Women Voting in Church Affairs

[jjeanniton]

Why Congregational Voting is NOT an Exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority – Session 3.

Strictures on the Rev. Jas. Robertson’s Observations on the Veto Act, pp. 23, 24. Edinburgh; 1840:

The substance of Dr. Muir’s whole argument, on the ground of which he has accused the great majority of the Church of “subverting,” “violating,” and “extinguishing an ordinance of Christ,” when thrown into the form of a syllogism, is this:—

Christ has vested the exclusive power of governing and ruling the Church in ecclesiastical office-bearers.

To require the consent, or to give effect to the dissent, of the people in the settlement of ministers, is to assign to them a share in the government of the Church.

Ergo, the principle of the veto act is opposed to the appointment of Christ.

AH HA! The minor premise of Dr Muir, namely that ‘To require the consent, or to give effect to the dissent, of the people in the settlement of ministers, is to assign to them a share in the government of the Church’ is EXACTLY identical to the tenet of Voetius that ‘the election (of a minister) is an act of church-rule’!

But to continue with the Rev. Robertson’s testimony:

‘Now, Dr. Muir knows well enough that his opponents concede [viz. AFFIRM] his major proposition, and deny the minor, and yet his main efforts are directed to this object of proving the major, which he does, by quotations from the standards of the Church, just as if the orthodoxy of his opponent had been liable to any suspicion, while he made no attempt to establish the minor, which we meet with a direct negative. It was the more necessary for him to establish the Minor proposition by satisfactory evidence, because in past ages it has been maintained chiefly by Papists and Independents, AND HAS BEEN STRENUOUSLY OPPOSED BY THE ABLEST AND MOST LEARNED DEFENDERS OF PRESBYTERY, who have contended that EVEN GIVING TO THE PEOPLE THE RIGHT OF ELECTING THEIR MINISTERS, A LARGER SHARE OF INFLUENCE THAN THE RIGHT OF CONSENTING OR DISSENTING, DID NOT IMPLY THAT THEY HAD ANY SHARE IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH.’ This however runs contrary to the tenets of Dr. H. Bouwman’s article, Gereformeerd Kerkrecht vol. 1 (Kampen: Kok, 1928), pp, 386-394.

Again, we will make the syllogism:

Major Premise: Christ has vested the exclusive power of governing and ruling the Church in ecclesiastical office-bearers.

AFFIRM: Presbyterian Church, Synod of Dort, Papists, Eastern/Greek/Slavic/Russian/Ethiopian Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Wesleyans.

DENY: Baptists, Congregationalists.

Minor Premise: But to require the consent, or to give effect to the dissent, of the people in the settlement of ministers, is to assign to them a share in the government of the Church.

AFFIRM: Dr. Muir, Dr. H. Bouwman & Voetius, Gereformeerd Kerkrecht vol. 1 (Kampen: Kok, 1928), pp, 386-394, Dr. Hodge, Papists (Cardinal Bellarmine) and Independentists.

DENY: The Southern Presbyterian Review XIII.4 (January 1861): 757-810, Gillespie’s Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, pp. 116 and 117; Baillie’s Dissuasive from the Errors of the Time, part. ix., pp. 194 and 195; Wood’s Refutation of Lockier, part II., pp. 214 and 244; Strictures on the Rev. Jas. Robertson’s Observations on the Veto Act, pp. 23, 24. Edinburgh; 1840.

Ergo: the principle of the veto act is opposed to the appointment of Christ.

The Old-School ultra-conservative Presbyterians DENY the Minor Premise whenever they need to defend themselves against Papists and Congregationalists, but AFFIRM the Minor Premise in order to deny women to right participate in congregational voting!! Thus the old-school ultra-conservative Presbyterian system of Congregational Voting contradicts itself, and therefore cannot be a truly Scriptural system of voting! Every self-contradictory stance or agenda is a LIE, and NO lie is of the Truth! Jesus put it even more bluntly when He said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand" - Matthew 12:25, Luke 3:25.

[newbie]

hmmm... we have always voted on church affairs... whether it be in a board meeting or business meeting...

[jjeanniton]

Why Congregational Voting is NOT an Exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority – Session 4.

Let us revisit Gillespie’s Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, pp. 116 and 117. Gillespie stated quite plainly that:

‘Though ordination of office-bearers in the church be an act of jurisdiction, it doth not appear that the election of them is an act of jurisdiction likewise. Though the solemnizing of marriage be an act of authority, yet the choice and desire of the parties is not an act of authority. 2.) OR, IF YOU WILL, ELECTION OF MINISTERS IS ONE OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE CHURCH, YET NO ACT OF JURISDICTION’, neither in the hands of the Consistory, nor in the hands of the congregation.

The men who DENIED Dr Muir’s Minor premise were careful to state that it is not the act of election, but the act of CHEIROTONIA (ordination) that constitutes an act of jurisdiction, governance, and rule over the church.

The whole of the people, congregation, elders, and consistory, have the right to vote and elect church officers. But only the consistory can ordain.

Here is the syllogism again.

