Erastianism is the view that the civil government has authority over the Church
in sacred things (in sacra).
.
.
Subsection
.
.
Order of Contents
Against Erastianism
. Articles
. Books
. Quote
. Latin
Theology
. Church & State Co-Extensive
. Divine Right of Church Government
. Two Heads of the Church: Visible (King) & Invisible (Christ)
. Ordination
. Excommunication
. Mediatorial Kingdom
. Scriptural ‘Qualifications’ of Civil Rulers
. Theonomy
Compliance with
History
. Quote, Articles, Books
. Lutheranism, Arminianism, Congregationalism, at Westminster,
. Church of England
. Oath of Supremacy
.
.
Articles
1600’s
Calderwood, David – The Altar of Damascus or the Patern of the English Hierarchy & Church Policy Obtruded upon the Church of Scotland ([Amsterdam?] 1621)
ch. 1, ‘Of the King’s Supremacy’, pp. 1-21
These chapters are mostly a description of the subject as it existed in England, as Caldwerwood thought a mere description of the monstrosity was a sufficient refutation of it, per ‘To the Reader’.
ch. 2, ‘Of the High Commission’, pp. 21-39
London Ministers – ‘Of the Proper Receptacle and Distinct Subject of all this Power and authority of Church Government… That the Political Magistrate is not the Proper Subject of this Power’ being part 2, ch. 9, section 2 of Jus Divinum, the Divine Right of Church Government (1645, 1654)
Gillespie, George 1645-46
‘A Brotherly Examination of Mr. Coleman’s Late Sermon’
These three tracts were instigated by a sermon by the Erastian, Thomas Coleman to the English House of Commons, July 30, 1645. For background to them, see pp. xxiv-xxv of ‘Memoir of the Rev. George Gillespie’ in The Presbyterian’s Armoury, vol. 1.
‘Nihil Respondes [Not-Responding], or a Discovery of Mr. Coleman’s Piece’
‘Male Audis, or an Answer to Mr. Coleman’s Male Dicis’
Byfield, Adoniram – ‘A Brief View of Mr. Coleman’s New-Model of church government, delivered by him in a late sermon, upon Job 11:20’ (1645) 36 pp.
Fergusson, James – ‘A Brief Refutation of the Doctrine of Erastianism’ Original 1652 36 pp. being Section 3 of A Brief Refutation of the Errors of Toleration, Erastianism, Independency, and Separtation, delivered in Sermons on 1 Jn. 4:1, pp. 86-122 with a preface by Robert Candlish in the 1843 reprint, the year of the Disruption
Brown of Wamphray, John – Section 12 of An Apologetical Relation, pp. 93-108 (1665)
Brown, writing from Holland, defended the Scottish covenanters by giving their history of resistance against Erastianism and Prelacy. This chapter lists the many reasons why taking the Erastian Oath of Allegiance to Charles II in 1661 was wrong, and exposes Erastianism in the process.
“There was little discussion upon this subject [of Erastiansim] in England after the Restoration [1660]. The controversy was then transferred to Scotland, where the Presbyterian Nonconformists, in defending their refusal to submit to the ecclesiastical establishment then imposed upon the nation, not only objected to the intrinsic unlawfulness of the things imposed, but to the sinful usurpation of the rights of Christ, and of His church, exhibited by the civil authorities in imposing them, and were thus led to expound the principles by which the interference of the civil authorities, in regard to religious matters, ought to be regulated.
The principle works in which their views upon this subject were set forth are–Brown of Wamphray’s Apologetical Relation, published in 1665; the Apology for the Oppressed, Persecuted Ministers and Professors of the Presbyterian Reformed Religion, in 1677; and Forrester’s Rectius Instruendum, etc., in 1684. There has not, from that period till our own day, been much discussion upon this subject in Scotland.” – Cunningham, HT 2.581
For more from this Scottish time period, see Defenses of Scottish Covenanting especially the works by James Stewart and Robert MacWard.
Turretin, Francis – 32. ‘Does the spiritual power of excommunicating contumacious and scandalous sinners belong to sacred ministers? We affirm against Erastus and his followers.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 3, 18th Topic, p. 293 ff.
