Historic Reformed Theologians on Church Quarantines and Social Distancing

The following is a healthy sampling from a much longer (and a bit more difficult I would say, though not unwelcome) compilation provided by Reformed Books Online. I do not know these fellows and cannot vouch for every aspect of their Reformed outlook, but they are clearly well read in historic Reformed and Christian works, and the compilation they have provided (with more to come, they say) is very helpful; the scholarly legwork here is yeoman’s work and requires hours; for that we can be grateful and thankful.

I have selected a few quotations I think are most helpful. There is much more, and the reader will want to consult the larger page to see the rest. Even this much, however, is the proverbial drink from a fire hose. I have also selectively edited and have added a few comments of my own without delineating theirs (most) from mine—I pray forgiveness in advance.

The whole collection includes quotations in approval of closing churches during pandemics, social distancing during contagion, and temporarily increased civil power to enforce such things, all coming from Reformers like Martin Luther and Theodore Beza, Westminster Divines like George Gillespie, second-generation Reformers like Johann von Ewich (German Reformed), and later 19C ministers like Francis Grimké. (The selection from Grimké written after the 1918 Spanish Flu is especially direct and clear, and being both more modern and American, feels a little closer to home.)

***

Johann von Ewich (1525-1588) was a German Reformed scholar, educated in law, a physician and professor of medicine. He came to hold the civil office of city-physician under the mayor of the increasingly reformed city of Bremen. This book, his magnum opus on the subject, was intended to offer Bremen (and other towns) a comprehensive plan for greater reform in times of plague.

And first concerning Church meetings, this counsel is to be given, that they come not by heaps, or by throngs, neither in, nor go out, and that they flock not by great numbers into one church, where they shall be driven to sit straightly and near together, especially in one city: whereas there are more places fit for this purpose, in the which the divine service, that is, the expounding of the word of God, and administration of the sacraments may be done.

For albeit these things may peradventure seem unto some to be but small, and of little importance, yet nothing is to be omitted, which by any means may make for the turning away of the infection. And that which Cicero said, that when as we ought to do for the benefit of men, and do service to the fellowship of mankind, nothing is to be kept close, whatsoever commodity or store we have, the same especially ought to have place at this time.

(The Duty of a Faithful and Wise Magistrate, in preserving and delivering of the commonwealth from infection, in the time of the plague or pestilence… (London, 1583), bk. 1, ch. 6, ‘Of order to bee appoynted among the Citizens, and of leauing of publike meetinges and assemblies,’, 27.)

Von Ewich had extended commentary on the subjects, including that especially ministers who are visiting the sick, but by extension anyone who has had occasion to contract the disease, should especially be avoided, and thus as best as possible quarantine themselves:

For I have said before, and say still, that not only the outward and common infectious air, but also contagious breaths and infectious breathings, or blowings, which are gathered and afterwards imparted to the whole: and others that are sick by the keepers, by such as sit by them, by the ministers of the church going hither and thither and standing by the infected, yea many times also by them that are dead, ought specially to be avoided. Which thing, when as by daily experience we are taught, and have proved also unto us to be true, by all means we have to take heed, lest that we leave the cause of this so great a disease in others, whom with all diligence we have, for fear of infection, put apart.

Hereunto you may add, which we have oftentimes no less experience of, that many sick persons also (I speak not of such as are infected with the plague), albeit they be not infected with the company of such ministers, yet they will nevertheless refuse their presence for fear of the infection. Whereupon also this inconvenience will arise, yet they had rather receive never so simple comfort at the hands either of some of their own household, who for the most part are unmeet for this purpose, or else die alone than to undergo a double mischief. . . .

(von Ewich, The Duty of a Faithful and Wise Magistrate, in Preserving and Delivering of the Commonwealth from Infection, in the time of the Plague or Pestilence… (London, 1583), bk. 1, ch. 5, ‘Of the Ministers of the Church’, 19-20.)

George Gillespie was a prominent member of the Westminster Assembly. His views on God’s Law (what we would call theonomy today, were probably among the most fully and accurately developed. His quotation here shows a knowledge of (1) infection, (2) social distancing, (3) adaptation of public worship, and (4) that this went on for years at times under a spreading disease. Those four things, known and practiced then, are the major, necessary things that relevant and applicable for times of public contagion in nearly every age and situation, even the modern era.

