An Analysis of Gellespie’s Aaron’s Rod Blossoming
In his classic work The Triumph of Presbyterianism, William Campbell credits George Gillespie—along with Samuel Rutherford—as being the two that men that gave Scotland its present doctrine of eldership.1 He further claims that Gillespie’s particular gift to the Scottish kirk in regard to eldership was her powers—specifically the ability to excommunicate. It may seem strange to a modern reader that arguments had to be made for excommunication and particular church powers in the first place, but it was not odd for the Scottish Protestant at the time. To claim a fundamental power for the church apart from the state could have been deadly if the opponents of Gillespie had their way. The magistrates of the seventeenth century often asserted themselves into church affairs, believing that the government of the church was an extension of their power.
In this essay, we will explore the historical context of George Gillespie to see why an argument for distinct church government was necessary. Additionally, we will examine the arguments made by the Scottish Presbyterian for a distinct church power. Gillespie’s arguments, if successfully made, had revolutionary consequences. Church power would be reserved for the body that had authority over that jurisdiction. In other words, the powers of the church would not be located in the civil magistrate, but in the elders of the church.
George Gillespie produced multiple works in his lifetime. He wrote An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland in 1641 where he argued for the office of the ruling elder and regional bodies of elders or presbyteries. The work he is best known for is Aaron’s Rod Blossoming which was published in London in 1646.2 For the purposes of this essay, we will focus on the latter work, which contains the most mature and exhaustive material on this subject.3
George Gillespie and His Context
George Gillespie was born around the year 1613 in Kirkcaldy. While the early years of Gillespie’s life are difficult to ascertain due to the scant evidence, at the age of sixteen he began to study at the University of St. Andrews.4 After his studies, he served for some time as a chaplain and tutor. He was eventually ordained by the Presbytery of Kirkcaldy to the parish of Wemyss in 1638. At the time, episcopacy still exerted a strong influence on the Scottish Kirk, thus, to receive ordination without the hand of a bishop was an act of high defiance. Unfortunately, very little is known about how Gillespie was as a parish minister.5
Gillespie lived during a time when the political and theological were intertwined. The Church of Scotland was confronted with kings that sought to impose their particular form of church government upon them. It was because of this that the doctrine of the church was not merely a secondary teaching reserved for the lecture hall—but was an issue that had practical ramifications for those living in Scotland.6 The government of the church in Scotland was in a political tug-of-war for some time. While the polity of the new reformed church had been implemented, the old ecclesiastical structure of Episcopalianism still lingered—strongly enough to maintain the bulk of the endowments.7 It was because of this tension that the government prescribed in the First Book of Discipline was not completely implemented in the new Reformed Church of Scotland.8
The tide began to turn when Andrew Melville returned to Scotland in 1574 after ten years of study on the continent.9 It was at the influence of Melville that subsequent General Assemblies began to ask serious questions about bishops, particularly whether they had any warrant in the Word of God. It was not until the General Assembly of 1580 was the “string of episcopal pearls unstrung.” The assembly of the Kirk declared with one voice the “office of bishop to be unlawful, having neither foundation, nor warrant in the Word of God, and ordained all such persons as brooked the said office to demit the same, as an office to which they were not called by God, and to cease from preaching the Word or administering the sacraments, till they should be admitted anew by the General Assembly on pain of excommunication”. According to John Cunningham, the church of 1580 reverted to the church of 1560, and yet, in some ways went further. John Knox believed that the episcopal form of church government was allowable, but not the purest form of polity. To the contrary, Melville argued that episcopacy was unlawful and opposed to Scripture. It was not to be implemented in any circumstance. Even while the Church of Scotland was moving in the direction of an assertive Presbyterianism, James IV was fixed on eliminating any form of church authority that he concluded would not benefit the royal interest. James was concerned that without ecclesiastical hierarchy, the abolition of political hierarchy would soon follow. Therefore, in 1584, James VI had the “black acts” passed which, among other things, declared the king to be the head of the church who had the authority to appoint bishops in the Church of Scotland.10 This tension was exacerbated when James VI of Scotland became James I of England and was bent on maintaining a unified episcopal church in England and Scotland. As W. D. J. McKay writes:
For Scotland, this meant a bench of bishops with diocesan powers, introduced in 1610 and ratified in 1612, and a new form of worship and doctrines set out in a Confession, a Catechism, a Liturgy, and a Book of Canons, adopted by the General Assembly in 1616.11
Tensions further increased with the passage of the Five Articles of Perth in 1618 which required kneeling in communion, private communion and baptisms, as well as the confirmation of bishops. The king—having gotten his way with a reluctant General Assembly in submission—kept a low profile in Scottish affairs for the remainder of his reign.
