Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

George Gillespie’s View of Church and State

Joshua Lamb

411: Systematic Theology 1: Prolegomena

December 8, 2016

Introduction

The questions regarding the boundaries between the church and state remain perennial in every age. Men have vehemently disagreed over how these two institutions should operate and effect men’s lives. Does the church have the power to inflict bodily punishment? Does the state have the power to call church councils? What happens when a high-ranking member of one institution also wields power in another? George Gillespie (one of the youngest ranking members of the Westminster Assembly) wrote extensively on this topic. He argued that the Church and the State are separate institutions which are both ordained by God to operate in different spheres of society. His distinctions help to clarify for us the ways in which we must think of Civil and Ecclesiastical authorities and their exercise of power in society. We will examine what functions each institution performs, ways in which they benefit each other, common errors, the similarities and differences in each institution, and how Gillespie’s thinking should influence us in the church today.

It is important to understand the context of Gillespie’s day. He was concerned with the influences of Erastianism (the belief that the state has power over religious affairs). His most well-known work Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, is his defense of ecclesiastical government. He establishes that there was a distinction between church and state authorities in the OT and must also be so now¹. His comprehensive work CXI propositions concerning the ministerie and government of the Church is also a valuable treatise in which he argues that the ecclesiastical and civil governments are distinct and should not be mixed together². Rev. W.D.J. McKay further supports this in his statement, “Gillespie asserts that church and state are separate, coordinate powers which are sovereign within their own spheres”³.

Overall Functions of the Church

Gillespie was very adept at citing and interpreting Scriptural commands which bear tremendous weight in the defense of ecclesiastical government. He proves against the Erastians that the church is a separate institution which has goals and means which are (and should be) distinct from that of the civil government. He lists preaching, sacraments, public prayer, catechizing, examination of communion, deciding controversies of faith, etc. as belonging uniquely to the church⁴. No doubt Gillespie would agree these responsibilities all stem from the church as the standard-bearer and keeper of Scripture (Romans 3:2).

He believed that the church had a threefold delineation of responsibility and illustrated this using the “keys” example, which is a reference to the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:19). The first of these responsibilities is that of dogmatike – the key of knowledge or doctrine⁵. This refers to the fact that church is responsible to be the pillar and ground of the truth. In a sense, it means that men should be able to go to God’s people and hear the voice of God in His Word. The church government should be an outlet for the truth of God upon the world. The second key is diaktike – of order and decency. Gillespie expresses here the use of sound judgment by church officers in matters which the Bible may not be totally clear. Lastly is the key of kritike – church discipline. This is the power that the church to administer censures and excommunication if it is necessary. In the articulation of these examples, we can see that the church has a distinctly different mission and responsibilities from that of a civil government. Gillespie goes on to show that the church has a far loftier goal of the advancement of the kingdom of heaven and the Glory of God. It is a substantively greater mission to administer affairs for the kingdom of God than the kingdom of men. The awesome responsibility and the need for humility is certainly something that should be felt by officers in Christ’s church.

Overall Functions of the State

The civil government, by contrast has a much smaller mission than the church. However, that does not mean that civil government does not deserve to be a distinct institution. Gillespie rooted the justification for the magistrate in the fact that Christ has a “two-fold kingdom”. Christ is both the Lord of all creation and the Mediator of His church⁶. Gillespie believed that the existence of the magistrate which has authority over all, and the church which has authority over some, both have their foundation in an aspect of Christ’s kingship.

Gillespie believed the magistrate had the responsibility to protect and provide for the commonwealth. This entailed ensuring that men are punished for the crimes that they commit in the body. Although Gillespie viewed the church’s responsibility with higher reverence and closer relationship to God, he did not believe that the civil government should operate in a secular manner. He believed, along with many of the Westminster divines, that the state was to have the role of “protector of the true religion”. In other words, the functions of the state were tied to assisting the functions of the church.

To this end, Gillespie did allow for (by modern standards) some intrusion by the state into the affairs of the church. Propositions 50-51 of his 111 propositions outline the responsibility of the magistrate to establish guidelines for synodical meetings⁷. He caveated this by saying that it should be done in the same manner as any other gathering. It is a good clarification because his statement could otherwise have been interpreted for allowing the civil government to dictate matters of religion.

