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
Pt 1: Josiah an Erastian? 
Subject: Pt 1: Josiah an Erastian?
From: Chris Coldwell 
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 17:19:45 -0500

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 10:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Hembd 
Subject: Josiah, Erastianism, and National Covenanting: Part I
To: naphtali@naphtali.com

JOSIAH, ERASTIANISM, AND NATIONAL COVENANTING

The following discourse deals with Question #1 from the WF:GWS Questions
for thought. That question is as follows: 

1. "In the example of Josiah is there a practical difference between
national covenanting and Erastianism? What is the difference in a practical
sense? How could the Christian magistrate today cause all his citizens to
stand to a covenant between Christ and His elect?" 

I offer my meager remarks. May the LORD add His blessing to my feeble
endeavors. 

I hope to organize this paper in the following manner, namely: 
1) Was what Josiah did, in making his countrymen to stand to the covenant,
Erastian? 2) May the Christian magistrate today make his countrymen to
stand to the covenant of God? Does he have warrant in the Word of God to do
such a thing? 3) CAN a Christian magistrate do such a thing? That is, is
there any ability or power promised to him to effect such a thing? Again,
the three points I wish to discuss are, was what Josiah did Erastian, may
the Christian magistrate also make his citizens to stand to the covenant of
God in Christ, and CAN a Christian magistrate do this?

1) WAS WHAT JOSIAH DID ERASTIAN?

We proceed to the first question. In II Kings 23:1-3 and in II Chronicles
34:29-33, in making his countrymen to stand to the covenant, was King
Josiah practicing Erastianism? According to today's modern "evangelical
Christianity," Reformed and Presbyterian churches included, the answer is,
"Yes." According to today's modern "church," any magisterial intervention
in matters of religion or the Church is Erastian. This author remembers the
PCA version of the Westminster Standards that he once owned. In the preface
to that version, the editor, speaking on behalf of the General Assembly,
explained why the PCA had altered or deleted Article III of Chapter 23 and
Article II of Chapter 31 from the Confession. According to him, these
articles "smacked of the Erastian influence that predominated in that [the
Westminster] Assembly." Most Presbyterian denominations worldwide have
similarly deleted these articles, or taken exceptions to them; the RPCNA
and the OPC are examples. Similarly, the modern Dutch reformed
denominations -- The Netherlands Reformed Congregations, the Protestant
Reformed Church, and the Free Reformed Church -- have all followed the lead
of the Christian Reformed Church in seriously revising the XXXVI Chapter of
the Beligic Confession, so as to curtail in a major way the duties of the
civil magistrate toward the First Table of the Law, in defending and
promoting the true religion. 

But, the question arises: what really is Erastianism? Few today actually
define the term, particularly by referring to the primary documents of the
Erastians themselves. This is why it is most profitable to read the
writings of the Westminster divine, George Gillespie. Through him, one sees
what Erastianism really is.

I now refer to Gillespie's most excellent work, "Aaron's Rod Blossoming,"
in defense of Presbyterian church government. In order to understand
Erastianism, one should read this book: the entire book, really, is a
defense of Presbyterianism over against the Erastian doctrine advocated by
certain men in the days of the Westminster Assemly, notably, a certain Mr.
Coleman and a Mr. Prynne (though Gillespie cites the writings of several
other Erastians as well, including Thomas Erastus himself.)

Again, we are looking at what Erastianism really is, so that we can
determine whether the godly Josiah was practicing it. I now refer to
Gillespie's book, "Aaron's Rod Blossoming," Book 2, Chapter 1 (pp. 75 and
76 in the edition printed by Sprinkle Publications in 1985).

