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: A clarification on GWS-16. 
Subject: Re: A clarification on GWS-16.
From: Matthew Winzer 
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 11:56:08 +1000

To the Westminster Forum,

A private e-mailer expressed a concern that I was not clear enough on where
I stood concerning the magistrate's responsibility with dissenters. In
trying to keep my remarks "to the point" I may have come across a little
unclear, so please allow me to clarify now. 

My post should be seen as making a criticism of that particular statement
in "Wholesome Severity" which I quoted, not with the major thesis the
author was putting forward. He claimed to be taking a middle ground between
papist tyranny and separatist liberty. I, too, would seek that middle
ground and agree that it is lawful for the magistrate to restrain dissent;
but would add the qualifier, that he may do so only when it has a bearing
on the civil realm which he is restricted to in the exercise of his authority.

The author of "Wholesome Severity" has not made it clear that when he
grants to the magistrate a restraining power over "damnable heresies" it is
to be exercised in the civil, public realm. What does he do with the most
damnable heresy of all, unbelief - what the Puritans called "practical
atheism" - the mother of all heresies. This heresy manifests itself every
day: in thought, speech, and behaviour. Ought it to be punished by the
civil magistrate? Only when that heresy causes civil disturbance. Thus the
unbeliever can privately hold to his convictions (God will judge him for
it), but publicly he must abide by the law.

An example may be taken from those sects which deny that Christ is God. On
the Isle of Lewis in Scotland, I have heard that there are a group of
Jehovah's Witnesses who want to open a meeting hall. So far, they have not
been permitted to. This is an excellent example of how the civil government
ought to work. It is not over-stepping the bounds of its authority by
forcing a uniformity in worship, but neither is it allowing private
opinions to become a public disgrace.

Sincerely
Matthew Winzer
Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~matwin/