abstract: |

Skip Navigation

by Christopher Coldwell

[This article was originally published in The Blue Banner v. 2. #6-8 June-Aug. 1993 as part of a series on George Gillespie. Mr. Coldwell is editor of The Blue Banner and publishes books through Naphtali Press. In 1993 Naphtali Press issued a new edition of George Gillespie's Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies, one of the most famous Presbyterian books on worship ever printed.]

Of more than a passing interest to the Presbyterian churches today is George Gillespie's Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty, or, the true resolution of a present controversy concerning Liberty of Conscience (London: for Christopher Meredith, 1645). This was reprinted in full in An Anthology of Presbyterian & Reformed Literature, volume four (Dallas, Texas: Naphtali Press, 1991).

Authorship

This tract was published anonymously at the height of the tension between the Independent and the Presbyterian Commissioners at the Westminster Assembly. Because of Gillespie's position as a Scottish Commissioner, it was probably the prudence of policy which dictated that he not affix his name to the piece.1

Robert Wodrow, on the authority of Patrick Simson, Gillespie's cousin, writes: "He wrote a Dialogue between a Civilian and Divine; a piece against Toleration, entitled Wholesome Severity reconciled with Christian Liberty."2 Although this reference is included in the appendix to the introduction by Hetherington in Gillespie's Works, it is interesting that the above two pieces were not included in that collection.

Subject Matter

Gillespie's reason for writing this piece was to vindicate the lawful, yea necessary, use of the coercive power of the Christian Magistrate in suppressing and punishing heretics and sectaries, according as the degree of their offense and of the Church's danger shall require, against the position advocated by some for the broad toleration of all sorts of differing beliefs among Christian sects which had arisen before and during the English Civil War.3 Gillespie opens the tract in his epistle to the reader this way:

It cannot be unknown to any, except such as are ignorant of Satan's devices, and altogether strangers to the histories of former times, that when the Church comes out of idolatry, and out of bitter servitude and grievous pressures of conscience, all her storms are not over her head, but she begins to be assaulted and afflicted more than before with heresies, schisms, and home-bred disturbances. Which through the manifold wisdom and over-ruling dispensation of God, who works all things according to the counsel of his will, is England's lot this day, that this may be to those in whom the Lord has no pleasure, a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, that they may go and fall backward, and be broken; and snared, and taken: that others, who are approved, may be made manifest; yea, that many may be purified, and tried, and made white; and that in the issue God may have the greater glory in making a sovereign remedy out of poisonous ingredients, and his people may say, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel who only doth wondrous things.

After presenting in a fashion the defense of the sectaries for a toleration of their positions, he continues by saying:

Under these fair colors and handsome pretexts do sectaries infuse their poison, I mean their pernicious, God provoking, truth defacing, Church ruinating, and State shaking toleration. The plain English of the question is this: whether the Christian Magistrate is keeper of both tables: whether he ought to suppress his own enemies, but not God's enemies, and preserve his own ordinances, but not Christ's ordinances from violation. Whether the troublers of Israel may be troubled. Whether the wild boars and beasts of the forest must have leave to break down the hedges of the Lord's vineyard; and whether ravening wolves in sheep's clothing must be permitted to converse freely in the flock of Christ. Whether after the black devil of idolatry and tyranny is trod under our feet, a white devil of heresy and schism, under the name of tender consciences, must be admitted to walk up and down among us. Whether not only pious and peaceable men (whom I shall never consent to persecute), but those also who are as a pestilence or a gangrene in the body of Christ, men of corrupt minds and turbulent spirits, who draw factions after them, make a breach and rent in Israel, resist the truth and reformation of religion, spread abroad all the ways they can their pernicious errors, and by no other means can be reduced; whether those also ought to be spared and let alone.