Premise 1.1: Every act of election (no less than every act of ordination) of officebearers by the consistory is an exercise of church-rule.

Premise 1.2: Every granting of the right to elect office-bearers is an appeal to the congregation to share in the right of the consistory to elect office bearers.

Conclusion 1: Ergo, every exercise of the congregation’s right to vote is a participation with the consistory in the act of church rule.

This syllogism seems plausible enough, but let me expand it.

Premise 1.1.1: Every act of ordination of officebearers by the consistory is an exercise of church-rule.

Premise 1.1.2: Every consistory has the right to choose officebearers.

Premise 1.1.3: The consistory has every right to ordain the officers they have chosen.

Ergo 1.1: Every act of election of officebearers by the consistory is an exercise of church-rule.

This sounds plausible enough: but by the same logic I could prove the following:

Premise 1.1.4: Every act of solemnization of matrimony by the officiant is an exercise of church-rule.

Premise 1.1.5: Every officiant has the right to choose for every husband a wife and for every wife a husband.

Premise 1.1.6: Every officiant has every right to solemnize into matrimony the respective conjugal pairs they have chosen to be united unto each other henceforth as husband and wife.

Ergo 1.1.7: Every act of election of conjugal pairs to be wedded unto each other in holy matrimony, no less than every act of solemnizing and adjuring them into the estate of holy matrimony, is an exercise of church-rule.

Premise 1.1.8: Every granting of the right of suitors to woo marriageable maidens, and marriageable maidens to accept to reject suitors, and then to become betrothed unto each other and elect to be joined in holy matrimony, is an appeal to the betrothed parties (and/or their matchmakers) to share in this right of the officiant to elect conjugal pairs to be wedded unto each other in holy matrimony.

Ergo 1.1.9: Every exercise of the right of suitors to woo marriageable maidens, and marriageable maidens to accept to reject suitors, and then to become betrothed unto each other and elect to be joined in holy matrimony is an exercise of church-rule. QED

Now everyone KNOWS that this syllogism is quite absurd. Everyone would readily AFFIRM Premise 1.1.4, but even if Premises 1.1.5, 1.1.6 had been both true, yet even so, the conclusion in question, namely Ergo 1.1.7, does not follow from the truth of the premises. This syllogism is therefore a Non Sequitur.

Therefore I cannot accept the syllogism presented by Premises 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, and Ergo 1.1. The truth of the conclusion does not follow from the truth of the premises in the syllogism presented by Premises 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, and Ergo 1.1. But on the contrary, I must answer that the right to elect and choose is not the same as the right to ordain. The authority in this matter does not lie in the right to elect and choose, but in the right to ordain. I must therefore deny Conclusion 1. Of course the people may choose and elect, but only the consistory may ordain. It is not the right of electing and choosing, but the right or ordaining, that constitutes an act of church rule.

[jjeanniton]

Why Congregational Voting is NOT an Exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority – Session 5.

You cannot accept the truth of Bouwman’s contention without destroying Presbyterianism.

Suppose that Bouwman’s contention is true. But the truth of the matter is that

Premise 2.1: If Presbyterianism is the true doctrine of the Bible, then Christ has vested the exclusive power of governing and ruling the Church in ecclesiastical office-bearers.

Premise 2.2: But every exercise of the congregation’s right to vote is a participation with the consistory in the act of church rule.

Premise 2.3: But Presbyterianism admits that: Every minister that is lawfully ordained must be ordained upon the choice and/or with the consent of the people.

Let us consider Premises 2.2, 2.3.

Every minister that is lawfully ordained must be ordained upon the choice and/or with the consent of the people. (All As are Bs.)

But every choice and/or the consent of the people is a participation with the consistory in the act of church rule. (All Bs are Cs).

Ergo: All As are Cs! Every minister that is lawfully ordained must be so by the people’s prerogative to exercise certain suitable acts of church government and ruling, adapted to this purpose.

The syllogism I just used is named Barbara. Voethius and Bouwman have assayed to use a syllogism named Celarent:

No Bs are As; But all Cs are Bs; Therefore no Cs are As.

That is to say, No acts of church government are lawful for women to exercise; But all acts of voting in congregational affairs are acts of church government; Therefore no acts of voting in congregational affairs are lawful for women to exercise. [I affirm the major premise, but must deny the minor premise].

But how about Camestres?

All Ps are Ms; but no Ss are Ms; ergo no Ss are Ps.

That is to say, All acts of voting in congregational affairs are acts of church government [I must deny this premise]; but no woman can lawfully exercise acts of church government [I affirm this premise]; ergo no woman can lawfully vote in congregational affairs.

The conclusion I derived in the form of the conclusion of Barbara, namely that every minister that is lawfully ordained must be so by the people’s prerogative to exercise certain suitable acts of church government and ruling, adapted to this purpose, directly contradicts Premise 2.1. Therefore Bouwman’s “proof” that all voting in congregational affairs are acts of church government would destroy Presbyterianism altogether!

But I will also prove in the next session that whatever destroys Presbyterianism therefore also destroys Calvinism.

