# Westminster Confession Erastian?



## bemer (Jan 21, 2010)

I may be stirring up a hornet's next here; but after working through the various Westminster Assembly documents (Confession, Catechisms, directory, etc), I went beyond them to look at the enactments of the English Parliament by which they were implemented and enforced in the 1640's (this on the rule of statutory interpretation that the implementation of a statute by contemporaries of its enactment is strong evidence of the intent of the statute). These statutes (usually called "ordinances" during the Civil War and Protectorate) are comprehensively collected in Firth & Rait, Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660, 3 vols. (1911). You will remember that the Assembly itself was called under the authority of June 1643 Ordinance (citing F&R by volume and page, see I:180). Beyond this, however, Parliament enacted ordinances ordering the adoption of the Westminster Directory for public worship (I:582), ordering the whole kingdom to take the Solemn League and Covenant (I:175), ordering the adoption of the Form of Church Government (I:1188; this measure was enacted upon the advice of the Assembly): these are but a few of the many pertinent ordinances enacted. As far as I know, Parliament took all these actions with little, if any, objection by the Assembly; on the contrary, by and large with the Assembly's entusiastic support. 
In other words, I think a plausible argument could be made that if you want to understand the true import of the Westminster Standards, you need to refer to the views of such erastians as John Selden, not to the, essentially, irrelevant views of the Scottish covenater delegates to the assembly.


----------



## coramdeo (Jan 21, 2010)




----------



## bemer (Jan 21, 2010)

The erastianism is obvious: (1) the Westminster Assembly was created by statute (that is by the state); (2) the standards the Assembly adopted were enforced by statute (that is by the state); the state's measures of enforcement were adopted by Parliament without objection by the Assembly, and even by the Assembly's recommendation. How much more erastian can you get?


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 21, 2010)

Presbyterianism maintained that the magistrate had ecclesiastical authority as pertaining to the good order and civic maintenance of the church: therefore, he had authority to call synods, etc. These things do not belong strictly to the Erastians.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Jan 21, 2010)

bemer said:


> I may be stirring up a hornet's next here; but after working through the various Westminster Assembly documents (Confession, Catechisms, directory, etc), I went beyond them to look at the enactments of the English Parliament by which they were implemented and enforced in the 1640's (this on the rule of statutory interpretation that the implementation of a statute by contemporaries of its enactment is strong evidence of the intent of the statute). These statutes (usually called "ordinances" during the Civil War and Protectorate) are comprehensively collected in Firth & Rait, Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660, 3 vols. (1911). You will remember that the Assembly itself was called under the authority of June 1643 Ordinance (citing F&R by volume and page, see I:180). Beyond this, however, Parliament enacted ordinances ordering the adoption of the Westminster Directory for public worship (I:582), ordering the whole kingdom to take the Solemn League and Covenant (I:175), ordering the adoption of the Form of Church Government (I:1188; this measure was enacted upon the advice of the Assembly): these are but a few of the many pertinent ordinances enacted. As far as I know, Parliament took all these actions with little, if any, objection by the Assembly; on the contrary, by and large with the Assembly's entusiastic support.
> In other words, I think a plausible argument could be made that if you want to understand the true import of the Westminster Standards, you need to refer to the views of such erastians as John Selden, not to the, essentially, irrelevant views of the Scottish covenater delegates to the assembly.





The miracle of the WCF, is that it was established out from under Parliament's rule, and despite the opposition of Erastian views:



“It was somewhat ominous of evil, that the very calling of the Assembly was solely the deed of the civil power, and that their deliberations were limited to such matters as should be proposed to them by the Parliament. Yet, in the universal confusion into which both Church and State had been cast, this was unavoidable, and might not have led to any evil consequences, had the civil government been satisfied with the due exercise of their own powers in calling forth and putting into operation the remedial energies of the Church in its own sacred province.

Nor was it strange, that men who had so recently suffered so much from prelatic tyranny should regard with alarm all ecclesiastical power whatever, and by the strength of a violent revulsion and rebound, should spring to the opposite conclusion, that there ought to be no power or jurisdiction, except that of the civil magistrate.

