be used willy-nilly.

Yes, I agree that Ridgely's use of "pretence" could suggest that. It's not definitive, but it is quite suggestive. He could be read as merely reporting the argument of others and then disagreeing with another aspect of it, but he doesn't suggest any disagreement with the part of the premise where her actions would be appropriate as an agent of the state.

My reading of Perkins is similarly suggestive, but not, perhaps, definitive to my mind. You're right in that he's not explicit about agents of a state at war, but he states as a principle that lying is not permissible even for the good of one's nation and then turns to the case of Rahab, implying that she is lying for the good of her nation and is viewed as, in some sense, an Israelite. That would place him among the some that, according to Ridgeley, view her as entering into a confederacy with the spies who were at war and yet he draws a different conclusion that Ridgeley suggests some do from that supposition.

I'm not certain that this is the kind of issue where we should expect to see uniformity amongst Puritans, however. Writers admit that there are multiple views of Rahab's actions and, as you have noted, the case of lying in espionage may be even one step removed from her case.

Samuel Willard, for instance, in his Body of Divinity, seems more clear in holding that deception is allowable in warfare only when it is not accomplished by lying:

upload_2018-2-18_13-55-22.png

It's difficult to find direct statements in many cases, but, while many Puritans make allowances for withholding part or the whole of the truth in appropriate cases or acting deceptively in appropriate cases. I've yet to come across one who explicitly make allowances for speaking a lie. Satan being the father of lies, the Puritans generally come down especially hard on that sin in all circumstances that they consider.

As returning to the OP, deception in warfare such as camouflage or feints are certainly allowable. God even commands deception in Joshua 8, as Willard notes.
 
Last edited:
What part of what I posted exactly is silly? The part about not finding any biblical warrant for Christians to engage in lies, manipulation, and deceit?

Can you expound on why you believe we need more Christians serving in these vocations?

I'm who you directed the question to but I don't even believe some of these organizations and jobs requiring lying should even exist. Eliminate the job, eliminate the lying in these cases.
 
I mean no disrespect, but I giggled when I read the passage in WLC 145. The "unseasonable speaking of the truth" sounds so "gentleman like." My specialty in the military was in the realm of human intelligence, interrogation specifically. Some of the worst offenses I've ever witnessed was while serving as an "agent" in this way. It was rare to encounter a Christian in this work and on the rare occasion I did they never lasted long. I think it's important to note that it was rare for the 9th Commandment to be broken in isolation from the others. The web of deception could at times be much more elaborate and combine with the breaking of the 1st, 2nd, 7th, and/or 8th Commandments. Depending on the setting, drinking to excess was the norm as well.

As I mentioned earlier, there are plenty of jobs in the intelligence field that would be "safe" for Christians; however, I don't count human intelligence to be among them.

Brian,

You cite what I wrote. I take that to imply that you regard your comment as responsive to me, but if it is directly responsive to me in some way, I do not see how that it is.

When I wrote what I did in the post that you quoted, above, I was not responding to anything that you had written specifically. Rather, I was setting forth in rather broad terms the propriety of maintaining state secrets, especially from national enemies. Is there anything in what I wrote that you disagree with, so that I may respond to such if I think it necessary/helpful?

I appreciate what you shared about your intel job (I have a son in such a field, though he's an analyst, not a human intel officer). I know that such can be quite difficult, though I am not sure what necessity there was to violate all the commandments you cite, but that could perhaps be discussed elsewhere.

Back to what I wrote that you cite: is there anything in my argument that you disagree with?

Peace,
Alan
 
Brian,

You cite what I wrote. I take that to imply that you regard your comment as responsive to me, but if it is directly responsive to me in some way, I do not see how that it is.

When I wrote what I did in the post that you quoted, above, I was not responding to anything that you had written specifically. Rather, I was setting forth in rather broad terms the propriety of maintaining state secrets, especially from national enemies. Is there anything in what I wrote that you disagree with, so that I may respond to such if I think it necessary/helpful?

Back to what I wrote that you cite: is there anything in my argument that you disagree with?

Hello Alan,

No, I don't disagree with anything you wrote. Sorry for the confusion there. Reading your post made me want to post a new comment and I hit the "reply" button when perhaps a new post altogether would have been more appropriate. I'll send you a PM later.
 
One need not lie, manipulate, or deceive in order to be a good soldier.

Perhaps not to be a soldier, but certainly to be a combat commander. Screen you troops, mask your point of attack, encode your transmissions. All intended to manipulate or deceive.
 
I'm not certain that this is the kind of issue where we should expect to see uniformity amongst Puritans, however. Writers admit that there are multiple views of Rahab's actions and, as you have noted, the case of lying in espionage may be even one step removed from her case.

Samuel Willard, for instance, in his Body of Divinity, seems more clear in holding that deception is allowable in warfare only when it is not accomplished by lying:

It's difficult to find direct statements in many cases, but, while many Puritans make allowances for withholding part or the whole of the truth in appropriate cases or acting deceptively in appropriate cases. I've yet to come across one who explicitly make allowances for speaking a lie. Satan being the father of lies, the Puritans generally come down especially hard on that sin in all circumstances that they consider.
Thank you for this nice discussion, Chris.

It is indeed an area that leaves much to consideration and I have yet to find some explicit discussion among those that have come before us about the matter. Of course absence of evidence is not evidence in support of my take on the readings. ;)

One of our members may have more access to earlier works that I have overlooked or misread. I have pinged member DTK along those lines.
 
Thank you for this nice discussion, Chris.

It is indeed an area that leaves much to consideration and I have yet to find some explicit discussion among those that have come before us about the matter. Of course absence of evidence is not evidence in support of my take on the readings. ;)

One of our members may have more access to earlier works that I have overlooked or misread. I have pinged member DTK along those lines.

Likewise. I'm not sure that I've come to a definitive conclusion myself--thankfully my own vocation does not require one. I always appreciate old wisdom on difficult matters, however, and I'm glad you brought forth Ridgeley to counterbalance my (perhaps mis-)reading of Perkins.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top