[jjeanniton]

Why Congregational Voting is NOT an Exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority – Session 6.

Theorem: Whosoever shall AFFIRM all five Points of Calvinism must therefore DENY the lawfulness or permissibility of any form of church government other than Presbyterian.

Proof:

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA412&dq=%22independents%22+church+government+%22female%22&ei=nE5HU43dB-rK8gHM1YGQAw&id=UaQ6AAAAcAAJ&output=text:

“Presbyterianism, in its government, is a representative republic; its ecclesiastical tribunals throughout all their gradations of church sessions, presbyteries, synods, and general assemblies, are composed of an equal number of clergy and lay elders, whose votes have all equal efficacy, and who transact their business on their deliberative floor, much in the same manner as do our Congress and state legislatures. In the Independent Congregational churches all is carried by universal suffrage in each separate congregation, there being no general ecclesiastical tribunal to which may be referred the graver matters of doctrine and discipline, but all being submitted, finally and without appeal, to the votes, male and FEMALE, of each single audience. [The votes MALE and FEMALE?!? OY GEVALT! If this isn’t woman suffrage, I don’t know what is!] In such a system it is almost impossible to prevent the departure from old and the introduction of new doctrines; and, accordingly, both in Old and New England, many of the Independent Churches have passed gradually from Calvinism, through the intermediate stages of Arminianism, Arianism, and Semi-Arianism, into Socinianism, or Unitarianism, or, as Priestley calls it, Humanitarianism, because it denies the divinity of Jesus Christ, and considers him merely "as a frail, peccable, erring man."”

From which we learn as an unexpected corollary, that only Presbyterianism can be, in the long run, consistent with Calvinism. All other schemes of Church government will eventually DESTROY Calvinism and replace it with Arminianism, Molinism, or even Pelagianism! NO PRESBYTERIANISM ---> NO CALVINISM! (The '--->' symbol stands for 'if ... then ...'.)

And even the title itself of yet another article, beginning on page 60, written in the Report of Proceedings of the First General Presbyterian Council, Convened at Edinburgh, July 1877, is a complete refutation of ALL those who say that other schemes of Church government, other than Presbyterian, can ever be consistent with Calvinism.

Its title is: THE CHURCHLINESS OF CALVINISM: PRESBYTERY JURE DIVINO ITS LOGICAL OUTCOME; and it begins on page 60.

Especially on page 63:

Such, then, is the general conception of the Church visible, logically developed from the Calvinistic theology of the eternal purpose of God to redeem a body of sinners out of the fallen race. The only logical outcome is Presbyterianism, and all Church history testifies to the fact that only in connection with a Presbyterian Church-government can the Calvinistic doctrines long be preserved pure . A reference to the Calvinistic creeds of the Reformation will show that the theory of the Church here developed was plainly the conception which Calvinists then had, however they may have failed afterward to maintain it fully. Some of them more fully, some less, brought out the conception of the Church visible as the manifestation of the Church ideal of the purpose of redemption. In the Westminster Confession the Church is defined fully and as a point of the Calvinistic doctrine. The entire definition extends through three paragraphs, containing in their logical order the three elementary ideas which enter into the conception of the Church as a complete whole, one paragraph being given to each. First is defined the Church ideal of the eternal purpose. Second, this ideal as manifest and actual in the Church visible. Third, this visible Church as an organic body receiving visible officers, laws, and ordinances from her great Head.

Ergo: Whosoever shall AFFIRM all five Points of Calvinism must therefore DENY the lawfulness or permissibility of any form of church government other than Presbyterian. QED

Thus these Presbyterians who in order to deny women the right to vote in congregational affairs, argue that voting is an act of rule and government, unwittingly contradict the very foundations of not only their own professed Presbyterian church polity, but even Calvinistic theology itself!

[jjeanniton]

Why Congregational Voting is NOT an Exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority – Session 7.

Earlier this week, I proved that no form of church government, except the Presbyterian, is in the long run, consistent with Calvinism. All other forms of Church government can only be defended on Arminian grounds.

In Church history, a Presbyterian clergyman named Thomas M’Crie, writing AGAINST the lawfulness of women voting in congregational affairs (in his treatise On the Right of Females to Vote in the Election of Ministers and Elders – which should have been more aptly named: Against the Right of Females to Vote in the Election of Ministers and Elders), stated on pages 674 and 675 of his Miscellaneous Writings that:

Another writer now before me expressly states, that women were not allowed to vote in Holland, even in those parishes where election was most popular and free. It is stated in the disputes between the Orthodox and Arminians, in that country, previous to their coming to an open breach, THAT THE ARMINIANS, WITH THE VIEW OF GETTING MINISTERS PLANTED WHO WERE OF THEIR VIEWS, HAD RECOURSE TO THE UNPRECEDENTED PRACTICE OF PROCURING THE SUBSCRIPTIONS AND VOTES OF WOMEN. Even among the sober part of the Independents, Brownists, and Anabaptists in the 17th Century, were not admitted to vote; as you may see stated in “Gillespie’s Misc. Questions,” p. 24.