"...I shall, after their example, make know briefly what I find concerning
the rise and growth, the planting and watering, of the Erastian error. The
father of it is the old serpent...[H]e hath cunningly gone about to draw
men, first into a jealousy, and theninto a dislike of the ecclesiastical
discipline by God's mercy restored in the reformed churches. The mother of
it is the enmity of nature against the kingdom of Jesus Christ, which He as
Mediator, doth exercise in the government of the church; which enmity is
naturally in all men's hearts, but is unmortified and strongly prevalent in
some, who have said in their hearts, 'We will not have this man to reign
over us,' Luke xix...The midwife which brought this unhappy brood into the
light of the world, was Thomas Erastus, doctor of medicine at Heidelberg,
of whom I shall say no more than what is apparent by his own preface to the
reader, namely, that as he was once of the opinion that excommunication is
commanded in God's Word, so he came off to the contrary opnion..."
 "...The Erastian error being born, the breast which gave it suck were
profaneness and self-interest. The sons of Belial were very much for it,
expecting that the eye of the civil magistrate shall not be so vigilant
over them, nor his hand so much against them for a scandalous and dissolute
conversation, as church discipline would be...And is it as little to be
marvelled at if those, whether magistrates, lawyers, or others, who
conceived themselves to be so far losers, as ecclesiastical courts were
interested in government, and to be greater gainers by the abolition of
ecclesiastical interest in government, were biassed that way..." 
 "...The tutor which bred up the Erastian error was Arminianism; for the
Arminians, finding their plants plucked up, and their poison antidoted by
classes and synods, thereupon they began to cry down synodical authority,
and to appeal to the magistrate's authority in things ecclesiastical,
hoping for more favour and less opposition that way. They will have synods
only to examine, dispute, discuss, and to impose nothing under pain of
ecclesiastical censure, but to leave all men free to do as they list. See
their Exam. Cens. cap. 25, and Vindic. lib. 2, cap. 6, pp. 131-133. And for
the magistrate, they have endeavored to make him head of the church, as the
Pope was; yea, so far, that they are not ashamed to ascribe unto the
magistrate that jurisdiction over the churches, synods, and ecclesiastical
proceedings, which the Pope did formerly usurp. For which see Apollonius in
his "Jus Majestis Circa Sacra."

End of quote. Now I would have the reader to note the following things: 

1) Erastianism opposed church authority to excommunicate scandalous
offenders. As Gillespie notes in other sections of "Aaron's Rod
Blossoming," some Erastians would allow the church the right to suspend
temporarily scandalous offenders from the sacraments. However, they would
never allow for the church to have the authority to excommunicate the
continuously impenitent.

2) Heretics, notably, the Arminians, favored Erastianism, because by it,
they could maintain their errors within the churches; nay, they could even,
with their man-pleasing doctrines, prevail with most earthly monarchs, and
so secure control of the Church.

3) The Erastians, particularly the Arminians, were prepared to grant the
monarch all authority which the Pope had formerly claimed: that is, the
power of all judgment, the power of all ultimate authority, in matters of
doctrine, worship, and practice in the Church. They wanted to make the
magistrate the head of the Church on earth.

And here comes the pinnacle of what constitutes the doctrine of
Erastianism: that the civil magistrate, as head of the church, has power as
a lawgiver to the church, to rule in all matters ecclesiastical, even to
the imposition of man-made rites of worship, and to the exclusion of all
church discipline (outside mere classical and synodical "recommendations).

Now, having seen Erastianism in all its dark colors, can we say that Josiah
was Erastian? Did the godly Josiah in any way usurp the authority granted
to the priests alone? Did Josiah impose any human rites upon the worship of
God? Did Josiah eradicate all church authority? Did Josiah impose himself
upon the nation and the Church, as a new head of the Church, and
consequently, as a lawgiver, with power to impose man-made laws of his own
choosing? 

The answer to all of this, of course, is no. In no wise did Josiah usurp
Christ's exclusive claims as the Head and sole Lawgiver of the Church.
"...[T]here is one Lawgiver, Who is able to save and to destroy," James
4:12. Josiah was in no wise supplanting Christ's place as Sole Head and
Lawgiver to the Church. To the contrary, Josiah was submitting himself to
that one true Head and Lawgiver of the Church, in obeying God's specific
laws with regards to the King, in making the people to stand to the covenant. 