The Role of the Church in Discipline

The role of the church in discipline is distinct from that of the civil government, but it is no less important. Gillespie’s strongest reference to the “keys of the kingdom” concept is when he discusses church discipline. This should come as no surprise, considering biblically the “keys” appear within the context of church discipline in Matthew 16. The keys are not given to private individuals but to the church, particularly the officers⁸. He divides the responsibilities of elders into that of doctrine and that of discipline. Gillespie separates doctrine out as uniquely belonging to the pastor. He is the one gifted and called by God as the one who teaches and guides the church in a special way⁹. It is important to note that Gillespie makes an association between preaching and church discipline which should not be passed over. If we consider the “gradation” of church discipline, we see preaching, then censures, then finally excommunication. Preaching has a place in this sequence. It is one of the mechanisms by which the kingdom of heaven is shut to unbelievers and opened to believers. Perhaps not many in our day think of preaching as a means of church discipline, but Gillespie connects these dots.

Unlike the civil government, the church is responsible for discipline in the inward man only. Gillespie did not believe the church could mandate prison sentences or the like, but rather its punishment consisted in spiritual censure. As such, the ‘ultimate termination’ of ecclesiastical power in Gillespie’s mind, was excommunication¹⁰. He stated that excommunication was the “last remedy for the curing of the most deadly and desperate evils”¹¹. The Scottish divines particularly received flak for being focused on church censures¹². However, we know from the Westminster Standards and other writings that it was not something they viewed lightly and that they were not as singular about the issue as some imagine. They cared deeply for the church and knew that church punishments should be motivated by love and a desire to win souls back to Christ. Gillespie and others believed that church members should be equally exposed to church discipline. There should be no one who, because of rank or privilege, is treated differently than anyone else¹³. He also believed that the power of the keys was not given to the whole church but to the church officers, acting on behalf of the congregation¹⁴.

The Role of the State in Discipline

Gillespie’s focus in his treatises was on the distinction between church and state and the argument for the independence of the ecclesiastical government of the church. Due to this, he did not pay as much attention to delineating the prescriptions and limits of the state’s power to discipline. However, he did give some general direction.

His belief was that the state should punish offenders that broke biblical laws, whether in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Regarding the Old Testament, his basic hermeneutic was if the law was not restricted to national Israel, then they should apply in contemporary culture as well¹⁵. He referenced that Christ came to fulfill the law, not abolish it (Matthew 5:17). By contemporary standards, it may seem strange that the state would prosecute someone for witchcraft or blasphemy. However, in Gillespie’s mind, if the state was to be the protector of true religion and the church’s sole punishment was censorship, it remained to the state to give sentences that effected one’s person and property.

Mutual Provisions of the Church and State

Gillespie viewed these separate institutions of civil and ecclesiastical as being mutually beneficial towards one another. Although they were separate, they should in theory be friends. Both the magistrate and the church were to take their authority and direction from Christ. The church provided for the state by strengthening consciences of men¹⁶. The work of church consistories in visitation and in admonition surely helps to prevent men from engaging in things which the civil government deems unlawful. The church also provides for the state in its respect of the authority and direction of the magistrate. Gillespie notes that reformed churches believe (correctly) that God has vested the magistrate with authority and is to be honored (1 Peter 2:17)¹⁷. In both ways, the civil government is benefitted by the church’s authority over the invisible and visible church.

The state also provides benefits for the church. Following our earlier argument, Gillespie believed the purpose for which the state had the power of the sword was to be the “keeper of both tables of the law”¹⁸. While it was the church’s prerogative to point sinners to Christ for forgiveness from heaven, it was the magistrate’s to punish for sin on earth. Thus the magistrate was given the power to enact justice.

Distinct Spheres of Authority

Discipline aside, there are many other things which serve to delineate for us the boundaries of church and state. Their differences run far deeper than one would think at first glance. Gillespie noted several things which the church is responsible for, which remain valid to the present day. The first is that the church alone has the power to call and ordain men into the pulpit ministry. This means that the church must ensure that only men who are called and equipped fill the pulpits¹⁹. Along with this, Gillespie believed that Christ has appointed exactly how we must worship in His Word. The church must take pains to ensure that the content and arrangement of a worship service is conforming to the will of Christ in every regard²⁰. The church also has the responsibility to pray for the magistrate, even if they are nonbelieving themselves²¹. Gillespie would agree that this is because we are a part of a higher and greater kingdom and we know that God’s Word commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves. Lastly, officers in the church are responsible for staying in their own sphere of authority. They must recognize that the keys of the kingdom do not allow them to lord themselves over the congregation. Gillespie was concerned with “prelates” who in this day were high ranking church officers who at times wielded “autocratic power over congregations”²². Conversely, the church must not take a hands-off approach to reforming men. In a dispute with Mr. Dell, Gillespie rejects that the church must leave men alone to themselves unless Christ reforms them²³. There should be an earnestness and urgency about the officers of Christ church. Keeping out of the magistrate’s affairs, and yet not leaving men alone is a hard balance to strike. Nevertheless, elders in the church must strive for this balance as servants of a greater kingdom.