Thus these Presbyterians affirm out of their OWN mouths that Woman Suffrage is an Arminian innovation. It can only be defended on Arminian grounds!

Thomas M’Crie, in order to “prove” from Scripture that woman suffrage in the congregation is anti-Scriptural, asserts a variant of the Minor Premise in question. He asserted that: Every exercise of the congregation’s right to elect a candidate to the ordained ministry is an exercise of authority over the candidate to be elected.

Unless that assertion is refuted, it will be absolutely impossible to defend woman suffrage from the heinous charge of being anti-Scriptural.

For one thing, I already showed you Gillespie’s Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, pp. 116 and 117, in which he states POINT BLANK:

Though ordination of office-bearers in the church be an act of jurisdiction, it doth not appear that the election of them is an act of jurisdiction likewise. Though the solemnizing of marriage be an act of authority, yet the choice and desire of the parties is not an act of authority. 2.) OR, IF YOU WILL, ELECTION OF MINISTERS IS ONE OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE CHURCH, YET NO ACT OF JURISDICTION...

neither in the hands of the Consistory, nor in the hands of the congregation.

The choice and desire of the properties is not an act of authority over the parties chosen, neither in marriage (and therefore), nor in the election of ministers, nor any other affair that is put on the referendum for congregational vote.

Yet Gillespie OPPOSED woman suffrage in the Church. What argument do you suppose he would use to explain WHY he opposed woman suffrage? At least we know that Thomas M’Crie, and many OTHER Presbyterians, argued VEHEMENTLY that the practice of voting is an exercise of authority and jurisdiction: but Gillespie DENIED on pp. 116 and 117 of the Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, that the practice of voting is an exercise of authority and jurisdiction.

I already remarked that thus do the defenders of Presbyterian Church Government contradict themselves and each other. The practice of Woman Suffrage in the Protestant Reformation began with the Arminians. It could NEVER have originated among the Calvinists, nor the Lutherans. 

But then the Arminian virus of woman suffrage spread to certain congregations of the Congregationalists and lurked there.

Have you ever heard of the Rev. John Gill, D.D.? To learn some more about his life & teachings, please consult https://archive.org/download/briefmemoiroflif00ripp/briefmemoiroflif00ripp.pdf. This Rev. John Gill, D.D., was a Particular Baptist clergyman in England in the early 18th Century. He wrote a comprehensive and fully detailed verse-by-verse Commentary on the Whole Bible. See http://sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/gill/index.htm. In the next session, we shall discuss what part female suffrage in congregational church voting played in the election of this aforesaid John Gill to become a pastor over a certain Baptist congregation, and prove irrefutably that the parish John Gill was elected pastor was already infected with the virus of woman suffrage ideology!

[jjeanniton]

Why Congregational Voting is NOT an Exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority – Session 8.

http://sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/gill/index.htm:

John Gill (b. 23 Nov 1697, d. 14 Oct 1771), was an English Baptist writer and theologian. Gill was a strong Calvinist. This work is considered his magnum opus, a commentary on the entire Bible. This was originally published in two parts, the 3 volume An Exposition of the New Testament (1746-8), and the 6 volume An Exposition of the Old Testament (1748-63). Gill was a life-long Hebrew scholar, and he also learned Greek by age 11.

For now this is all that needs to be said about the identity of John Gill. For a fuller description: http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/gill.john.b.encyclo.html. I do not know if he was personally an advocate of female suffrage in congregational matters, but here comes the question: Why did WOMEN vote for John Gill?

TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION!

Around the time of 1719 – 1729, in a certain Particular Baptist Congregation in England,

…there came before the church an excellent young man, whose after life proved that he was well qualified for the pastorate, but either he was too young, being only twenty or one-and-twenty years of age, or there were certain points in his manner which were not pleasing to the older friends, and therefore he was earnestly opposed. The deacons, with the exception of Mr. Thomas Crosby, schoolmaster, and son-in-law of [Benjamin] Keach, were resolved that this young man, who was no other than JOHN GILL, from Kettering, should not become the Pastor. He found, however, warm and numerous supporters, and when the question came to a vote, his admirers claimed the majority, and in all probability their claim was correct, for the other party declined a scrutiny of the votes, and also raised the question of the women's voting, declaring, what was no doubt true, that apart from the female vote John Gill was in the minority.

- Spurgeon, Charles H.  C.H. Spurgeon Autobiography.  Volume I [of II]: The Early Years.   1834-1859.    Revised.  Compiled by Susannah Spurgeon (wife) and Joseph Harrald.  Carlisle, PA, USA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1962 (1897-1900), Reprinted 1981. See: https://books.google.com/books?id=mLSVNj1s4n4C&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=%22John+Gill%22+%22female+vote%22+baptist&source=bl&ots=l2eySvOYxB&sig=KmBxm1m7KNOJM5WEb1YTMyixdJ0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2WyEVYzlK4nCggTou4CwAQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22John%20Gill%22%20%22female%20vote%22%20baptist&f=false.