Such appears to have been the predominate state of mind and feeling among the members of the Long Parliament in general, together with the peculiar opinions held by individuals, and caused by the diversities of studies or professional pursuits.

‘Most of the lawyers,’ says Baillie, ‘are strong Erastians, and would have all the Church government depend absolutely upon the Parliament.’ And of Selden, he says, ‘This man is the head of the Erastians; his glory is most in the Jewish learning; he avows everywhere that the Jewish State and Church were all one, and that so in England it must be, that the Parliament is the Church.’ . . .

The easy connection between this theory and that which had long prevailed in the Church of England, will be readily perceived . . .”

History Of The Westminster Assembly Of Divines, William M. Hetherington


----------



## Wayne (Jan 21, 2010)

Bob: 



> I think a plausible argument could be made that if you want to understand the true import of the Westminster Standards, you need to refer to the views of such erastians as John Selden, not to the, essentially, irrelevant views of the Scottish covenater delegates to the assembly.



I was tracking with you until this last sentence. Certainly a full and proper consideration of the Westminster Standards will take the views of Selden into account, but the views of the Scottish (non-voting) commissioners were not irrelevant. Rather, they were considerable in their effect.

According to Hetherington, only Thomas Coleman among the commissioners was solidly Erastian. "He was aided generally, but not always, by Lightfoot, in the various discussions that arose involving Erastian opinions." Hetherington continues:



> Of the lay assessors in the Assembly the chief Erastians were, the learned Selden, Mr. Whitelocke, and Mr. St. John; but though Selden was the only one of them whose arguments were influential in the Assembly itself, yet nearly all the Parliament held sentiments decidedly Erastian, and having seized the power of Church government, were not disposed to yield it up, be the opinion of the assembled divines what it might be. Hence, though the Erastian divines were only two, yet their opinions, supported by the whole civil authority in the kingdom, were almost sure to triumph in the end. This, in one point of view, was not strange. The kingdom had suffered so much severe and protracted injury from the usurped authority and power of the prelates, that the assertors of civil liberty almost instinctively shrunk from even the shadow of any kind of power in the hands of ecclesiastics.



Consider too, especially in regard to the influence of the Scottish commissioners, the famous debate between Selden and the youthful Gillespie:



> . . . Such was the boasted argument of the man emphatically styled "the learned Selden." Its object was, to explain away the force of the term _ecclesia_, or "church," and to reduce the passage to a strictly Jewish application; then, by allusions to some indefinite Hebrew customs, to resolve the matter into a mere application to a civil court, in cases where a private and friendly arrangement could not be effected; reducing, at the same time, the meaning of the term "excommunication" into the act of one person merely declining to hold intercourse with another person from whom he had received offence. Yet the ostentatious display of minute rabbinical lore which he brought forward, seems to have somewhat staggered the Assembly, as appears from the inconclusive remarks of Herle and Marshall, as reported by Lightfoot. But Gillespie saw through the fallacious character of Selden's argument; and in a speech of singular ability and power completely refuted his learned antagonist, proving that the passage could not be interpreted or explained away to mean a mere reference to a civil court. By seven distinct arguments he proved that the whole subject was of a spiritual nature, not within the cognizance of civil courts; and he proved also, that the Church of the Jews had and exercised the power of spiritual censures. The effect of Gillespie's speech was so great as to astonish and confound Selden himself, who made no attempt to reply; and the result was, that the Assembly soon afterwards decided that the negative arguments of Selden and the Independents were not conclusive, . . .



[Hetherington, William M., _History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines_. 3d ed., 1856, SWRB reprint, 1991. Pages 141-142 and 239-240, respectively.]


