Return to Main Page
Site Index

Trouble with drop box click here for help     Printing Instructions for Articles
Back to Index to Gillespie Discussion

Discussion of George Gillespie's Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty
Re: WF: GWS-16 <text> 
Subject: Re: WF: GWS-16 
From: Matthew Winzer 
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 14:59:00 +1000

The author of 'Wholesome Severity' wrote the following:

>3. There are two sorts of Christ's ordinances: some for the communion of 
>the saints; others, for the conversion of sinners. It is far from our 
>thoughts to admit, much less to compel, a whole city, or nation 
>promiscuously, to the use of the former. But yet converting or reducing
>ordinances may and ought to put upon all whom they concern. The means must 
>be used and men's hearts left to God.

He appears to be drawing a distinction between ordinances which are carried
out by the ecclesiastical government in the Church, and those which are
executed by the civil magistrate concerning the Church. These two
categories follow the classical method of distinguishing between the power
of the keys of the kingdom on the one hand, and the power of the sword on
the other. His position is that while the civil magistrate cannot
administer ordinances IN the Church, he can decree ordinances CONCERNING
the Church in society, thereby producing an outward uniformity in doctrine
and worship. 

I have recently finished typing out David Dickson's commentary on the 23rd
chapter of the Westminster Confession. In his 2nd question, he asks the
following, "Is it the duty of the civil magistrate to take order, that all
blasphemies, and heresies be suppressed; all the ordinances of God duly
settled, administrated, and observed; all abuses in worship and discipline
reformed, all idolaters, gainsayers, and other obstinate dissenters, be
obliged and forced to quit their tenets and opinions, and conform
themselves to the true worship and service of God according to his law?"
(Available at http://www.ozemail.com.au/~matwin/whatsnew.html)

The first half of this question is simply a reformatting of the
Confession's own statement, but the latter half is Rev. Dickson's own
words. Should "obstinate dissenters be obliged and forced to quit their
tenets and opinions, and conform themselves to the true worship of God
according to his law?" Rev. Dickson answers in the affirmative, but surely
the civil magistrate would be overstepping the bounds of his authority if
he did so.

Something the Rev. Arthur Allen said on this subject struck me as being an
interpretative key to this issue. He said: "that section 3 of chapter 23 is
strongly protected by its opening clause and its final clause. The opening
sentence says: the magistrate 'may not assume the power of the KEYS OF THE
KINGDOM of heaven.'" (Also available at
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~matwin/whatsnew.html) Thus, when the Confession
says that the civil magistrate "hath authority, and it is his duty to take
order &c.," it does so in the context of already having established the
sphere and limitations within which that authority may be exercised.

Surely God has ordained the power of the keys of the kingdom as a
converting ordinance! Has he not placed the Gospel in the hands of His
ministers and commisssioned them to make disciples of all nations? If so, a
dissenter's tenets and opinions are to be overcome by the preaching of the
Word, as Gospel ministers "teach them to observe whatsoever Christ has
commanded." As Rev. Allen says: "whatever the magistrate has to do in the
above matters is regulated by the Word of God. The STATE is strictly
forbidden to exercise Lordship over conscience, and must be subject to the
authority of God and the rules of His Word, which, in this case are
determined with precision."

This is not to reduce the magistrate's power in his particular sphere of
authority. Rather, it sets the Biblical limitations to it. He is ordained
for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the
punishment of evil-doers. That is his God-given task, but it is a task
which is to be performed only in that realm which he has been given
authority in - the civil. Therefore, he may not "assume to himself" any of
those tasks which the Word of God clearly defines as coming within the
sphere of ecclesiastical authority. It is only when a dissenter's tenets
and opinions cause civil unrest to a community that the magistrate has the
duty to punish the evil-doer. 

When Rev. Dickson wrote his commentary it was often the case that
dissenterd did cause civil disturbances. This is because most of them
claimed for themselves a liberty of conscience which enabled them to say
and do whatever they pleased. Prof. Bannerman notes that those who wrote
against such views, including Dickson, went too far, "and laid down
positions which were indefensible, and really involved persecution." (The
Church of Christ, Vol. 1, p. 183). History has shown that not all
dissenters were troublemakers, and that some could and did hold their
tenets and opinions peaceably. In such cases, there must be a Biblical
toleration, a bearing with those whose are yet infants in understanding,
and weak in their faith. 

The civil magistrate has not been given the power of the sword to compel
men to uphold an external uniformity in matters of doctrine and worship.
The author of "Wholesome Severity" was correct when he stated that the
heart should be left to God, he only failed to see the implications of it.
For God has ordained an altogether distinct means of convincing and
converting sinners - the preaching of the Word. Therefore, if the
magistrate would sincerely leave the heart to God, it is his duty to leave
matters of doctrine and worship to the Church, that ecclesiastical
office-bearers may compel men with the power of the keys of the kingdom.

A magistrate, then, has the duty of recognising that the Lord Jesus, as
king and head of his church, has appointed a government in the hand of
church-officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. He is to support that
government in its endeavours to persuade men of the truth. This he can do
by giving due regard to the Church as God's ordinance for good,
countenancing it, and, so far as it is in his power, advancing its
interests. The implications of this Establishment will be the endowment of
the Church that it may fulfil its commission to propagate the Gospel, and
make disciples in every country and nation under heaven.

Sincerely
Matthew Winzer
Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~matwin/