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
Re: Questions for thought, section 1 
Subject: Re: Questions for thought, section 1
From: Chris Coldwell 
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 20:14:58 -0500

Gillespie's intro, GWS-1
>when the Church comes out of idolatry, and 
>out of bitter servitude and grievous pressures 
>of conscience, all her storms are not over her 
>head, but she begins to be assaulted and 
>afflicted more than before with heresies, 
>schisms, and home-bred disturbances. Which 

Some observations on sect 1. I think GG is not only saying the storms are
not over, but is indicating that the pressures and afflictions for the
church are different under tyranny (i.e. the papacy and prelates of early
17th century) than under unrestrained freedom to do as one wishes in regard
to religion.  Much of what was happening in the early 1640s London we take
for granted in our day.  It terrified the Scots Presbyterians at
Westminster.  GG said on one occasion, in effect, there were so many sects
welding influence in London, that he feared he himself would follow a sect.
 IOW, if he, who was a strong covenanter, and author in support of the 2nd
Reformation were in danger, the danger and proliferation of sects and
heresies in London was a very big problem indeed.  Can't remember, but it
might have been Baillie who said that one could go abroad in London and not
run into some new sect.  At least it sounds like something Baillie would
have said.

There was tyranny of religion in Scotland before 1637, and GG relies (among
other things) on the doctrine of Liberty of Conscience to plea for
reformation and the removal of idolatrous worship practices at that time
(See English Popish Ceremonies).  Here he is addressing whether there is a
proper restraint by the magistrate that is not tyranny or persecution, but
a real protecting of the church from heresy and schism. In the former case
he argues for the right use of that doctrine, in the latter case against
the misuse and abuse of it. FWIW.
Chris Coldwell
Sincerely,
Chris Coldwell