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 21, 2010)

Here is a good summary statement from Shaw's commentary on WCF XXIII:

In this section it was manifestly the object of the compilers of our Confession to guard equally against Erastian and Sectarian principles. In opposition to Erastian principles, according to which the government and discipline of the Church are devolved upon the civil magistrate, they declare that the magistrate may not take upon himself either the ministerial dispensation of the Word and sacraments, or any part of the government of the Church. But while they deny to the magistrate all ministerial or judicial power in the Church, in opposition to Erastians, yet, to guard against the other extreme, they assert, in opposition to the Sectarians of that age, that it is his duty to employ his influence and authority, in every way competent to him, for the good of the Church, and the advancement of the interests of true religion.​


----------



## bemer (Jan 21, 2010)

*not the Second Reformation*

I didn't want to suggest that the Scottish delegates had no influence on the deliberations of and the standards produced by the Assembly; but I did want to suggest that in the eyes of the contemporaries the Westminster Assembly was at best a subordinate advisory body, created by and reporting to Parliament. (For more on this point, take a look at,eg, G. J. Tommer, John Selden; a Life in Scholarship (2009), vol. II, 573-4.) Under the principle that interpretation of enactments (in this case, the Assembly standards) by contemporaries to the adoption of those enactments is strong evidence of what those enactments mean, it must be said the the political nation, embodied in Parliament, viewed the Assembly as very much a subordinate, advisory---not an independent---instrument of the state, and viewed the standards the Assembly produced as, essentially, subordinate rules to be interpreted by and enforced by the state. I admit that what, as an historical matter, Erastus actually held was quite different; but in ordinary usage, the relationship between the Westminster Assembly and Parliament was, essentially, "erastian," and that relationship must, as a matter of reality, be considered in determining what contempories thought the Westminster standards actually meant. I might add that the Hetherington quote that Ronda posted was rather disingenuous, in that it was not only the lay members of the Assembly that were "erastian" in approach; by their acquiescence to parliamentary control, it seems that the vast majority of ministerial members of the Assembly was also! Certainly, what we see here is a long way removed from the "doctrine of the two kingdoms" in Second Reformation Scotland!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 21, 2010)

I think it is a fundamental mistake to confuse Establishment with Erastianism and what the Assembly believed and wanted and what Parliament believed and did. See amongst other things already mentioned the whole brouhaha with Parliament's charging the Assembly with abuse of privilege and their "nine captious queries" which produced a reply on behalf of the Presbyterian majority of the Assembly, _Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or The Divine Right of Church Government. _For background see the Naphtali Press edition of this work with the introduction by David W. Hall and see John R. DeWitt's _Jus Divinum: The Westminster Assembly and the Divine Right of Church Government, 229-234._


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 21, 2010)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I think it is a fundamental mistake to confuse Establishment with Erastianism and *what the Assembly believed and wanted and what Parliament believed and did*. See amongst other things already mentioned the whole brouhaha with Parliament's charging the Assembly with abuse of privilege and their "nine captious queries" which produced a reply on behalf of the Presbyterian majority of the Assembly, _Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or The Divine Right of Church Government. _For background see the Naphtali Press edition of this work with the introduction by David W. Hall and see John R. DeWitt's _Jus Divinum: The Westminster Assembly and the Divine Right of Church Government, 229-234._


 
Exactly. One could interpret the historical dealings of Parliament, and how *they* viewed the work of the Assembly all along, and also to what things the assembly in practice acquiesced, etc. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, the explicit and stated beliefs of the Confession are not Erastian.


----------



## Wayne (Jan 21, 2010)

> Exactly. One could interpret the historical dealings of Parliament, and how *they* viewed the work of the Assembly all along, and also to what things the assembly in practice acquiesced, etc. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, the explicit and stated beliefs of the Confession are not Erastian.



Moreover, does this thread have in view the 1647 or English edition of the Confession, or the 1789 American edition? The latter is explicitly _not_ Erastian. Given the American context of the Puritan Board, is this discussion then purely academic? It might not be for those among the micro-denominations that do hold to the original edition, but for most of the American audience, what difference does this discussion make? Even if there were some measure of Erastianism proven in the 1647 edition, such was removed in 1789.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not being argumentative here. "I'm just saying."