Arguing against congregationalism, Gillespie provides that unity in Church government is an essential (and argument about forms also would be worth having in another place); but in the process demonstrates that the unity remains unbroken even if local church assemblies are interrupted—even for years—and can be so legitimately due to plague:

A multitude may be one Church, though they do not meet together into one place for the worship of God: for example, it may fall forth, that a congregation cannot meet together into one, but into diverse places, and this may continue so for some years together, either by reason of persecution, or by means of the plague, or because they have not such a large parish-Church as may contain them all, so that a part of them must meet in some other place: but a multitude cannot be one Church, unless they communicate in the same Church government, and under the same governors (by one Church I mean one Ecclesiastical Republic) even as the like union under civil government and governors maketh one corporation: . . . (An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland… (Edinburgh, 1641), 2nd pt., ch. 3, 145.)

Theodore Beza was a disciple, friend, and successor of John Calvin in Geneva. His scholarly credentials need no introduction, as they were widely recognized at the time and are generally known by students today. He was a giant. And when faced with plague, he gave the same counsel as these others (he practiced self-quarantine to such an extent he would not even accept visits from his closest friends, Calvin or Viret. Indeed, he thought them so important to the world he would not risk infecting them!):

When as I myself … was sick of the plague at Lausanne [France], and that both others of my fellow ministers, and amongst the rest, that singular man of blessed memory Peter Viret was prepared to come unto me: and that John Calvin himself also sending a messenger with letters offered unto me all kind of courtesy; I suffered none of them to come unto me, lest I might have been thought to have provided for myself with the loss of the Christian commonwealth, which was manifest would have been very great by the death of so worthy men: neither doth it repent me to have done so, although peradventure in the like case of theirs they should not have obtained the same at my hand.

But if in such calamities the magistrate in time do provide, as much as may, both by such lawful means as are not repugnant unto Christian charity, that the infection may be letted, and also that the sick of the plague lack nothing, he shall take away a great many questions which in this argument are wont to be made. But this especially must be agreed upon, that as our sins are the chief and the true cause of the plague: so that this is the only proper remedy against the same, if the pastors dispute not of the infection (which belongeth unto the physicians) but both by words and example of life stir up they’re flocks unto earnest repentance and love and charity one towards another, and that the sheep themselves hearken unto the voice of their shepherds.”

(A Short Learned and Pithy Treatise of the Plague, Wherein are Handled These Two Questions: the One, Whether the Plague Be Infectious, Or No: the Other, Whether and How Far it May of Christians Be Shunned by Going Aside (London, 1580), 68-70 EEBO)

Richard Baxter (1615–1691), a famous Anglican Puritan, covers whether or not a civil government can close churches during pandemics. He does so with his classic style of tight logical control and sparse phrasing, which nevertheless somehow comes across as tedious and prolix. It is nevertheless well reasoned and written and worth reading a few times over:

Question 109: May we omit Church-assemblies on the Lord’s day, if the Magistrate for­bid them?

Answer: 1. It is one thing to forbid them for a time, upon some special cause (as infection by pestilence, fire, war, etc.), and another thing to forbid them statedly or profanely.

2. It is one thing to omit them for a time, and another to do it ordinarily.

3. It is one thing to omit them in formal obedience to the Law; and another thing to omit them in prudence or for necessity, because we cannot keep them.

4. The Assembly and the circumstances of the Assembly must be distinguished:

1. If the Magistrate for a greater good, (as the common safety) forbid Church Assemblies in a time of pestilence, assault of enemies, or fire, or the like necessity, it is a duty to obey him. Because positive duties give place to those great natural duties which are their end: so Christ justified himself and his disciples violation of the external rest of the Sabbath. For the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 2. Because Affirmatives bind not ad semper, and out of season du­ties become sins. 3. Because one Lords day or Assembly is not to be preferred before Many which by the omission of that one are like to be obtained.

2. If princes profanely forbid holy assemblies and public worship, either statedly, or as a renuncia­tion of Christ and our religion; it is not lawful formally to obey them.