Obviously, many men of that parish church were indignant because they believed that to allow women to vote in Church is contrary to Natural Law – let alone the laws and precepts of God (and that is why these men protested against these election results). Furthermore, this church, to the best of my knowledge, seems to be none other than the Metropolitan Tabernacle. As it turns out, the virus of woman-suffrage ideology had already been not only hiding, it had been thriving and fruitful and effectual among John Gill’s supporters, and his opponents judged it irrefutable that his supporters would not have dared to support John Gill without the votes of women!

The old-school ultrafundamentalist Presbyterian would have you believe that the feminist / woman-suffrage movement began in France in 1793 and was originated by Marie Condorcet and Olympe de Gouges. The truth is, that John Gill died in 1774, exactly 15 years BEFORE the beginning of the French Revolution. The election of John Gill to be a pastor of that parish church (which now meets at Metropolitan Tabernacle), which began in Southwark, London, UK, and which election would never have occurred without the suffrages and ballots of the women of that parish, occurred in 1720 – exactly 71 years BEFORE the French Revolution. This is irrefutable historical proof that the women of that parish were already tainted and polluted with the virus of woman-suffrage ideology. And John Gill would have never been a pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle without the votes of women. If it indeed be true that woman suffrage in congregational elections is contrary to the Law of God, well then the Lord shall NEVER hold John Gill guiltless for his participation in the iniquity committed by the women. Romans 1:32, 2:1 & 3. The accursed thing (Joshua 7), if not the Abomination of Desolation (Daniel 9, Matthew 24:15-20), is standing in their temple (yet it ought not to stand there at all – Mark 13:14)! The Curse of Achan is on the Metropolitan Tabernacle, and they shall indeed perish by the sword except they repent of their iniquity, in particular, of complicity in the part that the women played in electing John Gill to be a pastor of the congregation, as well as of woman suffrage in general.

[newbie]

lots of posts and lots of material...

what's your point?  I'm a bit confused, sorry.

[jjeanniton]

Why Congregational Voting is NOT an Exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority – Session 9.

Woman Suffrage ideology had also been lurking in some obscure places in America. For example, what about the Quakers? This was one of the very first sects to allow women to preach and teach in Church. The question is now, did they allow women to vote in congregational matters? At least they had separate Women’s meetings. I must do some more research in order to determine whether or not there was voting occurring in these meetings.

In 1746, a Baptist Church in Philadelphia wrote this message:

Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association (1746):

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/phila.query.answers.html:

3. Query:
Whether women may or ought to have their votes in the church, in such matters as the church shall agree to be decided by votes?

Solution. As that in 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35, and other parallel texts, are urged against their votes, as a rule, and ought, therefore, to be maturely considered.

If, then, the silence enjoined on women be taken so absolute, as that they must keep entire silence in all respects whatever; yet, notwithstanding, it is to be hoped they may have, as members of the body of the church, liberty to give a mute voice, by standing or lifting up of the hands, or the contrary, to signify their assent or dissent to the thing proposed, and so augment the number on the one or both sides of the question. But, with the consent of authors and casuists, such absolute silence in all respects cannot be intended; for if so, how shall a woman make a confession of her faith to the satisfaction of the whole church? Or how shall the church judge whether a woman be in the faith or no? How shall a woman offended, after regular private proceeding with an offending member, tell the church, as she is bound to do, if the offender be obstinate, according to the rule, Matt. xviii. 17? How shall a woman do, if she be an evidence to a matter of fact? Shall the church grope in the dark for want of her evidence to clear the doubt? Surely not. Again, how shall a woman defend herself if wrongfully accused, if she must not speak? This is a privilege of all human creatures by the laws of nature, not abrogated by the law of God.

Therefore there must be times and ways in and by which women, as members of the body, may discharge their conscience and duty towards God and men, as in the cases above said and the like. And a woman may, at least, make a brother a mouth to ask leave to speak, if not ask it herself; and a time of hearing is to be allowed, for that is not inconsistent with the silence and subjection enjoined on them by the law of God and nature, yet ought not they to open the floodgate of speech in an imperious, tumultuous, masterly manner. Hence the silence, with subjection, enjoined on all women in the church of God, is such a silence as excludes all women whomsoever from all degrees of teaching, ruling, governing, dictating, and leading in the church of God; yet may their voice be taken as above said. But if a woman's role be singular, her reasons ought to be called for, heard, and maturely considered, without contempt.

This Baptist church, in 1746, favored a form of woman’s suffrage by which she may tacitly give her assent or dissent to a given referendum or candidate. Better yet, they might as well introduce the secret ballot which does not require any open public speaking at all on the part of the voters.

Here is another surprise of history: Did you know that the FIRST de jure lawfully approved woman voter in colonial America was Lydia Taft in 1756? Why isn’t the Public School of America teaching ANY of these facts in their History books?

[ColporteurK]

lots of posts and lots of material...

what's your point?  I'm a bit confused, sorry.

jj really enjoys studying the history of what the fallen churches have done.

[jjeanniton]

Why Congregational Voting is NOT an Exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority – Session 10.

Let us now flash forward to the date, March 31, 1764.

