Aaron's Rod Blossoming, or, the Divine Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated

by George Gillespie

Addresses the Biblical view of separation of church and state.

Genres: Ecclesiology, Theology, Church

310 pages, Hardcover

First published December 1, 1998

About the author

George Gillespie was a Scottish Presbyterian theologian. His A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on the Church of Scotland (1637) reflected the fervour of the Presbyterians who rallied to the Covenant in the period leading up to the Bishops' Wars.

His father was John Gillespie, minister of Kirkcaldy. He studied at St. Andrews University, and is said to have graduated M.A. in 1629, though the date is probably that on which he entered the University. He became bursar of the Presbytery of Kirkcaldy, chaplain to John, Viscount Kenmure; to John, Earl of Cassilis, and tutor to his son, James, Lord Kennedy. He was ordained to Wemyss on 26th April 1638. He had calls to Aberdeen and St. Andrews. He was translated to Greyfriars, Edinburgh, in September 1642.

He was a member of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, 1643, and though the youngest member gave important assistance in the preparation of the Directory and Confession of Faith. He took final leave of Westminster on 10th July 1647, and presented the Confession of Faith to the General Assembly on 4th August, obtaining its ratification. He was elected to St. Giles, Edinburgh by the Town Council 22nd September 1647, and admitted shortly after that. He was elected Moderator of Assembly 12th July 1648.

Reviews

[Sean McGowan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good work from one of the Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly on church government. Recommended

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Argument of Book: there exists a religious tribunal distinct from that of the civil magistrate. This tribunal has the power of excommunication. In fact, Gillespie’s overall argument is quite simple, despite the learned discussions in the book. Erastianism isn’t necessarily an outward threat to the church by the state (such as the IRS’s domination of the American church). It’s simply the state’s prerogative to control church discipline.

I’m not going to spend too much time reviewing the arguments that the Jewish church had an ecclesial body distinct from the civil magistrate. That’s not where the battle is being fought today.

Church and State, the Civil Magistrate

There is a distinction between magistracy and ministry; as such, there offices are also distinct (80). Magistrates and ministers differ in their causes:

1. The efficient cause: The king of nations hath instituted civil power; the king of saints ecclesial (86).
2. Material: civil magistracy is punitive. The magistrate has the sword, the minister the keys.
3. Formal: the power of magistracy is architectonic and despotic and is immediately subordinate to God. The ecclesial is diakonike and subordinate to Jesus as King of the Church.
4. Final: magistracy is only for the glory of God as king of nations. And while the magistrate ought to be a Christian, he is not participating as Christ’s sub-mediator.

Of the Twofold Kingdom

Jesus has dominion over all things as Son of God, but his special kingdom is the church, of which he is mediator. We are not separating the Person of Christ, but simply making distinctions. Arguments proviing it:
1. Does Jesus reign over devils by his mediatorial work or by his divine power? Obviously the latter. Therefore, it is a separate kingdom.
2. His being the ‘heir of all things,’ receiving the heathen, relates to the church (94).
3. In Scripture pagan civil governments are recognized as legitimate, even if they aren’t under Christ.

The Christian Magistrate

He may govern “in the church” but he may not govern the church. He governs not qua the church, but qua the commonwealth. For example, the magistrate must not have the power of church censures, but he ought to punish like sins with like punishments. But he cannot do that if he has church censures, for the heathen must be punished civilly but the believer with church discipline (115).

Christ’s Visible Kingdom

Christ’s visible kingdom, distinct from his invisible one, is proved from Matt. 26.28, which cannot refer to his coming in glory, “for all that were then hearing Christ have tasted death” (137).

Good discussion of “cutting off” (26ff). Gillespie argues that it usually means “removal from the sanctuary/holy people.”

Sacraments not converting ordinances

Gillespie on conversion: can be distinguished between habitual conversion and subsequent works of grace. Habitual conversion is the first infusion of life and habits of grace.

(1) That which is an instituted sign is not an operating cause whereby it makes that which is signified present where it is not (236).

(2) That which necessarily supposeth conversion and faith is not that which works conversion of and faith. Smoke presupposes fire but it does not cause fire.

(4) If an ordinance is instituted for believers only (Lord’s Supper), then it isn’t a converting but a sealing ordinance.

(7) Those who come to the Lord’s Wedding Feast must have a wedding garment, but the unconverted do not have this.

(10) The prohibition against eating and drinking unworthily necessarily excludes the unconverted.

Extra: how can it be a pledge of union and communion with Christ when such a one is far off from Christ?

[Argin Gerigorian · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very difficult read but the arguments are put forth very well.

Gillespie is one of my favorite theologians and he is extremely theonomic in his writings.

In this particular work he is refuting most of the claims of the Erastians and their belief that the state is above the church and dictates the church. For Gillespie and confessional reformed believers the magistrates job is to defend the church, for Erastians the magistrates job is to define the church. That is the basic argument Gillespie establishes and refutes.

I would not suggest this book if it's your first time dealing with relations of church and state, continuity between Old and New Covenants, and history. You have to have a high level understanding of each of these areas. I for one didn't understand many things Gillespie wrote because I don't have a thorough grasp of some of those things.

All in all the book was great and deserves high recognition today.

[Gabriel Barnes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing book! Hands down one of the most scholarly books I've ever read. Every Presbyterian must read this book!