The civil magistrate also has a responsibility not to step on the toes of the church. Gillespie acknowledged that it is probably most difficult for Christian magistrates because they are most tempted to mix roles and overstep the bounds of their office²⁴. For instance, ordering that a criminal be barred from the Lord’s Table at his church. He portrayed this sentiment well when stating “it belongs to kings to inflict bodily punishment; it belongs to priests to bring spiritual punishment to bear”²⁵. However, Gillespie did not believe magistrates should then give a free pass to those who committed spiritual sins, but rather than he could not inflict censures. This is an opinion that is radical by today’s standards, but he believed that atheists, blasphemers, heretics, etc should be punished by the Christian magistrate²⁶. This is worthy of discussion in our day, and certainly would come to bear upon many issues that we take for granted. One of the functions of the magistrate is to restrain the sin of men by inflicting punishment. Is not blasphemy a sin? Is not adultery? Where the church has the responsibility to censure, does that mean the state has no responsibility? Gillespie’s position should give us pause to consider our laws and if they are lax in things which the Bible condemns.

Throughout his 111 Propositions, Gillespie gives a framework of eight factors which further show the distinct spheres of the civil and ecclesiastical powers. They have a different foundation, object, form, end, effect, respect of subjects, correlative, and a divided authority. We will not repeat them here except to share that his distinction between their primary focus is a helpful distinction to make. He states that the church cares about spiritual things: the consciences of men and the glory of God. The magistrate is concerned with earthly things: the good of the commonwealth and the properties of men. Again, this inward/outward distinction is a broad rule of thumb which helps us tremendously in not overstepping boundaries.

Application to present life and ministry

Gillespie’s understanding of the relationship between the ecclesiastical and civil governments is not perfect, but is very helpful for us today. It is helpful for ministers when they find their parishioners facing legal battles, for Christian magistrates wanting to honor God, and for church members when they desire to know how to walk through trials. There are four lessons that we can learn from Gillespie in this area:

The first is that ministers must teach on the differences between the church and the state as they are ordained by God and used by Him for different functions. This need not be an abstract topical exercise, but can happen even during expository preaching in 1 Peter and other passages. The principle of “honoring the emperor” is bound up with understanding the function of the state overall. Many Christians view the state as the bane of their existence, exacting unwanted tax revenue and not doing much apparent good. If they were to be taught that the magistrate has a distinct sphere which is complementary to the sphere of the church, their view and appreciation of the ordinances of God would change. Gillespie’s association of church to the inner man and civil to the outer man is a helpful motto.

Following this, the second lesson is that “obeying God rather than men” does not discount obeying men if there is no just reason to refuse (Acts 5:29). By understanding the church and state relationship, we know when the state is in error. There are times when as Christians we can rightly refute the magistrate, and there are times when we must submit ourselves to the providences of God without complaining. We can be wise with this distinction by knowing what the responsibilities for the magistrate are.

Thirdly, Gillespie reminds us that the “keys of the kingdom” are in a sense given to the entire church. The burden of church discipline rests on everyone. It is helpful here to think of different levels: the pastor opens and shuts by his preaching, the elders open and shut by censures, and the people give their amen by their treatment of censured people. In all this, we must remember to be gracious. Where the civil aims rightly at punishing offenders, the church should aim at restoring sinners to Christ.

Lastly, we must take heart that the vision and mission of the church is much, much higher than the magistrate. There are now two governments instituted by Christ. One to manage the earthly affairs of men, and another to help guide them spiritually. But a new day is coming with the return of Christ. A day when we will be governed by God Himself directly. There will be no sin and no punishment for God’s church. Instead, there will be one visible kingdom, governed by one perfect ruler. The failings of magistrates remind us of His perfect justice. The failings of elders remind us of His perfect Grace. May this day hasten to us. Amen.

And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

Revelation 22:3

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Church & state, the Biblical view: a compilation of articles from some of the best Christian minds in history. [Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books, 1993.

Gillespie, George. Aaron’s rod blossoming ; or, the divine ordinance of church government vindicated. Harrisonburg, Va: Sprinkle Publications, 1985.

———. An assertion of the government of the Church of Scotland in the points of ruling-elders and of the authority of presbyteries and synods: with a postscript in answer to a treatise lately published against presbyteriall government. Dallas, TX: Printed by the Presbyterian Treasury, 1998.