Certain individual Baptist Churches in this country actually APPROVED of women voting in congregational affairs!

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA151&dq=%22Baptist+Church%22+voting&ei=6KQ9U5rQB5PlsASVkYDgCg&id=grlaAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q=%22Baptist%20Church%22%20voting&f=false:

Voting by Women.—The Minutes for March 31, 1764, contain the following item in reference to the voting by women at the church business meetings:

“The following reply to a query, brought the last meeting of business, was agreed upon by all present:
“ ‘ Whether women have a right of voting in the church?’ To which we reply, with due honour to our sisters: That the rights of Christians are not subject to our determinations, nor to the determinations of any church or state upon earth. We could easily answer that, in civil affairs, they have no such right; but whether they have, or have not in the church, can only be determined by the Gospel, to which we refer them. But if, upon enquiry, no such grant of right can be found in the gospel, and if voting should appear to be a mere custom, we see no necessity for breaking it, except the custom should, at any time, be stretched to subvert the subordination which the gospel hath established in all the churches of the saints. I suffer not a woman to usurp authority; but command that she be in subjection, as also saith the law. I Tim. ii; I Cor. xiv. Nor do we know that this church, or any of us, have done anything to deprive the sisters of such a practice be it a right, or be it a custom only, except a neglect on a late occasion be deemed such, which we justify not. On the contrary, if the sisters do attend our meetings of business, we purpose that their suffrage or disapprobation shall have their proper influence; and, in case they do not attend statedly we purpose to invite them when anything is to be transacted which touches the interest of their souls. We depute our brother Samuel Davis to wait on the sisters, with our Christian respects; and to communicate to them this our minute.”

At least some of these Baptist churches in colonial Pennsylvania judged it irrefutable that voting congregationally is not an exercise of authority and jurisdiction church!

lots of posts and lots of material...

what's your point?  I'm a bit confused, sorry.

jj really enjoys studying the history of what the fallen churches have done.

The reason why I post these things is to show that the Woman's Suffrage ideology / practice did not have its origins in the tenets of Spiritualism, nor from the Atheistic French Revolution, but was already hiding out (and sprouting and growing) in an embryonic form in many of the Congregationalist (and even some Presbyterian) churches of the early 18th century without even the slightest sympathy at all for the tenets of Spiritualism or Atheistic French Revolution propagation.

[newbie]

Why Congregational Voting is NOT an Exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority – Session 10.

Let us now flash forward to the date, March 31, 1764.

Certain individual Baptist Churches in this country actually APPROVED of women voting in congregational affairs!

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA151&dq=%22Baptist+Church%22+voting&ei=6KQ9U5rQB5PlsASVkYDgCg&id=grlaAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q=%22Baptist%20Church%22%20voting&f=false:

Voting by Women.—The Minutes for March 31, 1764, contain the following item in reference to the voting by women at the church business meetings:

“The following reply to a query, brought the last meeting of business, was agreed upon by all present:
“ ‘ Whether women have a right of voting in the church?’ To which we reply, with due honour to our sisters: That the rights of Christians are not subject to our determinations, nor to the determinations of any church or state upon earth. We could easily answer that, in civil affairs, they have no such right; but whether they have, or have not in the church, can only be determined by the Gospel, to which we refer them. But if, upon enquiry, no such grant of right can be found in the gospel, and if voting should appear to be a mere custom, we see no necessity for breaking it, except the custom should, at any time, be stretched to subvert the subordination which the gospel hath established in all the churches of the saints. I suffer not a woman to usurp authority; but command that she be in subjection, as also saith the law. I Tim. ii; I Cor. xiv. Nor do we know that this church, or any of us, have done anything to deprive the sisters of such a practice be it a right, or be it a custom only, except a neglect on a late occasion be deemed such, which we justify not. On the contrary, if the sisters do attend our meetings of business, we purpose that their suffrage or disapprobation shall have their proper influence; and, in case they do not attend statedly we purpose to invite them when anything is to be transacted which touches the interest of their souls. We depute our brother Samuel Davis to wait on the sisters, with our Christian respects; and to communicate to them this our minute.”

At least some of these Baptist churches in colonial Pennsylvania judged it irrefutable that voting congregationally is not an exercise of authority and jurisdiction church!

lots of posts and lots of material...

what's your point?  I'm a bit confused, sorry.

jj really enjoys studying the history of what the fallen churches have done.

The reason why I post these things is to show that the Woman's Suffrage ideology / practice did not have its origins in the tenets of Spiritualism, nor from the Atheistic French Revolution, but was already hiding out (and sprouting and growing) in an embryonic form in many of the Congregationalist (and even some Presbyterian) churches of the early 18th century without even the slightest sympathy at all for the tenets of Spiritualism or Atheistic French Revolution propagation.

ok thanks

[jjeanniton]

Why Congregational Voting is NOT an Exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority – Session 11.

