Return to Main Page
Site Index

Trouble with drop box click here for help     Printing Instructions for Articles
Back to Index to Gillespie Discussion

Discussion of George Gillespie's Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty
GWS-14 <text> 
Subject: GWS-14 
From: Chris Coldwell 
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 11:00:51 -0500

Discussion: GWS. Post 14.
George Gillespie's Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty
The true resolution of a present controversy concerning liberty of=
 conscience.
All text for this discussion taken from the edition of this work, Copyright
=A9 Naphtali Press 1996.  Full text available at:
http://www.naphtali.com/naphtali
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[Part III. Objections, from parable of the tares]

III. Other arguments might be added, but let these suffice at this present.
I come next to answer the material objections which I have either read or
heard (to my best remembrance) alleged against this coercive power of the
Magistrate in matters of religion.
1. OBJECTION ONE. First, the parable of the tares is objected:#15 Christ
will not have the tares to be plucked up, but to grow together with the
wheat until the harvest (Matt. 13:29-30). In this argument Mr. Williams in
his Bloody Tenet puts a great deal of confidence. But I am as confident to
discover the strength of it to be less than nothing. For first he takes the
tares to be meant neither of hypocrites in the Church, whether discovered
or undiscovered; nor yet of those who are scandalous offenders in their
life and conversation, but only of Antichristian idolaters and false
worshippers, which is a most false interpretation. Christ himself expounds
it generally (v. 38). The good seed are the children of the kingdom: but
the tares are the children of the wicked one. And (v. 41), the tares are
expounded to be all that offend, and which do iniquity. This being the
clear meaning, it will follow undeniably, that if the Magistrate must spare
those who are meant by the tares in the parable, then he must spare and let
alone all scandalous offenders, murderers, adulterers, drunkards, thieves,
etc., when any such are discovered in the visible Church. But this cannot
be the meaning of the tares in the parable, says Mr. Williams (ch. 24),
that wicked livers, opposite the children of God, should be understood. For
then, he says, when Christ says, "Let the tares alone," he should
contradict other ordinances for the punishment of evil doers by the
Magistrate.#16 But this is a base begging of the question; for he well knew
that those against whom he disputes hold that his exposition of the parable
contradicts the ordinance of God for punishing idolaters and heretics, the
question being whether or not this is not an ordinance as well as the
punishment of scandalous livers. Besides, if the tares are Antichristian
idolaters, and they must not be plucked up, but suffered to grow till the
harvest, as he expounds, this contradicts other Scriptures, which say that
the sword must be drawn against Antichristian idolaters, and they thereby
cut off (Rev. 13:10 and 17:16).
Footnotes:
15. Tossanus on the text. There are those who abuse this text to prove that
punishment ought not to be inflicted upon heretics. Cartwright, Hist.
Christi ex 4 Evang., The Account of Christ in the Four Gospels, book 2, p.
145. But the patrons of the heretics abuse this text to assert the impunity
of their clients. To these, opposition may be offered from the very same
text. First, indeed, is the point that this text treats the complete,
universal eradication of the wicked. Therefore it in no way prevents the
bringing to punishment of certain individuals out of the massive number of
the wicked. Now, unless this is so, on what basis in the word of God are
thieves, murderers, traitors and the like put to death? Truly, if by the
sound doctrine of this parable such as these can be put on the cross or
decapitated (I need hardly say), much more should heretics suffer the
punishment of death. For if those who snatch away perishable goods and this
life, etc. If doing injury to the majesty of the prince, etc., then the
more so, etc. Finally, only in this fashion may they be rooted out so that
the wheat is not eradicated at the same time; it is clear that the
objection can be removed with the good favor of the parable.=20
=20
16. Jerome writing upon this parable moves this doubt: If eradication is
prohibited and the course of endurance must be held until the time of
harvest, how ought some men to be thrown out of our midst? He answers,
Between the wheat and the tares, which we call darnel, there is a great
similarity as long as each one is woolly and the stalk has not yet reached
the stage where it bears an ear, and it is either impossible or very
difficult to distinguish the one from the other. Therefore the Lord warns
us not to swiftly pronounce a sentence when there is any doubt, but to save
the end of the matter for God the Judge.


Sincerely,
Chris Coldwell