Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
The Myth of Christian America  /  MCA (5 of 14): The English Come to America  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 3
Bercot reads Sir George Peckham’s two “conditions” for lawful settlement (permission, or being “unjustly repulsed”); how do you see Peckham redefining “justice” to make English expansion automatically righteous, and what modern Christian-sounding arguments today function the same way?
Another way to ask: How does Peckham use his two “conditions” to make English expansion sound automatically just? What similar Christian-sounding arguments do you hear today?

Direct Answer Peckham redefines “justice” so that English settlement is always right: if natives permit it, it’s lawful; if they forbid it, that is automatically labeled “unjust,” which then “justifies” force and revenge. The transcript does not name modern parallels, but it implies any argument that pre-labels opposition as “unjust” to authorize Christian violence works similarly.

Support from Transcript:

  • Peckham says settlement is lawful if Indians give “good liking and willing assent,” or if Christians are “unjustly repulsed.”
  • Bercot comments that whenever Indians forbid them, “they were doing it wrongfully,” so “these two conditions aren’t conditions at all… it’s always right for us.”
  • Peckham then claims it is “no breach of equity” to “pursue revenge with force” when natives resist.
  • Bercot calls Peckham’s “law of nations” appeal “more of a made-up rationalization.”
  • He says Peckham’s view was “exactly the attitude of nearly all the English settlers.”
Discussion Follow-ups When we use spiritual language to defend what we already want (land, security, influence), are we doing the same kind of moral relabeling Peckham did?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10
Back Questions Next