Now let us flash back to 1747. Around that time, the Burghers (whoever they were), who were a sect of Presbyterians in Scotland, actually in some cases ALLOWED women to vote! And there is another unsung hero of Woman Suffrage, named Robert Small. He wrote an article called, "Woman's Vote in the Secession Church". And I am not talking about the Confederate States of America - I am talking about a sect of Presbyterians who seceded from the Established church.

WOMAN'S VOTE IN THE SECESSION CHURCH

THIS is very much a reprint of an article contributed to the U.P. Magazine in 1899. In 1736 the Associate Presbytery declared in their Testimony, and next year they enacted, that ministers and other office-bearers are to be set over congregations by the call and consent of the majority of the members in full communion. This reads like a charter of woman's rights; but when Currie of Kinglassie pressed the question whether the Associate Presbytery meant by that enactment to give equal rights to men and women in the election of ministers William Wilson of Perth made an entire surrender. Though professing to consider it a matter of little moment, he made answer that there was no difference of opinion between Mr Currie and the Associate Presbytery upon that head. He also appealed to Morebattle, Stow, West Linton, and other places for evidence that it was the uniform practice of him and his brethren not to sustain females as electors. In keeping with this, the call to Mr Wilson's successor at Perth, a few years afterwards, is found to have been signed by male members only.

At that period even the advocates of popular rights had no tolerance for the female vote. In a pamphlet by certain Protestors against the Act of 1732 it is argued that, since women are to keep silence in the church, they are precluded from taking part in the election of ministers. Besides, since they form the majority in many congregations, the writers were clear that, if women were permitted to vote, elections might frequently be overruled by them, "and thereby they would usurp authority over the men."

But this assertion of these aforesaid Protestors is PRECISELY the assertion of Cardinal Bellarmine (or at least presupposes it)!

They also affirmed that such a thing was never heard of till 1700, when the right to choose and nominate for vacancies being given to all Protestant heritors it allowed women having landed interest to get in by a side door. In another pamphlet of similar date, and on the same side, the right of election is limited to male heads of families, and it is explained that wives and children may take part therein "by influencing with religious and rational arguments" their husbands and fathers in favour of one candidate rather than another.

Arguments like these are PRECISELY the TRADITIONAL Presbyterian, as well as the traditional CONGREGATIONALIST rationale of why women were DENIED the right to vote in congregational elections.

At that period popular election, as we understand it, was scarcely thought of. Ebenezer Erskine was ordained at Portmoak on a call from the heritors and elders, "cheerfully acquiesced in by the whole population." When he was called to Tulliallan it was by "the heritors, elders, and masters of families," the consent of the people being implied. When an attempt was made to have him removed to Burntisland it was the heritors, magistrates, and elders who were equally divided between him and another. The translating call to Stirling "was subscribed by the magistrates and Town Council and elders of the burgh and congregation, with the special advice and unanimous consent of the whole community thereof." There was also "a long paper subscribed by many heads of families." Such was the method followed, and it explains the expression, the call and consent of those in full communion. But the fathers of the Secession were out on open ground when they enunciated the broad principle that the right of election belongs to those "in full communion with the Church in all her sealing ordinances." This may not have been designed to include the female vote, but the logical application was sure to come, though in the Antiburgher section it was long in coming.

Thus you see that the Presbyterian Church was at first OPPOSED to the right of women to vote in congregational elections. The Presbyterian Clergy used EXACTLY the SAME argument against women's voting that the Papist, Cardinal Bellarmine used AGAINST the Presbyterians and Independents! Thus the Presbyterians contradicted themselves when it comes to congregational voting!! This is one good reaon why I can NEVER become a Presbyterian, much less a Calvinist!

[jjeanniton]

Why Congregational Voting is NOT an Exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority – Session 12.

The first traces of woman-suffrage appeared in certain Burgher congregations in 1747.

The first trace of woman's vote in a Secession congregation is met with at Kinclaven in May 1747, a fortnight after the Breach. The minutes of session bear that, before going on with the moderation for Mr Blyth, the names of those who were in accession to the Testimony were read, and these were sustained as voters in the forthcoming election. The call was subscribed by 159 members, though four years afterwards, with the congregation on the increase, the entire number was only 214. There had been no distinction in this case between the rights of men and women. But though there was no express legislation either way it came in a few years to be understood that among the Burghers the female vote passed unchallenged, while among the Antiburghers it was disallowed. The latter part of this statement I would have deemed universally true were it not that in a pamphlet by one of their preachers, James Watt, M.D., there is something like opposing testimony. The writer says, as to those who have a right to vote, "our practice is not uniform; in some places females are excluded, in others they may be electors."

We find this in James Watt, A Candid Inquiry into Some Points of Public Religion, page 32, written in 1794 – five years since the French Revolution! Clearly some of these Seceder Churches were already harboring and cultivating the monstrous virus of woman suffrage!

Accordingly it comes out that a call from Belford in 1792 was subscribed by "11 male and 8 female members of the congregation, and by 14 male and 4 female adherents not in communion; and likewise an adherence to said call subscribed by 3 male and 3 female members of the congregation who were not present on the day of moderation, and by 51 adherents of both sexes not in communion." This congregation, however, had come over from the Burghers not long before.