This background is essential in understanding the immediate context of Gillespie and the reign of James’ son Charles I. Charles became king in 1625 and early on paid little attention to Scotland—neglecting to even visit the country until eight years after his ascension.12 Charles took up the mantle of his father, advocating for royal absolutism and determined to end all Puritan and Presbyterian dissent. King Charles wanted a uniform worship in his three kingdoms, and he believed that a “true preacher” was one who taught that the king was “God’s deputy” who had complete rule over both civil and ecclesial. By way of several symbolic acts and church policies, he managed to offend a sizeable number of the population in Scotland.13 In 1636 Charles attempted to force a Book of Canons on the Church of Scotland, followed by a Liturgy in 1637.14 The reaction in Scotland was outrage and an unwillingness to bend to the demands. It was in anticipation of this liturgy that Gillespie penned his work A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies.
The problem for Charles was that many of the Scots did not share his broad view of civil authority. They believed that he was overstepping his bounds into the sphere of the church. After Charles attempted to impose the liturgy, there were months of protest and petition by the people.15 This led to what is known as the “National Covenant” which pledged to recover the purity and liberty of the gospel as it was professed by the Reformation generation. Further, it also stated that it had no intention of denouncing the king’s rightful authority—and authority that the Covenant recognized and respected. Charles I reacted with a call to arms after the 1638 General Assembly met in Glasgow and swept away bishops, canons, and the Articles of Perth.16 However, the conflict was not simply between the Kirk and the Crown but also among different factions internally in Scotland. Philip Benedict observes:
The Scottish Revolution of 1637…was also an internal war between competing tendencies within the Scottish church, for parts of the country were initially hostile to the Covenanters. Aberdeen was the center of such resistance; its university was dominated by theologians who championed episcopacy and crown oversight of the church, and its governor remained loyal to Charles…successive General Assemblies set up commissions to remove ministers who opposed the [National covenant] document. Some ninety-three ministers, about one-tenth of all Scottish clergymen, lost their post between 1639 and 1643.17
It was during this time that Presbyterianism began to dominate as the main ecclesial theory of the church, and thus began a purge of things that were reminiscent of popery while simultaneously implementing what was laid out in the National Covenant.
The belief that there was a separation between the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions was a distinction that was firmly grasped by ministers and members of the reformed Church of Scotland from its earliest times.18 In Pre-Reformation Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church had assumed to herself both civil and ecclesiastical power in that all the chief offices of the state were held by churchmen. After the Reformation occurred, there was a short duration in Scotland where the practice continued. This was not an ideal situation for ministers in the church, but many at the time recognized that it was inevitable. As John MacPherson writes:
…in this country there was no considerable body of nobility qualified by training and experience to occupy the highest positions in the State, and the ministers of the Reformed Church, many of whom as Churchmen had previously served in offices of State, were consulted and looked to for advice by the lords of the congregation, on whom the government of the country and the guidance of affairs had developed.19
Even though churchmen remained in civil office because of the practical conditions in the country, it did not take away from the belief that there was a distinct ecclesial authority that had a set of powers separate from the civil magistrate. The Presbyterian movement in Scotland distinguished itself by opposition to the absolute claims that were being made by the Stuart monarchs.20 Thus, when George Gillespie penned Aaron’s Rod Blossoming in the middle of the gathering of the divines at Westminster Abbey (1646), the resolution of the civil and ecclesial jurisdictions was yet to be seen. For Gillespie, to place church powers in the hand of the civil magistrate was to continue to produce the ramifications that the people of his day were experiencing under Stuart tyranny.
