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.
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.
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...
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.
…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.
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.
lots of posts and lots of material...what's your point? I'm a bit confused, sorry.
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.”
Quote from: newbie on June 19, 2015, 03:42:37 PMlots 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.
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: Quote 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! Quote from: ColporteurK on June 19, 2015, 05:42:07 PMQuote from: newbie on June 19, 2015, 03:42:37 PMlots 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.
WOMAN'S VOTE IN THE SECESSION CHURCHTHIS 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."
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.