----------



## bemer (Jan 21, 2010)

(1) It is true that the Westminster standards, viewed in the abstract, without any historical context, are not erastian; but that is not the way that one attains understanding of historical documents. Rather, one examines them in the context of the historical period that produced them, and tries to understand how contemporaries of their production understood them.
(2) It is also true that religious establishment is not synonymous with erastianism: a good example, as I previously mentioned, is the relation of church and state seen in the "doctrine of the two kingdoms" in Scotland of the Second Reformation. When, however, the established church is definitely subordinate to the state and owes its organization and standards, as enforecable instruments, to enactments of the legislature, it must be regarded in a sense as erastian. This, as a matter of historical reality, was the situation of the Westminster Assembly vis-a-vis Parliament in 1640's England.
(3) I am, of course, referring to the original Westminster standards as produced at the request of, and enforced by the authority of, Parliament. Certainly, the 1789 American version is not in any way erastian. I don't think that the discussion is entirely academic, however, for two reasons: (1) in that some conservative Presbyterian groups look to the original standards and in fact reject, explicitly or implicitly, the 1789 modifications; and (2) in that many historical assumptions concerning the Westminster Assembly (as expressed, eg, by Hetherington and Shaw) are in fact inaccurate---nay, even partisan expressions of what amounts denominational folklore.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 21, 2010)

Wayne, this is the contention: 


> In other words, I think a plausible argument could be made that if you want to understand the true import of the Westminster Standards, you need to refer to the views of such erastians as John Selden, not to the, essentially, irrelevant views of the Scottish covenater [SIC] delegates to the assembly.



It goes to how one argues original intent for all of the standards, not just the parts on the civil magistrate. 



Wayne said:


> > Exactly. One could interpret the historical dealings of Parliament, and how *they* viewed the work of the Assembly all along, and also to what things the assembly in practice acquiesced, etc. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, the explicit and stated beliefs of the Confession are not Erastian.
> 
> 
> Moreover, does this thread have in view the 1647 or English edition of the Confession, or the 1789 American edition? The latter is explicitly _not_ Erastian. Given the American context of the Puritan Board, is this discussion then purely academic? It might not be for those among the micro-denominations that do hold to the original edition, but for most of the American audience, what difference does this discussion make? Even if there were some measure of Erastianism proven in the 1647 edition, such was removed in 1789.
> ...


----------



## Wayne (Jan 21, 2010)

> (2) in that many historical assumptions concerning the Westminster Assembly (as expressed, eg, by Hetherington and Shaw) are in fact inaccurate---nay, even partisan expressions of what amounts denominational folklore.



I have heard this charge made in the past, and for the sake of argument will accept it in a broad sense for now. But what specifically of the quotes provided above from Hetherington in post #6 might be in error? Where is the inaccuracy or the partisanship there? Or do we have to wait for the Van Dixhoorn edition of the Assembly's Minutes before we can definitively answer not only this question, but the questions in Bob's original post, as well?

Chris, I did realize that Bob had in view the 1647 edition. Sometimes I ask questions not for my sake but in order to clarify, particularly for other readers of the thread. 

The crux of the original intent question in this thread is here, isn't it?:



> (1) It is true that the Westminster standards, viewed in the abstract, without any historical context, are not erastian; but that is not the way that one attains understanding of historical documents. Rather, one examines them in the context of the historical period that produced them, and tries to understand how contemporaries of their production understood them.



and I would agree that we should strive to couch documents in their original context in order to better understand them. I do have a potential problem with Bob's last sentence in the quote above, namely "how contemporaries . . . understood them". Where would you take that? To what extent? Can you unpack that further for us, Bob?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 21, 2010)

bemer said:


> (1) It is true that the Westminster standards, viewed in the abstract, without any historical context, are not erastian; but that is not the way that one attains understanding of historical documents. Rather, one examines them in the context of the historical period that produced them, and tries to understand how contemporaries of their production understood them.


 
Which, I believe, you have done a poor job of establishing. Have you read _Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici_?


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 21, 2010)

Bob, for the sake of clarity and toward an attempt at understanding what you're advocating -- is this position of yours based upon the reading of specific secondary literature, or is this simply something you think you see in the historic documents themselves? Also, if the first, what books/articles is this based upon?