The King of Israel was no absolute monarch. He was to submit himself to the
real King in Zion, Jehovah God. See Psalm 20:9; Psalm 24:8-10; Psalm 47:2
and 6-7, and Psalm 84:6. Note that King David calls Jehovah his king in
Psalm 20:9 and Psalm 24:8-10. The kings of Israel, as true sons of David,
were all to bow down to the King of Zion in heaven, the LORD of hosts, and
as such were to serve Him by ruling by His Laws alone. And paramount in the
Law was the king's duty to use his magisterial power to keep Israel
faithful in her covenant to her God: Exodus 24:7-8; Deut. 4:13, 23; Deut.
5:2-3, and Deut. 17:18-20. 

Deuteronomy 17:18-20 read as follows: "And it shall be, when he [the king]
sitteth upon the throne of the kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of
the Law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: and
it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life;
that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this
Law and these statues, to do them: that his heart be not lifted up above
his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right
hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his
kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel." 

The kings of Israel, the sons of David, were to keep all the words of the
Law. They were to enforce them, as the supreme magistrates, under God, in
their land. They were to see to it that Israel did not "forget the covenant
of the LORD their God, which He had made with them," cf. Deut. 4:23,
especially His "ten commandments, written upon two tables of stone," cf.
Deut. 4:13. 

The king was to do this, not by usurping the unique duties and authorities
granted to others in their stations by God's Law. No he was to see to it
that they faithfully discharged their God-given duties and authority in
their offices committed to them. 

Hence, Josiah did not usurp the duties or authority committed to the house
of Aaron and to the Levitical priesthood. Certain duties, including
authority in Church matters, devolved upon the Levites alone. To the
Aaronic priests and the Levites alone belonged these peculiar duties:
teaching the Law on a regular basis, administering the temple ordinances,
and judging between the clean and the unclean (that is, church discipline).
Josiah in no way infringed upon this sphere of uniquely ecclesiastical
duties. 

It was the Levite who was to teach, on a regular basis, the Law of God to
the people. The Levites were also to judge between the clean and unclean,
and were to exclude the unclean from church rights and participation in the
ordinances. The Law of God in no way gave Josiah or any of the kings any
right to interfere in these specific duties delgated to the priesthood alone. 

Leviticus 10:9-11 speak of these commandments to the sons of Aaron in
particular. They were not to drink wine when they went into the tabernacle
of the congregation, so that they would be clear of mind, when judging
between the holy and unholy, the clean and the unclean; and so that they
would with a clear head be able to teach the people. "..that ye may put
difference between holy and unholy, and between clean and unclean; and that
ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath
spoken unto them by the hand of Moses," are the Scripture's own words, in
verses 10 and 11. And, the Levites being ordained to help the sons of
Aaron, it was lawfully permitted them to assist in these duties, under the
oversight of the Aaronic priesthood. See II Chron. 35:3 and II Chron. 30:7-8. 

Hence it was that the sons of Aaron were to be "teaching priests," II
Chron. 15:3. The absence of teaching priests in the nation was considered a
judgment from God. It was equated with being "without Law," there being no
lively exposition of it. 

With regards to the mandated duty of the priests and Levites to separate
the clean from the unclean: the high priest Jehoiada set the porters at the
gates, to examine prospective worshippers, whether their names were written
in the books of the genealogies (called "the book of life"), and whether
they were ceremonially clean, or whether, as we shall shortly see, they
were free from scandal. These porters, a type of the ruling elders who
today are to keep watch over the Lord's Table, were specifically delegated
the task of separating between the holy and the unholy, the clean and the
unclean; and they were to see to it that the unclean, the unholy, were
excluded from the Temple ordinances. 