Gillespie, George, and Christopher Coldwell. A dispute against the English popish ceremonies obtruded on the Church of Scotland: wherein not only our own arguments against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the answers and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Morton, Burges, Sprint, Paybody, Andrews, Saravia, Tilen, Spotswood, Lindsey, Forbes, etc., particularly confuted. 17th century Presbyterians. Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 1993.

Gillespie, George. Give me that old time theonomy. Revival review Issue #26-27. Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books, n.d.

Gillespie, George, and W. M. Hetherington. The works of George Gillespie: one of the commissioners from Scotland to the Westminster Assembly, 1644. Numbered collectors ed. Edmonton, AB Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, 1991.

McKay, W. D. J. An ecclesiastical republic: church government in the writings of George Gillespie. Rutherford studies in historical theology. Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K: Published for Rutherford House by Paternoster Press, 1997.

¹. . W. D. J. McKay, *An ecclesiastical republic: church government ↩

in the writings of George Gillespie*, Rutherford studies in
historical theology (Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K: Published for
Rutherford House by Paternoster Press, 1997), 9.

². . George Gillespie and W. M. Hetherington, *The works of George ↩

Gillespie: one of the commissioners from Scotland to the Westminster
Assembly, 1644*, Numbered collectors ed. (Edmonton, AB Canada: Still
Waters Revival Books, 1991), 1:13.

³. . McKay, An ecclesiastical republic, 85. ↩

⁴. . Gillespie and Hetherington, The works of George Gillespie, ↩

1:14.

⁵. . McKay, An ecclesiastical republic, 90. ↩

⁶. . George Gillespie, *Aaron’s rod blossoming ; or, the divine ↩

ordinance of church government vindicated* (Harrisonburg, Va:
Sprinkle Publications, 1985), 90.

⁷. . Gillespie and Hetherington, The works of George Gillespie, ↩

1:14.

⁸. . George Gillespie and Christopher Coldwell, *A dispute against ↩

the English popish ceremonies obtruded on the Church of Scotland:
wherein not only our own arguments against the same are strongly
confirmed, but likewise the answers and defences of our opposites,
such as Hooker, Morton, Burges, Sprint, Paybody, Andrews, Saravia,
Tilen, Spotswood, Lindsey, Forbes, etc., particularly confuted*,
17th century Presbyterians (Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 1993), 373.

⁹. . Gillespie and Coldwell, *A dispute against the English popish ↩

ceremonies obtruded on the Church of Scotland*, 379–380.

¹⁰. . McKay, An ecclesiastical republic, 85–86. ↩

¹¹. . Gillespie and Coldwell, *A dispute against the English popish ↩

ceremonies obtruded on the Church of Scotland*, 371.

¹². . McKay, An ecclesiastical republic, 86. ↩

¹³. . Gillespie and Hetherington, The works of George Gillespie, ↩

1:6.

¹⁴. . Gillespie and Hetherington, The works of George Gillespie, ↩

1:6.

¹⁵. . George Gillespie, Give me that old time theonomy, Revival ↩

review Issue \#26-27 (Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books,
n.d.), 3.

¹⁶. . Gillespie and Hetherington, The works of George Gillespie, ↩

1:12.

¹⁷. . Gillespie and Hetherington, The works of George Gillespie, ↩

1:12.

¹⁸. . Gillespie and Hetherington, The works of George Gillespie, ↩

1:12.

¹⁹. . Gillespie and Hetherington, The works of George Gillespie, ↩

1:5.

²⁰. . Gillespie and Hetherington, The works of George Gillespie, ↩

1:5.

²¹. . Gillespie and Hetherington, The works of George Gillespie, ↩

1:12.

²². . George Gillespie, *An assertion of the government of the Church ↩

of Scotland in the points of ruling-elders and of the authority of
presbyteries and synods: with a postscript in answer to a treatise
lately published against presbyteriall government* (Dallas, TX:
Printed by the Presbyterian Treasury, 1998), 96.

²³. . *Church & state, the Biblical view: a compilation of articles ↩

from some of the best Christian minds in history* (\[Edmonton, AB:
Still Waters Revival Books, 1993), 70.

²⁴. . Gillespie and Hetherington, The works of George Gillespie, ↩

1:18-19.

²⁵. . Gillespie and Coldwell, *A dispute against the English popish ↩

ceremonies obtruded on the Church of Scotland*, 369.

²⁶. . Gillespie and Hetherington, The works of George Gillespie, ↩

1:12.