Gillespie’s Argument in Aaron’s Rod Blossoming
Aaron’s Rod Blossoming is divided into three books that focus on the government and power of the church. In the first book, Gillespie focused his attention on the government of the church under the old covenant, referring to it as the “Jewish Church Government.” Part of his argument was in response to the Erastians who followed the Swiss theologian Thomas Erastus in claiming that the state had authority over the church in ecclesiastical matters.21 According to Gillespie, the Erastians claimed that there was no distinction between the Jewish church and state.22 Thus, according to the Erastian argument, if we are to take our cue from the Jewish Church, then there must not be any distinction between civil and ecclesial, and the power of the church resides in the magistrate. Gillespie countered this argument first by suggesting that the Erastians did not go far enough in their claim. If the Jewish Church and State were completely intertwined, then the argument would prove too much. He wrote:
Now all of this being unquestionably true of the Jewish Sanhedrin, if we should suppose that they had no supreme Sanhedrin but that which had the power of the civil magistracy, then, I ask, where is that Christian state which was, or is, or ought to be, moulded according to this pattern? Must ministers vote in parliament? Must they be civil lawyers?23
Gillespie’s point was that if the Church and State were not distinct in any way, then it was not only the civil magistrate that had authority in the Church, but the church had authority in the civil magistrate. Furthermore, the priests in the Jewish church had more authority than the Erastians were willing to grant to ministers in the Christian church! If the Jewish church had absolutely no distinction and served as the paradigm for the Christian church, then the inevitable conclusion was that the ministers had power in the State, and the State had the power to interpret the Scripture—something neither side was willing to argue.24
Gillespie believed that the Jewish paradigm should be the pattern set for the Christian church once the aspects that were typical and temporal were accounted for.25 While it is out of the scope of this essay to exhaust the arguments made for separate jurisdictions in the Jewish church, Gillespie asserted that the Jewish church was formally distinct from the Jewish State. There was an ecclesiastical Sanhedrin and government separate from the civil. There was an ecclesiastical excommunication distinct from the civil punishments. In the Jewish church there was a public exomologesis, or declaration of repentance and, thereupon, a reception or admission again of the offender to fellowship with the church in the holy things. Finally, there was a suspension of the profane from the temple and Passover. While we may challenge some of Gillespie’s argument and assert that the history is not as cut and dry as he presented it, it is clear that there were specific roles for Priests and Levites that were distinct from the kings. While substantial overlap would be expected in the theocracy of Israel, ecclesiastical and civil functions were understood to be different.26
In the third book of Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, Gillespie argued that suspension from the Lord’s Supper and excommunication from the church are within the jurisdiction of the church—and specifically, under the authority of the elders. Gillespie asserted that suspension from the Sacrament is a step in the process of church discipline, and that one could be suspended without being excommunicated. Thus, this book is a vindication of the disciplinary measures such as suspension and excommunication being imposed by the elders of the church.27
It was in the second book of Aaron’s Rod that Gillespie spent his time arguing for a distinct jurisdiction of power in the church. He started by addressing what his opponents, the Erastians, conceded in the debate. First, both he and the Erastians both agreed that the Christian magistrate, in ordering and disposing the ecclesiastical causes of religion, was to maintain obedience to the Word of God. Just as the civil authority could not wield arbitrary power over the State, so they were not to abuse their power in the church. Another concession by the Erastians had to do with a pagan magistrate. If the civil government did not take up the cause of defending true religion, then an ecclesiastical government could arise and take its place. Thus, according to the Erastians, if a circumstance arose where the government was secularized, it would warrant a separate church authority. However, that was not taking place in Gillespie’s day, since the magistrate professed and sought to protect true religion—albeit according to the episcopal way of doing things. An additional concession that Gillespie noted was that the Erastians did not see abuses of church government as an argument for the rejection of church authority in toto. Moreover, many of the Erastians did not believe the civil magistrate had the authority to preach the Word or administer the Sacraments, but that ministers were called by divine right to accomplish those tasks. In conjunction with the Erastian concessions, Gillespie then offered some of his own. First, Gillespie conceded that not all were fit to be either governors or members in what he called the “ecclesiastical republic.” It was only those who met the qualifications of bishop/elder given by the Apostle Paul. In addition, all were not fit to be governed by the church except those that met the qualifications for membership. The section of book two most relevant for our purposes is when Gillespie argued that there is another form of government other than magisterial. The magistrate certainly had a duty toward the church, according to Gillespie. It was a keeper, guardian, and defender of the church. However, that was different than the magistrate having authority within the church. For Gillespie and the Scottish theologians, the king was not the head of the church.
That right belonged to King Jesus alone, who was head over all that pertains to the church.28 Scottish theologians, Gillespie included, made a distinction between the kingship of Christ that he exercises as the eternal Son of God and the kingship of Christ that was bestowed upon him as mediator. The former is where he exhibits his rule over all creation, and the latter over the church. It was precisely as mediator that Christ ruled over his church through his appointed officers—the elders. The eldership did not possess Christ’s authority in their own right, but faithfully governed the church in a ministerial fashion. In chapter nine of book two, Gillespie utilizes twenty-one different arguments from the Bible to demonstrate his assertion. The remainder of this essay will consider some of the strongest ones that he proposes.