Moreover, there were certain matters in which a soul could be "cut off," or
excommunicated from the congregation (the Church), over a church matter,
independent of any matter that would merit punishment under the Civil Law.
This power of excommunication likewise pertained alone to the priests. An
example of one of these matters was with circumcision. The man child who
was not circumcised was to be "cut off" from his people. yet this did not
mean that he was to be put to death, or banished, with no possibility of
reconciliation. Otherwise, the entire generation of the children of Moses,
ages twenty and under at the time of the Exodus, who were the sons of the
disobedient generation that fell in the wilderness of Sinai, would have had
to have been executed, or banished, with no chance of being admitted into
the commonwelath of Israel, which obviously was not the case, their
entering the land under Joshua. What did it mean, then, to be "cut off?" It
meant, to be cut off from the covenant, and from the people of the
covenant, and to lose membership status in the "congregation of Israel." It
was ecclesiastical excommunication, as George Gillespie proves in chapters
four, five, and six, of the first book, of "Aaron's Rod Blossoming."
Presumbly, in order to be reinstated into the covenant, the concerned
person and/or his parents (if the subject were a boy) would have to confess
their sins before the priests, and offer up a trespass offering. Then, they
could be readmitted to the congregation, and to the ordinances. 

So also with those who ate leaven during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, or
who knowingly offered sacrifices in any of the temple ordinances, when
unclean. That soul, upon being found out, would be "cut off," until due
repentance and trespass offering, under the watchful eye of the priests,
allowed for his readmittance into the Church. See Genesis 17:14, Numbers
19:13, and Exodus 12:15 for instances in the Law that demonstrate these
truths. 

Now: as Gillespie proves from the writings of the Jews and from the
Scriptures, in chapter 9 of the first book of "Aaron's Rod Blossoming,"
scandalous offenders were considered unclean, and were also excluded from
the ordinances and cut off from the congregation, by the priests. Now, the
cutting off of these scandalous offenders by Church authority, by the
priesthood, did not exempt them from civil punishments. However, it is to
be noted that there was a dual censure observed in these instances: that of
ecclesiastical censure, and that of civil punishment. All this proves that
there were distinct spheres of authority between ecclesiastical and civil
government, also in the nation Israel, and that the kings of Israel were
not allowed to interfere in the role of ecclesiastical authority, and vice
versa. 

With regards to judgment of doctrinal matters: there was no proscription in
the Civil Law for priests who taught error, save when the ordinances were
corrupted, when open idolatry or going after other gods was advocated, or
false prophecy practiced. Presumably, when one of the "teaching priests"
taught a doctrinal error, it was to be brought to the attention of the
other priests, and they judged the matter. The king, however, certainly had
no direct jurisdiction in the thing. (Other than to exhort the priests to
discharge their duty, that is.) Thus, there was likely some synodical
authority on the part of the priesthood, to insure doctrinal purity. I
would presume, also, that the priests keeping oversight over one another
and their affairs, the king only intervened lawfully when the Levites
delivered the offender over to him, because of some matter that pertained
to the Civil Law. 

An example of how that the godly kings refrained from disciplining the
priests in matters not directly dealt with in the Civil Law can be found in
King Joash, who served the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the high priest.
The king mandated the priests to collect monies for the restoration of the
Temple. The priests, for legitimate or illegitimate reasons (we do not
know), did not comply. Did the king punish them for their disobedience? No.
Instead, after conferring with them (and reproving them for their lack of
diligence), he then devised a different plan: the providing of a chest to
collect free-will offerings, outside the gate of the house of the Lord. See
II Chron. 24:5-11. The king did not take it upon himself to punish any of
the priests, though he did take liberty to exhort them to certain duties. 

In fact, there are several instances in which kings exhorted Levites to
performed to perform their charges faithfully, in cleansing the house of
the LORD, in separating the clean from the unclean, and in instructing the
people in the book of the Law of the LORD. Josiah is a prime example of
such a king, along with Joash and Hezekiah. Yet we never read of one
instance in which a king punished an unfaithful Levite for not performing
his ecclesiastical duties. I feel it quite safe to presume that thisis
because the responsibility for disciplining erring priests and Levites lay
with the priests themselves. The magistrate was free, yea, even duty bound,
out of loyalty to the Cause of Christ, to exhort the priests and Levites to
their duties; but he never was warranted to punish offenses that were
solely ecclesiastical. That province of authority pertained to the Church
alone. 

In conclusion, then, we see several things about Josiah's decisive move
toward reformation of the land in his reign. He made the people "stand to
the covenant." But he in no way assumed headship of the Church, to
prescribe new laws, new rites of worship, or to exercise uniquely
ecclesiastical privileges, in teaching the people on a regular basis out of
the Law, or in exercising Church discipline. In no way, then, was Josiah an
Erastian. 