3. But it is lawful prudently to do that secretly for the present necessity, which we cannot do publicly, and to do that with smaller numbers, which we cannot do with greater assemblies, yea and to omit some assemblies for a time that we may thereby have opportunity for more: which is not formal but only material obedience.

4. But if it be only some circumstances of assembling that are forbidden us, that is the next case to be resolved.

Question 110. Must we obey the Magistrate if he only forbid us worshiping God, in such a place, or country, or in such numbers, or the like?

Answer: We must distinguish between such a determination of circumstances, modes or accidents. What if we be forbidden only place, num­bers, etc. as plainly destroy the worship or the end, and such as do not. For instance:

1. He that saith, ‘You shall never assemble but once a year, or never but at midnight; or never above six or seven minutes at once, etc.,’ doth but determine the circumstance of time: But he doth it so as to destroy the worship, which cannot so be done in consistency with its ends. But he that shall say, ‘You shall not meet till nine a clock, nor stay in the night, etc. does no such thing. . . .

2. I need not stand on the application. In the latter case we owe formal obedience. In the former we must suffer, and not obey.

For if it be meet so to obey, it is meet in obedience to give over God’s worship. . . .

(A Christian Directory, or a Sum of Practical Theology… (London, 1673), pp. 870-872.)

Ashbel Green (1762-1848) was an American Presbyterian minister and president of Princeton University. The following quotation relates to the yellow fever epidemic that swept through Philadelphia. Note that while he pleaded with people to flee, he remained in the city to do so.

[I] resolved to go and preach and advise all my people who could leave the city to escape for their lives. This I accordingly did, and to this in a great measure it was probably owing that, under the blessing of God, very few of my congregation became the victims of the pestilence in this year.

To those of my charge who I knew could not leave the city, I said as much as I conscientiously could to alleviate their fears, exhorting them to put their trust in God, seeing that in the order of his providence it was impracticable for them to go from their homes. I told the people explicitly that I could not see any call of duty that they should assemble for public worship, or that I should attend to preach while the city should remain in its present state.”

(Joseph Jones, ed., The Life of Ashbel Green, V.D.M. (New York, 1849), 281.)

Francis J. Grimké was a Presbyterian pastor in Washington, D.C. He wrote this in the context of the 1918–1920 Spanish Flu. (See Andrew Myers, ‘Reflections by Francis J. Grimke on the 1918 ‘Spanish Flu”.)

Another thing that has impressed me, in connection with this epidemic, is the fact that conditions may arise in a community which justify the extraordinary exercise of powers that would not be tolerated under ordinary circumstances. This extraordinary exercise of power was resorted to by the [civil] Commissioners in closing up the theaters, schools, churches, in forbidding all gatherings of any considerable number of people indoors and outdoors, and in restricting the numbers who should be present even at funerals. The ground of the exercise of this extraordinary power was found in the imperative duty of the officials to safeguard, as far as possible, the health of the community by preventing the spread of the disease from which we were suffering.

There has been considerable grumbling, I know, on the part of some, particularly in regard to the closing of the churches. It seems to me, however, in a matter like this it is always wise to submit to such restrictions for the time being. If, as a matter of fact, it was dangerous to meet in theaters and in the schools, it certainly was no less dangerous to meet in churches. The fact that the churches were places of religious gathering, and the others not, would not affect in the least the health question involved. If avoiding crowds lessens the danger of being infected, it was wise to take the precaution and not needlessly run in danger, and expect God to protect us.

And so, anxious as I have been to resume work, I have waited patiently until the order was lifted. I started to worry at first, as it seemed to upset all of our plans for the fall work; but I soon recovered my composure. I said to myself, Why worry? God knows what He is doing. His work isn’t going to suffer. It will rather be a help to it in the end. Out of it, I believe, great good is coming. All the churches, as well as the community at large, are going to be the stronger and better for this season of distress through which we have been passing.” (Some Reflections, growing out of the recent epidemic of influenza that Afflicted our City (Washington D.C., 1918), 6.)

***

Many thanks to the editors at Reformed Books Online for this great and growing body of work.