A Controversial Aside

This is a stout article by any measurement, (maybe this is why it was not included in the author's Works). Established religion (at least what Gillespie was familiar with) has been on the wane since his time. While the Scottish church and all subsequent Presbyterian churches reaped the benefits of what was achieved at the Westminster Assembly, one need only look at the religious scene in the United States to see the full result of this prevailing doctrine of toleration against which Gillespie wrote. James Walker says, "It is not easy to find a theoretic ground for toleration . . . ." Obviously so, since Gillespie, as well as Samuel Rutherfurd, have a great deal to say against it.4 It is clear that the main tenet of Wholesome Severity is the advancing of the proper role of the civil magistrate in preserving the true religion by punishing heretics and schismatics if necessary. As controversial as that tenet is today, the debate over the degree of that punishment is just as controversial.

One short aside Gillespie makes concerning the Old Testament capital punishments is interesting because of the level of importance that has been recently assigned Gillespie in the debate over the meaning of the general equity clause in WCF 19:IV:

To them also, as a body politick, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

It has been contended by Dr. Greg Bahnsen that his interpretation of "general equity" is the true historical meaning of the Confession of Faith. He supports this by appeals to the language of the Confession, the Scripture proofs attached, and to the writings of Gillespie.5 Dr. Sinclair Ferguson, formerly professor of systematic theology at Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia, has written an historical study dealing with the Westminster Assembly and the Law of God,6 wherein he counters Dr. Bahnsen's assertions of support from the wording of WCF 19:IV, and the attached Scripture proofs.

Additionally, by citing Wholesome Severity and the works of other authors, he presents a compelling argument for the view that the general equity clause is a consensus statement embracing a range of views.

Dr. Ferguson does point out that Gillespie makes some remarks very similar to Dr. Bahnsen's concerning the civil magistrates following the Old Testament capital punishments. While having similar conclusions, he contends that it would be erroneous to figure that they reached them in the same way. He believes the Confession allows practical theonomy, by which he means these conclusions that theonomists and Gillepsie have in common. He denies that the Westminster Confession of Faith allows theoretical theonomy, the reasoning process by which theonomists reach these similar conclusions.

The following passage from Wholesome Severity shows Gillespie holding the more rigorous view of the range represented at the Assembly.

It will be asked, But how does it appear that these or any other judicial laws of Moses do at all appertain to us, as rules to guide us in like cases? I shall wish him who scruples this, to read Piscator's appendix to his observations upon the 21-23 chapters of Exodus, where he excellently disputes this question, whether the Christian Magistrate is bound to observe the judicial laws of Moses, as well as the Jewish Magistrate was. He answers by the common distinction, he is obliged to those things in the judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all nations: but not to those things which are mutable, or proper to the Jewish Republic.

But then he explains this distinction, that by things mutable, and proper to the Jews, he understands the emancipation of an Hebrew servant or handmaid in the seventh year, a man's marrying his brother's wife and raising up seed to his brother, the forgiving of debts at the Jubilee, marrying with one of the same tribe, and if there be any other like to these; also ceremonial trespasses, as touching a dead body, etc. But things immutable, and common to all nations, are the laws concerning moral trespass, sins against the moral law, as murder, adultery, theft, enticing away from God, blasphemy, striking of parents. Now that the Christian Magistrate is bound to observe these judicial laws of Moses, which appoint the punishments of sins against the moral law, he proves by these reasons.