How did Josiah make the people stand to the covenant? By making them swear
to obey the Law in their peculiar stations and offices. He did not usurp
the authority of the priest in his office, but rather exhorted him to
faithfulness in it, even making him to swear to God to this. So also did
Josiah with the lesser judges and princes under him. I would imagine that
Josiah was careful not to usurp their authority, even; that he did not
become involved in any cases of Law except those that were referred to him. 

And, of course, Josiah himself swore to the keeping of the covenant. He set
a right example before the people, in vowing himself before the LORD to
keep the covenant, to serve the Cause of Christ. He swore to uphold God's
Law in all that sphere that God had delegated to him, in the civil sphere. 

In summary, then, Josiah, in his sphere of authority, exhorted the people
to "stand to the covenant, by exhorting them to faithfulness in their
spheres of authority and duties, as commanded by the Law. Josiah covenanted
himself to uphold the Civil Law. Josiah likewise exhorted the priests to
discharge faithfully their offices, without intruding upon their specific
spheres of divinely mandated duty. Josiah also, as head of the civil
government of Israel, commanded the children of Jerusalem to vow themselves
to the keeping of the covenant. This vow was really a reaffirmation of the
covenant they as a nation and Church were already under: see Exodus 24:7-8,
Deut. 4:13, 23; and Deut. 5:2-3. 

Now there is much here in the example of Josiah that pertains very
directly, it seems to me, to modern magistrates, particularly of those who
profess the Name of Christ, especially considering that, since the
resurrection of Christ, the kingdoms of this world are indeed become the
kingdoms of God and of His Christ, Rev. 11:15 (whether those nations
acknowledge it or not). There is, however, a difference. Josiah had no
power to enact ANY laws of his own choosing. He was bound to enforce the
Civil Law which the covenant-keeping Jehovah, the Almighty God, had given
to them; and he was to enforce that Law alone. He could enact no statutes
in addition to the Civil Laws delivered to Israel; nor could he delete any.
This certainly was part of the unique national covenant that the LORD had
made with that nation, for the protection of the Church in the state of its
infancy and tutelage under the Ceremonial rites. Many of those judicial
laws related directly to the Ceremonial Law, which has expired; and hence,
the Civil Law, as a body of binding laws, has certainly also "expired with
the state of that peoplel," (West. Conf. Chapt. XIX, Art. IV). Moreover,
certain of the Civil Laws, though direct applications of the Moral Law,
were adapted to the cultural practices of that people, as with the practice
of putting a rail around their flat roofs, the people being accustomed to
sitting on their roofs. And some of the Laws were also adapted to the
relative hardness of their hearts: because of their having lesser effusions
of the Holy Ghost, Christ having not yet come; such is the case with the
laws allowing polygamy and slavery. 

Hence, we cannot consider the Civil Law as a body of laws to be biding or
permanent, though due reference must be made to them by the magistrate: for
"All Scripture is given by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of
God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works," II Tim.
3:16-17. And yet, the magistrate today, as the minister of God, ordained of
God "for the praise of them that do well," and to be "a terror to them that
do evil," must indeed frame just and equitable laws, with reference always
to the Moral Law of the Ten Commandments, as an eternal standard of what is
right and wrong. Else, if the Moral Law be set aside, in any of its
commandments, what becomes then the standard of what is right (well-doing)
or wrong (evil-doing)? In one is, in the fear of God, to serve God as the
minister of God, one must rule in accordance to His eternal, Moral Law:
both tables, else morality itself is changed. For that Law is "just, holy,
and good," and is the standard of all righteousness. And the civil
magistrate, as the minister of God, is duty bound to enforce God's
righteousness with regards to outward behavior alone: to "doing," whether
good or evil. And thus it is that the civil magistrate is to frame just and
equitable laws that uphold the righteousness of all of the Ten Commandments. 

I refer the reader now to the second installment of this discussion, where
I continue looking at the duty of the civil magistrate in every nation to
both Tables of the Moral Law.

Albert Hembd