Church and Politics During the English Reformation
Ecclesiology and Politics in the Writings of Stephen Marshall (1595–1655)
by
Book Cover & Preview Text
Any church government that claimed to be jure divino, and governed only by ordained ecclesiastical officers, independent of civil magistracy could pose a threat to England’s political system where church and state were inter-dependent. The jus divinum of church government controversy that brought dissention among the divines in the Westminster Assembly, also challenged England’s constitutional Act of 1534 known as the Act of Supremacy.
The exchange of rhetoric and pamphlets between English divine Thomas Coleman and Scottish Presbyterian George Gillespie did not only expose the intense difference between English Parliament and the Scottish Presbyterians regarding the nature of church government suitable for England. It also exposed the ideological difference on church government, respectively, between the Erastians and some English Presbyterians, and Scottish Presbyterians and English Presbyterians.
Thomas Coleman’s Fast Day sermon on Job 11:20 explicitly defined Parliament’s prerogative in a Christian society. He believed that “A Christian Magistrate, as a Christian Magistrate, is a Governour in the Church.” Despite the fact that he acknowledged that not all magistrates were Christians, he asserted that there was no other government except that of the magistracy. Coleman explained:
. . . all Magistrates, it is true, are not Christians . . . Christ hath placed Governments in His Church. Of other Governments, besides Magistracie, I find no institution. To Rob the Kingdom of Christ of the Magistrate, and his governing power I cannot excuse, no not from a kind of sacrilege.
It is noteworthy that it was one of the Scottish Presbyterian commissioners that challenged Coleman’s support for Parliament’s prerogative on ecclesiastical polity. George Gillespie viewed the invitation he received to preach to the House of Commons as an opportunity to rebut Coleman’s teaching on Church government. Gillespie accused Coleman for encouraging magistracy to abolish ecclesiastical government. He also insisted that the core issue that Coleman attacked was the very nature of the Church government. Gillespie argued that “it is not the Independencie of Church-Government upon the civil which he [Coleman] speaks against, but the very thing it selfe, the Church-Government.”
Coleman was convinced that Gillespie was trying to separate a “Reformed” church government from the authority of the magistracy. Coleman believed that any church government that demanded independence from civil magistracy, in this case, Parliament, “was a remote idea and was not according to the Word of God, thus not jure divino.” He was convinced that “God established the government for the people, but not to be distinct from Magistrates. The Scripture held out no Institution for the Presbyterian Government; and the Christian Magistrate [was] to bee a power ordained of God. . . .”
Coleman explicitly asserted that God placed magistracy to govern both Church and State. To fortify his claim, Coleman quoted Romans 13:1-2 and I Corinthians 12:28 explaining that “Christian magistrates are to manage their office under Christ and for Christ; Christ hath placed Governments in his Church; I find all Government given to Christ as mediator.” Gillespie insisted that the independence from civil magistracy could be necessary to attain a “Reformed English Church,” while Coleman clearly disagreed. He argued, “the best Reformed Church that ever was, went this way, I mean the Church of Israel, which had no distinction of Church Government and Civill Government. . . .
Coleman understood that Scottish Presbyterians and some English Presbyterians were convinced that reformation in England was only possible by abolishing the existing church government and by establishing a “Reformed” Church government. He argued that abolishing the established church government could mean abolishing the civil government for he was convinced that the “government” was intertwined in the religious life of the English Church. According to him, “abolition of the English Government is abolition of the Government mentioned in the Bible as instituted. . . . This issue was more than a matter of being a politician rather than a divine for jure divino is derived from the Lord.”
What distinguished Marshall from Coleman was that the latter argued that the “spirit and the body” were not distinct to as the “ecclesiastical and civil government.” But for English Presbyterian Marshall, “civil magistracy is a Divine Institution; He [God] hath given them rule about the Laws . . . in the execution of them, the Magistrate is God’s vice-gerent. . . . Christian magistrates should be governed by the Word of God in order to protect the welfare of the people of God in the Christian Commonwealth. “Civil magistrate is ordained by God” for the Commonwealth, that there was no separation of civil and religious authority, just like the human body, where the body and spirit were inseparable. However, Marshall was convinced that civil magistracy and ecclesiastical polity were distinct, but with one ultimate goal, the building of the kingdom of Zion, the preservation of religion by restoring godly preaching and discipline. In a Christian Commonwealth like England, Christ delegated to civil magistrates the highest responsibility to take care of the religious life of the State, a perspective that distinguished him from Coleman. Reformation of England could only be achieved when civil magistrates were transformed through the preaching of the Word of God.
Formats
Book Details
About the Book
This is a literary study of the seventeenth-century pamphlets and sermons delivered to the Long Parliament by Stephen Marshall, a leading English Puritan. Marshall was known as preacher to the Long Parliament and for his participation in the further reformation of the English Church in the 1640s. His understanding of the role of civil magistracy was deeply rooted in his concept of the “English Reformation.” He was convinced that the constitutional changes during the sixteenth-century English Reformation defined the role of civil magistrates. The King became the “Supreme Head of the English Church,” and the civil magistracy consisting of “King-or-Queen-in Parliament” had the responsibility to spearhead the reformation of the English Church. He also insisted that restoring godly preaching and teaching in every local church would eventually complete the English Reformation.
Marshall also argued that the Henrician schism paved the way for England to become a “Christian Commonwealth where the Church is lodged,” whose characteristic was the unity among the people of God. This implied that in England, Presbyterians, Independents, and Erastians all belonged to one body of Jesus Christ, the “Head of the Church.” In a Christian Commonwealth, civil magistracy was a divine institution and had the highest power of ordering and governing the church, according to Marshall. It was the civil magistracy’s responsibility to protect and to take care of God’s people in all godliness. And in order to do so, magistrates should be rightly informed from the Word of God.
Though Marshall showed his opposition to King Charles I’s political innovation that precipitated an unfortunate war in 1642, his vision of a Christian Commonwealth where English magistracy consisting of the “King-or-Queen-in-Parliament” did not change. If the king could be persuaded to agree with the ecclesiastical reform Puritans proposed through Parliament, he would still be an instrument of reform.
About the Author
Dr. Jaretha Joy Jimena-Palmer is the VP for Academic Affairs of the International Theological Seminary (ITS). She has worked in academic administration (with a special focus on accreditation) with the Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Philippines (ATA, CHED) and with International Theological Seminary (ATS, ATA and BPPE). She teaches history and historical theology in USA and abroad for more than 17years. She received B.S. in Chemistry from West Negros University in the Philippines, Master of Divinity and Master of Theology from Asian Center Theological Studies (ACTS) & Mission in Seoul, Korea, and PhD in Historical Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary. She is married to Rolly, an Aviation Safety Inspector. They have one son, Josh. She is an ordained Elder of Glendale Presbyterian Church (PCUSA). Her family is currently attending La Canada Presbyterian Church.