.
1800’s
Gray, Andrew – ‘The Liberty of a Church of Christ Against the Civil Magistrate’ 1843 23 pp. in The Duty and Liberty of a Christian Church Asserted Against Popery, Puseyism and Erastianism, pp. 23-39
Gray (1805-61) of Perth was a Free Churchman. This was published in the year of the Disruption. Gray is also the author of A Catechism of the Principles of the Free Church (1845), amongst other works.
Cunningham, William
‘Erastianism’ 1863 6 pp. in Historical Theology, vol. 1, p. 396 ff.
Discussions on Church Principles 1863
‘The Westminster Confession on the Relation Between Church and State’ from a pamphlet published in May 1843 immediately before the Disruption of the Church of Scotland, entitled, “Remarks on the Twenty-third Chapter of the Confession of Faith as bearing on existing Controversies”, published later in his Discussions on Church Principles, ch. 8
Many people today charge the original Westminster Confession of 1646 with Erastianism (that the State is over the Church). This is a charge made out of ignorance. The Confession teaches against Erastianism, but does teach the Biblical and historic reformed doctrine of the Establishment Principle. Cunningham vindicates the original Confession.
‘The Principles of the Free Church of Scotland’ p. 257 ff. 32 pp. being ch. 10
Here Cunningham defends the views and actions of the Free Church of Scotland against State intrusion into the Church.
‘The Principle of Non-Intrusion’ p. 470, 78 pp. being Ch. 12
‘Lectures on Non-Intrusion, #2: On the Objects, Nature, and Standard of Ecclesiastical Authority’ (1839) 48 pp.
Delivered during the ten year Non-Intrusion controversy (of the State intruding into the affairs of the Church) that led up the the Disruption in 1843.
Bannerman, James – ‘The Headship of Christ: Opposing Theories: Erastian and Popish’ (1868) 10 pp. being Part 2, Ch. 2, Section 2 of The Church of Christ, vol. 1, pp. 200-210
Walker, James – ‘The Headship of Christ & Erastianism’ (1888), starting on p. 127, 29 pages, from his The Theology & Theologians of Scotland: chiefly of the Seventeenth & Eighteenth Centuries (1888)
An excellent refutation of Erastianism from the practice and theology of the 1600’s Scottish church.
.
Books
1600’s
Rutherford, Samuel – Lex Rex: The Law & the Prince (1644) 318 pp.
Rutherford’s work is aimed at refuting the Erastian doctrine of the absolute, Divine Right of Kings.
“[John] Maxwell had written his [1644] book because he felt that it was appropriate for a divine to put the case for absolutism, since it had already been convincingly argued by eminent lawyers like Bodin and Barclay, and since it was so strongly supported by Scripture and Christian tradition. Rutherford clearly could not let this go unchallenged. The natural-law contractualism of the Scottish-parliamentarian alliance needed to be defended by a theologian.”
“According to the Scottish moderate, Henry Guthry, every member of the 1645 General Assembly [of Scotland] ‘had in his hand that Book lately published by Mr. Samuel Rutherford… [which was] so idolized that whereas [George] Buchanan’s treatise De Jure Regni apud Scotos, was looked upon as an oracle, this coming forth, it was slighted (as not anti-monarchical enough) and Rutherford’s Lex Rex only thought authentic.'” – Coffey, Politics, Religion, pp. 148-49, 151
George, Gillespie – Aaron’s Rod Blossoming: or the Divine Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated so as the Present Erastian Controversy… is fully debated and discussed (1646) 276 pp.
This whole work was intended against Erastianism. It is divided into 3 Books. The first book demonstrates the divine right of Church Government (as distinct from civil magistracy) in the Old Testament. The second book take up the same theme in the New Testament (which is the heart of the book). The third book treats of excommunication.
Aaron’s Rod was written after Rutherford’s treatise, as Gillespie cites Rutherford on p. 78. In this work, Gillespie responds at length to William Prynne’s Vindication of his Four Questions (below).