1. If it were not so, then it is free and arbitrary to the Magistrate to appoint what punishments he pleases. But this is not arbitrary to him, for he is the minister of God (Rom. 13:4), and the judgment is the Lord's (Deut. 1:7; 2 Chron. 19:6). And if the Magistrate is keeper of both tables, he must keep them in such manner as God has delivered them to him.
2. Christ's words (Matt. 5:17), "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill," are comprehensive of the judicial law, it being a part of the law of Moses. Now he could not fulfill the judicial law, except either by his practice, or by teaching others still to observe it; not by his own practice, for he would not condemn the adulteress (John 8:11), nor divide the inheritance (Luke 12:13-14). Therefore it must be by his doctrine for our observing it.
3. If Christ in his sermon (Matt. 5), would teach that the moral law belongs to us Christians, in so much as he vindicates it from the false glosses of the scribes and Pharisees; then he meant to hold forth the judicial law concerning moral trespasses as belonging unto us also; for he vindicates and interprets the judicial law, as well as the moral (Matt. 5:38), An eye for an eye, etc.
4. If God would have the moral law transmitted from the Jewish people to the Christian people; then he would also have the judicial laws transmitted from the Jewish Magistrate to the Christian Magistrate: there being the same reason of immutability in the punishments, which is in the offenses. Idolatry and adultery displease God now as much as then; and theft displeases God now no more than before.
5. Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning (Rom. 15:4), and what shall the Christian Magistrate learn more from those judicial laws, but the will of God to be his rule in like cases? The ceremonial law was written for our learning, that we might know the fulfilling of all those types, but the judicial law was not typical.
6. Do all to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31; Matt. 5:16). How shall Christian Magistrates glorify God more than by observing God's own laws, as most just, and such as they cannot make better?
7. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23). Now when the Christian Magistrate punishes sins against the moral law, if he does this in faith and in assurance of pleasing God, he must have his assurance from the Word of God, for faith can build upon no other foundation; it is the Word which must assure the conscience: God has commanded such a thing, therefore it is my duty to do it; God has not forbidden such a thing; therefore I am free to do it. But the will of God concerning civil justice and punishments is no where so fully and clearly revealed as in the judicial law of Moses. This therefore must be the surest prop and stay to the conscience of the Christian Magistrate.

These are not my reasons (if it be not a word or two added by way of explaining and strengthening), but the substance of Piscator's reasons. Unto which I add . . . Though we have clear and full scriptures in the New Testament for abolishing the ceremonial law, yet we no where read in all the New Testament of the abolishing of the judicial law, so far as it did concern the punishing of sins against the moral law, of which heresy and seducing of souls is one, and a great one. Once God did reveal his will for punishing those sins by such and such punishments. He who will hold that the Christian Magistrate is not bound to inflict such punishments for such sins, is bound to prove that those former laws of God are abolished, and to show some Scripture for it.7

One need look no further than the views of Samuel Rutherfurd, Gillespie's good friend, for a different viewpoint.8

But surely Erastus errs, who will have all such to be killed by the magistrate under the New Testament, because they were killed in the Old. Then are we to stone the men that gather sticks on the Lord's day; the child that is stubborn to his parents, the virgins, daughters of ministers that commit fornication are to be put to death.

Why, but then the whole judicial law of God shall oblige us Christians as Carlstadt and others teach? I humbly conceive that the putting of some to death in the Old Testament, as it was a punishment to them, so was it a mysterious teaching of us, how God hated such and such sins, and mysteries of that kind are gone with other shadows.

But we read not (says Erastus) where Christ has changed those laws in the New Testament. It is true, Christ has not said in particular, I abolish the debarring of the leper seven days, and he that is thus and thus unclean shall be separated till the evening; nor has he said particularly of every ordinance and judicial law, it is abolished. But we conceive, the whole bulk of the judicial law, as judicial, and as it concerned the republic of the Jews only, is abolished, though the moral equity of all those are not abolished; also some punishments were merely symbolical to teach the detestation of such a vice, as the boring with an awl the ear of him that loved his master, and desired to serve him, and the making him his perpetual servant.

I should think the punishing with death the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath was such; and in all these the punishing of a sin against the moral law by the magistrate, is moral and perpetual; but the punishing of every sin against the moral law, tali modo, so and so, with death, with spitting on the face: I much doubt if these punishments in particular, and in their positive determination to the people of the Jews, be moral and perpetual. As he that would marry a captive woman of another religion, is to cause her first pare her nails, and wash herself, and give her a month or less time to lament the death of her parents, which was a judicial, not a ceremonial law; that this should be perpetual, because Christ in particular has not abolished it, to me seems most unjust; for as Paul says, He that is circumcised becomes debtor to the whole law, surely to all the ceremonies of Moses' law; so I argue, "pari, from the like," he that will keep one judicial law, because judicial and given by Moses, becomes debtor to keep the whole judicial law, under pain of God's eternal wrath.

