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.

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.

Read More