----------



## bemer (Jan 21, 2010)

1) First, as to the Jus..., I have not read it but would like to. Since a Naphtali Press person is reading the thread, I hope you won't mind if a digress to ask if the paperback ed. is still available, as the NP website says? I can't find it in the NP bookstore? Sorry for getting off track. My impression from Shaw's History of the English Church is that the Jus... is the product of a committee of London ministers and by no means an official product of the Westminster Assembly (although it may well have expressedhe views of a substantial part of its membership). Am I right here?
2) With respect to Paul's question, my original sources are the official Ordinances adopted by Parliament, printed in the Firth & Riat compilation I originally cited. I suspect very few people who are arguing with meave ever bothered to look at them (they should be available in any larger law library).


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 21, 2010)

Bob, so you're not bringing any secondary sources or historical studies into this? (And you might be very surprised what some of the people into this thread have looked into or read).


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 21, 2010)

The NP edition of JDRE version is essentially out of print but by co editor David Hall has a few copies.


----------



## MW (Jan 21, 2010)

WCF 23.3, and 30.1, as found in the original Westminster Confession of Faith, are distinctly anti-Erastian, according to the historically accepted definition of what constitutes Erastianism.


----------



## Wayne (Jan 21, 2010)

> I suspect very few people who are arguing with meave ever bothered to look at them (they should be available in any larger law library).



The Law Library at the University of Arkansas has a set, which I was able to borrow via interlibrary loan in 1993. 
Use http://www.worldcat.org to locate one of about 200 libraries around the country that hold sets. 
Or it is online here: Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660 | British History Online


----------



## MW (Jan 21, 2010)

bemer said:


> Beyond this, however, Parliament enacted ordinances ordering the adoption of the Westminster Directory for public worship (I:582), ordering the whole kingdom to take the Solemn League and Covenant (I:175), ordering the adoption of the Form of Church Government (I:1188; this measure was enacted upon the advice of the Assembly): these are but a few of the many pertinent ordinances enacted. As far as I know, Parliament took all these actions with little, if any, objection by the Assembly; on the contrary, by and large with the Assembly's entusiastic support.


 
Our Australian Parliament enacts ordinances which have religious impact on our society all the time. I for one am glad that the nature of the process adopted by the Long Parliament was (1.) explicitly and honestly acknowledged as religious, and (2.) conscientiously scriptural. It amazes me to find a Christian person finding fault with Christian magistrates for lustering their public office with Christian principles and practices.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 22, 2010)

Without studying this issue regarding the WCF, why is the charge of Erastinism a hostile derogatory term? Is it about who controls the order? Does the Church dictate to the state or vice versa?


----------



## bemer (Jan 22, 2010)

I would very much like to thank Wayne for the link to the online ed. of Firth and Rait; I didn't know about it. At this point, I would suggest that our debate is getting a little counterproductive. I base my position on my independent reading of the Ordinances passed by Parliament in the 1640's, not, I admit, on any secondary authority. If you want to debate further, I would respectfully suggest that you go to the source I used and familiarize yourself with the evidence I cited in my initial message. I'm sure pretty much everyone disagrees with my conclusions, but if we're going to argue, we need to argue from the same evidentiary basis.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 22, 2010)

Even though this thread is going nowhere, this should be a new topic for a new thread; please start one if that is of interest.


Amazing Grace said:


> Without studying this issue regarding the WCF, why is the charge of Erastinism a hostile derogatory term? Is it about who controls the order? Does the Church dictate to the state or vice versa?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 22, 2010)

Since you are the one floating a radical theory which says that the most influential group involved in all the Westminster Assembly's deliberations is irrelevant to the discussion of "the true import" of the Standards, I suggest you become more familiar with the literature of the subject and then reevaluate your thinking and come back and try discussing this again. I'm closing this thread.


bemer said:


> I would very much like to thank Wayne for the link to the online ed. of Firth and Rait; I didn't know about it. At this point, I would suggest that our debate is getting a little counterproductive. I base my position on my independent reading of the Ordinances passed by Parliament in the 1640's, not, I admit, on any secondary authority. If you want to debate further, I would respectfully suggest that you go to the source I used and familiarize yourself with the evidence I cited in my initial message. I'm sure pretty much everyone disagrees with my conclusions, but if we're going to argue, we need to argue from the same evidentiary basis.


----------