Conclusion

It is interesting that this rare pamphlet by Gillespie has become a key piece of historical information on how we should understand the general equity clause; not that it is a key to the one right meaning of the clause, but that it proves that men of differing views all could adopt the Confession without taking exception, and abide in one church without any division or strife over this point.

Because we live in a day where Presbyterians feel free to take exception to the Confession of Faith at many points where the language is not controverted, it would be counter-productive to narrow this part of the Westminster Confession of Faith to one decisive meaning, particularly since WCF 19:IV appears to have been a consensus clause.

End Notes

1. Rev. William M. Campbell, Ph.D., D.Litt., George Gillespie, Records of the Scottish Church History Society, volume X. Part II. 1949.

2. Appendix. Extracts From Wodrow's Analecta, Works: A Presbyterian's Armoury, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Robert Ogle and Oliver and Boyd, 1844), pp. xxxviii.

3. The general subject of the proper relation of Church and State, and the particular question of whether or not the State has a role in advancing the interests of the Church, have been treated admirably by William Cunningham (Relation between Church and State; "The Westminster Confession on the Relation between Church and State, Discussions on Church Principles"; reprinted in Anthology, v. 2 #1) and by Thomas M'Crie (Brief View of the Evidence for the Exercise of Civil Authority about Religion, Anthology, v. 3 #4; The Unity of the Church, [Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1989], Appendix). Charles Hodge gives a respectable overview of this subject in his article, "The Relation of Church and State" (The Reformation of the Church, a Collection of Reformed and Puritan Documents on Church Issues, [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965, 1987], p. 107-119), where he ends by advocating the view adopted by the American Presbyterian Church in 1788, when it modified the Confession of Faith and Larger Catechism.

4. James Walker, The Theology and Theologians of Scotland, 1560-1750, (Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1982), p. 11. Walker says this in reference to Rutherfurd's A Free Disputation against Pretended Liberty of Conscience. In reference to Gillespie, he says, "There is a tract or pamphlet of Gillespie's, very little known, on the subject of toleration. It is decidedly against toleration, and in the worst cases of heresy almost pitiless; but, upon the whole, it is wonderfully sober and mild far more generous and kindly than Rutherfurd's Liberty of Conscience." Of course, Rutherfurd wrote at ten times greater length on this subject than Gillespie, which might explain the greater fault found in him.

5. Theonomy in Christian Ethics, Expanded Edition (New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1977). pp. 529, 538. Bahnsen cites Gillespie's One Hundred Eleven Propositions and Aaron's Rod Blossoming.

6. Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, edited by William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1990). This is a collection of articles against theonomy of which Ferguson's contribution is the only one I'm necessarily recommending. It is entitled An Assembly of Theonomists? The Teaching of the Westminster Divines on the Law of God. Also, it is at least interesting that, in Gary North's Theonomy: An Informed Response a refutation to Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, Ferguson's article and findings are not so much as mentioned; Rutherfurd mentioned only in passing (and not on this subject); Gillespie not at all.

7. George Gillespie, Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty, or, the true resolution of a present controversy concerning Liberty of Conscience (London: for Christopher Meredith, 1645). See Anthology of Presbyterian & Reformed Literature, v. 4, pp. 182-183.

8. Samuel Rutherfurd, Divine Right of Church Government Vindicated (London: 1646), p. 493-494. I again refer you to Dr. Ferguson's article for other authors, such as David Dickson, Anthony Burgess, Samuel Bolton. Comments on Paul Baynes and Thomas Cartwright are interesting. Cartwright is quoted as saying, "To say that any magistrate can save the life of a blasphemer, contemptuous and stubborn idolaters, murderers, adulterers, incestuous persons and such like, which God by his judicial law hath commanded to be put to death, I do utterly deny." He does allow that some elements in the judicial laws were temporary (Ferguson, p. 328).

[Note: there is a reference to this article at An Excerpt from Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty]

back to top