Bookclub: Aaron's Rod Blossoming Week 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
So begins the remarks that might make an American blush. I know we've talked about this, Logan, but I think I have to go the way of Gillespie and the Westminster Divines on this point: that the magistrate can have an interest in the progress and purity of the true religion.

Also liked Gillespie's remarks concerning the differences between Presbyterians and Prelates. Not to knock Book I at all, but Book II is off to a good start.
 
I know we've talked about this, Logan, but I think I have to go the way of Gillespie and the Westminster Divines on this point: that the magistrate can have an interest in the progress and purity of the true religion.

You make it sound as though I disagree :)
I would say not only "can", but "should" have an interest. I've been really looking forward to this section too.

From chapter 3, I was surprised that William Prynne (though I guess I shouldn't really be surprised at anything that comes out of that guy's pen) said “There being no authority so good, so necessary in church or state, but by reason of their corruptions who manage it, may be abused to tyranny and oppression.” and used that as an argument against church government. What is the alternative? You think the magistrate would never become abusive or corrupt?

I liked this quote: "presbyterial government is the most limited and least arbitrary government of any other;" and this one:
Gillespie Book 2 said:
in extraordinary cases, when church government doth degenerate into tyranny, ambition, and avarice, and they who have the managing of the ecclesiastical power, make defection and fall into manifest heresy, impiety or injustice (as under Popery and Prelacy it was for the most part), then, and in such cases (which we pray and hope we shall never see again), the Christian magistrate may and ought to do divers things in and for religion, and interpose his authority divers ways, so as doth not properly belong to his cognisance, decision and administration ordinarily, and in a reformed and well-constituted church; for extraordinary diseases must have extraordinary remedies.

From Chapter 4, the opening was excellent, showing where the goals of the civil magistrate and the ecclesiastical should coincide, and where they differ. Some really good things to think about there.

From chapter 5, Gillespie goes into the two-fold kingdom of Christ. He has a temporary kingdom as Mediator, and a permanent kingdom as the Son of God. A kingdom in which he is subordinate to the Father, and one in which he is not. One which he was anointed to in time, another which he had from all eternity. It is this former kingdom that is crucial in his argument at this point.

Book 2 said:
Meanwhile, I ask, What then is that kingdom which belongs to Christ as the eternal Son of God, and which shall not be laid down, but continued forever? Let him think on this argument: Whatsoever belongs to that kingdom which shall be continued forever, and shall not be laid down at the day of judgment, doth belong to Christ, not as Mediator, but as the eternal Son of God. But the general power and dominion by which Jesus Christ exerciseth sovereignty over all creatures, without exception, doing to them, and fulfilling upon them all the good pleasure of his will, belongs to that kingdom which shall be continued forever, and shall not be laid down at the day of judgment; ergo, that general power and dominion by which Jesus Christ exerciseth sovereignty over all creatures, without exception, doing to them, and fulfilling upon them, all the good pleasure of his will, doth belong to Christ, not as Mediator, but as the eternal Son of God.

Christ is king not just to the church, but to all creation. And magistrates as his vicegerents, should be in subordination to him
 
You make it sound as though I disagree
I would say not only "can", but "should" have an interest. I've been really looking forward to this section too.

Oops. Does kind of make it look like you might disagree :p Sorry. But yeah, I would agree with that clarification.
 
I agree that these chapters bring us to the meat of the controversy with Erastians. As can be seen, the twofold kingdom is basic not only to the way the church relates to the state, but also to the very organisation of the church itself. Gillespie is showing that Presbyterianism stands on this foundation of Christ as mediator only of the church. In arguing this position he was not "independent." The Second Book of Discipline lays this very foundation for its Presbyterian polity. Its first chapter is an important source for understanding Gillespie's position.

It is helpful to observe the way Gillespie maintains the doctrinal point that it is the church "alone" which forms the kingdom of Christ as Mediator, even though Scripture never uses the precise word "alone." It is understood by the fact that everything else is excluded, just as in the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The binding nature of Scripture consequences forms a chapter of the Miscellany Questions, and is well worth reading to see why Gillespie stands so firmly on the consequences he draws from Scripture.

His exegesis of Matt. 28:18, the charter of the church's commission, is also clearly stated with important distinctions. It reminds one of the maxim, He who distinguishes well teaches well. How often has this text been misunderstood and brought about a shift of power in relation to the church? Not only Erastianism, but egalitarianism in our own day has taken this text and run with it in a direction which is harmful to the organisation and mission of the church.

The point of difference between the magistrate as a magistrate and the magistrate as a Christian is crucial to the debate. His other examples relating to different occupations puts it in perspective. Why should the magistrate's office be seen as occupying a peculiar and unique relation to Christ as mediator? Christian profession is not essential to the occupations and offices of temporal life, though true Christianity makes a vitally important contribution to their well-being.
 
Gillespie could be quite snarky:

"I see it were no ill sport to examine his quaint arguments if a man had but so much leisure."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top