Ever and again there is evidence, in Presbytery minutes especially, that among the Antiburghers the female vote was nowhere. On one occasion it is entered that the minister who presided at a moderation, on closing the service, requested all except male communicants to withdraw. Then, after prayer, the work went on. In other cases a similar course must have been followed. Thus, of a moderation at Whitehaven in 1772, it is stated that the call was signed by all the members present except one; but if so the female part of the congregation must have retired, for the call lies before me signed by male members only. On these occasions woman's presence was dispensed with as well as woman's vote. It was the same sometimes when steps were taken to have vacancies filled up. When Mearns people were about to call Mr Hugh Stirling "the members present at the meeting of the congregation which drew up the petition would be about 60 males" That same day a call from Newarthill to the same preacher was brought up to the Presbytery of Glasgow, "subscribed by 54 male members," and it was intimated that, with one exception, all the members had subscribed, which can only mean all who were entitled to exercise that function. These things bring out the extent to which, in Antiburgher congregations, the female part of the constituency was ignored.

In the signing of calls there were the same restrictions, and others besides. First of all, only those who were present on the moderation day had the privilege of ranking as subscribers. To this system the Antiburghers seem to have kept very rigidly all through. The call, with the list of names appended, was the essential document, and, as a rule, this was marked by the entire absence of female signatures. In the case of, perhaps, one-half of these calls it is expressly stated that the subscribers were male members of the congregation, and even where the limiting word is wanting the shortcoming in numbers necessitates the same conclusion. Besides, I happen to have seen several of these Antiburgher calls, such as one from Lockerbie in 1762, another from Whitehaven in 1772, and a third from Milnathort in 1806, and in each case the "undersubscribers," though designated "elders and other members," are men without exception.

Thus the Antiburghers fiercely OPPOSED the right of women to vote congregationally for the time being. However, the women of the Anti-burgher faction found ways to intervene without voting.

[jjeanniton]

Why Congregational Voting is NOT an Exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority – Session 13.

But in course of time the exclusion of the female vote at Antiburgher moderations did not prevent female intervention in other ways. Of this we find a marked specimen amidst the commotion which arose in Edinburgh over the choice of a successor to Adam Gib. The party which afterwards went off and formed Potterrow congregation, now Hope Park, succeeded at the first election in carrying their man. But the entire session was on the other side, and they were backed before Presbytery and Synod by two petitions—the one from 108 men, the other from 214 women—pleading that the call be not sustained, and if, as the Secession Testimony declared, ministers were to be set over congregations by the call and consent of those in full communion, it was right that non-consent on the part of female communicants should find expression. The opposition prevailed, and the Synod refused to translate. After the two parties separated the old congregation called Mr Jamieson of Forfar, and again female membership made its influence felt. The call itself carried only 103 names, but the special adherence was signed by 115 in full communion, of whom 97 were women. This betokened a working up towards equality. What view their old minister, Mr Gib, would have taken of these innovations can only be conjectured. In his "Display" he was at pains to explain from Nehemiah how the Antiburghers allowed the anomaly of women as well as men subscribing the bond of the Covenant.

So much for the Anti-Burghers.

As for the Burghers, there is evidence that they granted equal rights to all communicants, male and female, almost from the first. So early as 1751 the call from Stirling to James Erskine, though a number held back, was signed on the spot by about 826, and, large as the congregation was, this number could scarcely have been reached under Antiburgher restrictions.

So even as early as 1751, this “monstriferous” “infidel” “Jacobinical” “anti-Scriptural” “feminazi” “virus” of woman suffrage (if indeed woman suffrage is anti-Scriptural) and “civil feminism” was not only hiding under the auspices of the Burghers, it was taking sustenance, growing, and thriving there – exactly 38 years BEFORE the French Revolution! They must therefore be judged as guilty de jure Divino (i.e. under Divine Law) of “Feminism” as was the French Revolution feminist Olympe de Gouges.

When Dunfermline commissioners in 1758 wished the Presbytery to declare who were the legal voters in the election of a minister, they were referred to the Act and Testimony, which gives the right to those in full communion. In like manner, when Stirling people in 1764 craved the advice of the Synod as to the qualification of electors, they were instructed to adhere to the Secession Testimony, and it was only by taking the Testimony in a non-natural sense that the suffrages of females could be disallowed. Accordingly John Brown of Haddington, an honoured name among the Burghers, in his "History of the Secession" and in his "Constitution of the Christian Church," assigns the right of choice, without any reserve, to "adult Church members free of scandal." In support of this contention he quotes the text, that in Christ there is neither male nor female.

But these are EXACTLY the arguments that Civil Feminists use in favor of Woman Suffrage! This is sufficient proof that these Burghers were Civil Feminists and must be judged de jure divino to be guilty of such an ideology.

In the next session, I will outline the salient points of the arguments that James Watt, one of the anti-burghers of the Presbyterian denomination, in his book "A Candid Inquiry into some points of public religion" - page 32 - made in 1794, to explain WHY it is unreasonable to exclude women from the congregational suffrage!