The first biblical citation for his overall thesis is 1 Timothy 5:17 where Paul refers to the “elders that rule well.” Gillespie argued that the term “elders” (πρεσβύτεροι) can refer to age or office, and when it is used in an ecclesiastical context it refers particularly to the office.29 Gillespie contended that this verse is not referring to the civil magistrate in any way. For one, the term πρεσβύτεροι is used in the Scripture to refer to both bishop and elder.30 Therefore, Gillespie reasoned, if these elders referred to the civil magistrate, then they had to be consecrated and ordained as bishops since the term is one and the same. Additionally, if these elders were kings and members of Parliament, then according to the rest of the passage, ministers ought to have a share in the civil government and have more honor and maintenance than kings and Parliament members. Gillespie’s point in running this reductio ad absurdum was that 1 Timothy 5 was clearly about ministerial rulers, not the magistrate.31 A second argument employed by Gillespie was from Hebrews 13:7 which says, “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.” (ESV). Ten verses later, the writer of Hebrews says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not groaning for that would be of no advantage to you.” (Heb. 13:17 ESV). Reformers like Heinrich Bullinger and Rudolph Gwalther argued that these verses referred to both the civil (v. 17) and ecclesiastical (v. 7) rulers. However, Gillespie agreed with Calvin when he argued that both of these verses refer only to church officers. To Gillespie, it seemed arbitrary to assert that within the span of twelve verses, there is a change from ecclesial to civil authority. Moreover, while it could have been argued that Gillespie lived in a day when the magistrate was godly, it was not the case for the original audience of the epistle. This was why Gillespie was unconvinced that Hebrews was referring to the magistrate. For how could a pagan magistrate adequately keep watch over the soul of Christians? One passage that Gillespie cited was Acts 15—a well often quoted verse in Presbyterian circles. In this text we find an ecclesiastical assembly of the apostles, elders, and other brethren. Gillespie’s overall argument from this passage was that the assembly was gathered by the intrinsic authority of the church. In other words, the assembly in Acts 15 was not called by the request of the civil magistrate, but of the ecclesial leadership. The church wielded a distinct power that was not derived from the State. Gillespie further demonstrated that not only did the church call its own assembly, but they imposed standards upon the entire church from the Word of God based on their ministerial rule. To say it another way, when there were problems in the church, the people looked to their leaders to make decisions based upon the Word of God, not the magistrate.
Gillespie referenced a number of passages on church discipline. The implication is that discipline can only be imposed by a governing body, and if it is not the civil authority, then it must be by church power. Titus 3:10 is such an example. After warning someone who stirred up division in the church, Paul says not to have anything to do with such a person. Gillespie understood “have nothing to do with him” (παραιτοῦ) to be a reference to church discipline. The term literally means “to reject.” Gillespie noted that the command was not given to an individual with no authority, but to Titus, who was charged with governing the church. Gillespie often cited passages that refer to judgment given to “many” or the “church” and argued that these texts referred to the leadership of the church as opposed to the entire congregation. For example, in Matthew 18:17, Jesus gave the process of how to confront a brother that had caused offense, Gillespie postulated that this was an example of a censure from the church. If the one who caused offense did not heed the counsel of multiple people, then it was to be brought before the authorities in the church. This view was contrary to the Erastian understanding of the passage which claimed Matthew 18 was a reference to a civil court; Gillespie challenged that assertion by noting that the offense in the passage was spiritual and neither explicitly nor implicitly did the passage refer to the court of the magistrate. Gillespie offered other passages that refer to the “many” (1 Cor. 5:12-13; 2 Cor. 2:6) and contended that they were a reference to ecclesiastical judgment. It was not a matter of private or individual judgment, but a type of judgment that removed a scandalous person from the church—something that could only occur by those who hold ecclesial authority. Gillespie’s point with the passage cited was to show the reader that Scripture assumed a government within the church, led by its own officers. They were not the same as the civil magistrate nor subservient to them with respect to church matters, but existed alongside of them. Their authority was in the spiritual realm, which included the preaching of the Word, the administration of the Sacraments, and church discipline.
Like any good theologian, Gillespie anticipated objections from his interlocutors. One objection that carried some weight against Gillespie’s position was that the New Testament’s church leadership was temporary. The objection did not deny that there was a form of church government in the New Testament, but asserted that it was only transitory until the coming of a Christian magistrate. Thus, asserted Gillespie’s opponents, church government was necessary under Nero, but not Constantine—and by extension, not Charles I. Gillespie—lacking the gift of brevity—responded with thirteen points; however, one stands out above the rest. He claimed that this objection was an argument from silence. Nowhere does the New Testament suggest that the ecclesial government was temporary. Additionally, he said,
Every institution or ordinance of Christ must continue as a perpetual obligation, unless we can find in the word that Christ hath given us a dispensation or taken off the obligation, and set a period to the ordinance, that it shall continue so long and no longer.32
There is a reason why George Gillespie was an influence in the Westminster Assembly. He was not allergic to controversy and debate. That shows up in Aaron’s Rod Blossoming through his interactions with his opponents. Gillespie defended this right of a distinct ecclesiastical government at a time when it was suspect. In doing so, he recaptured the appropriate emphasis on the importance of eldership in the Church of Jesus Christ.
Image Credit: Unsplash
