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
Sect. 2 cmp with Lords' Sermon 
Subject: Sect. 2 cmp with Lords' Sermon
From: Chris Coldwell 
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 07:46:39 -0500

The following is from Gillespies sermon to the House of Lord's where he
touches upon "Liberty of Conscience" and I have noted similar language to
that in Section Two of the WS thread.  All caps denotes similar language or
idea IMO.  G indicates "for the present" he will only say so and so, maybe
an indication he was writing a fuller discussion or had written one.

A Sermon Preached Before The Right Honorable House Of Lords, In The Abbey
Church At Westminster, August 27, 1645.  being The Day Appointed For Solemn
And Public Humiliation. By George Gillespie


2.  In the second place, think of the extirpation of heresy and of unsound
dangerous doctrine, such as now springs up apace, and subverts the faith of
many.  There is no heretic nor false teacher which has not some one FAIR
PRETEXT or another; but bring him once to be tried by this refining fire,
he is found to be like a potsherd covered with silver dross (Prov. 26:23).
What is the chaff to the wheat, saith the Lord (Jer. 23:28), and what is
the dross to the silver?  If this is the way of Christ which my text speaks
of, then surely that which now passes under the name of liberty of
conscience is not the way of Christ.  Much has been written of this
question.  For my part I shall, FOR THE PRESENT, only offer this one
argument.  If liberty of conscience ought to be granted in matters of
religion, it ought also to be granted in matters civil or military, as is
acknowledged, therefore neither ought it to be granted in matters of
religion.  Put the case: Now there are some well-meaning men, otherwise
void of offence, who from the erroneous persuasion of their consciences,
think it utterly sinful, and contrary to the word of God, to take arms in
the Parliament's service, or to contribute to this present war, or to obey
any ordinance of the lords and commons, which tends to the resisting of the
king's forces.  Now compare this case with the case of a Socinian,
Arminian, Antinomian, or the like.  They both plead for liberty of
conscience; they both say our conscience ought not to be compelled, and if
we do against our conscience, we sin.  I beseech you, how can you give
liberty of conscience to the heretic, and yet refuse liberty of conscience
to him that is the conscientious recusant in point of war?  I am sure there
can be no answer given to this argument which will not be resolved in this
principle: Men's consciences may be compelled for the good of the state,
but not for the glory of God.  We must not suffer the state to sink, but if
religion sinks we cannot help it.  This is the PLAIN ENGLISH of it.

When I speak against liberty of conscience, IT IS FAR FROM MY MEANING TO
ADVISE ANY RIGOROUS OR VIOLENT COURSE AGAINST SUCH AS, BEING SOUND IN THE
FAITH, AND HOLY IN LIFE, and not of a turbulent or factious carriage, do
differ in smaller matters from the common rule.  Let that be darkness; let
not God regard it from above, neither let the light shine upon it (Job
3:4), in which it shall be said that the children of God in Britain are
enemies and persecutors of each other.  He is no good Christian who will
not say Amen to the prayer of Jesus Christ (John 17:21), that all who are
his may be one in him.  If this is heartily wished, let it be effectually
endeavored; and let those who will choose a dividing way rather than a
uniting way bear the blame.
[end of quote]

Sincerely,
Chris Coldwell
===
WF moderator is Richard Bacon, pastor@fpcr.org
Address all mail to the forum at westminster@fpcr.org
For technical questions post Chris Coldwell at naphtali@naphtali.com