“…this controversy, as it had been conducted in Holland during the [early part of the] seventeenth century. I now turn to Great Britain, where the Erastian controversy broke out at the time of the Westminster Assembly… the two principal works produced at this period in defense of Presbyterian, and in opposition to Erastian, principles, are Gillespie’s Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, and Rutherford’s Divine Right of Church Government, both published in 1646–Gillespie’s work being much more luminous, and much better digested, than Rutherford’s; and the second book of it being perhaps, upon the whole, the best work to be read, in order to obtain a comprehensive view of the principles of the Erastian controversy.” – Cunningham, HT 2.581
The great part of this work is against Erastianism.
Speaking of Mr. Coleman, “One of his intentions was to translate, and publish in English, the book of Erastus against excommunication. But, through God’s mercy, before the poison was ready, there was one antidote ready, I mean Mr. Rutherford’s answer to Erastus.” – Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod, p. 78
.
1700’s
Christianus, Socrates – An Abstract of Common Principles of a Just Vindication of the Rights of the Kingdom of God upon Earth Against the Politic Machinations of Erastian Heretics out of the Vindication of the Deprived Bishops, etc. (1700) 32 pp. ToC
Christianus (d. 1706) was in the Church of England.
.
1900’s
Evans, Erastus – Erastianism (1931) 90 pp. being the Hulsean Prize Essay in the Univ. of Cambridge
.
Quote
1600’s
London Provincial Assembly
A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry… (London, 1650), pp. 6-10
“The second thing which with the like brevity and perspicuity we shall endeavor to evidence unto you is that the Christian magistrate is not the fountain and origin of Church-government.
The former assertion [demonstrating that there is a Church government prescribed in Scripture] gave unto God the things which were God’s, and this does not at all take away from Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s: For we freely acknowledge that magistracy is an ordinance of God, appointed for the great good of mankind, so that whoever are enemies to magistracy are enemies to mankind and to the revealed Will of God (2 Pet. 2:10).
We desire to hold up the honor and greatness, the power and authority of lawful magistracy against Papists, Anabaptists and all others that despise dominion and speak evil of dignities. We say that the magistrate is, in a civil notion, the supreme governor in all causes ecclesiastical; the keeper of both tables (Dt. 17:18-19; 31:9; Josh. 1:7; 8:1; 2 Kn. 11:12); the nursing father of the Church (Isa. 49:23): that it belongs to him, by his political power, to reform the Church when corrupted, to preserve it when reformed, to suppress blasphemy, idolatry, heresy, schism and profaneness and whatsoever is contrary to godliness and sound doctrine (Ezr. 7:26-27; 1 Pet. 2:14 compared with Gal. 5:19-20 & Phil. 3:2 & 2 Jn. 10; 2 Chron. 15; 2 Chron. 17:6; 2 Chron. 19:3; 2 Chron. 29:2; Chron. 33:15-16; 2 Chron. 34:31-33; Neh. 13:15 to the end; Dan. 3:29; 1 Tim. 2:2; Rev. 17:16-17); that the people under him may lead a quiet life in all godliness and honesty. That he is sent of God for the punishment of evil doers (1 Pet. 2:14; Rom. 13:3-4; amongst which are heretics, as well as others, and therefore called ‘evil workers,’ and heresies, ‘evil deeds,’ Phil. 3.2; 2 Jn. 11) and for the praise of them that do well. That he is the bishop of those things that are without the Church; as Constantine styled himself (Επισκοπος των εξο της εκκλησιας, Eusebius, Life of Constantine, ch. 24). That to him belongs to punish Church-officers with civil punishments when they abuse their power; and to give protection to the public exercise of Church-government within his dominions.
But yet, notwithstanding all this, we affirm that though the magistrate be a nursing father of the Church, yet he is not the begetting father; that the magistrate, as a magistrate, is no Church-officer, neither are the keys of the kingdom of heaven committed unto him. Neither did Christ ever say to the kings of the earth, ‘Whose sins you remit, shall be remitted, and whose sins you retain, shall be retained’; and ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.’ Neither is the offended brother directed to tell the civil magistrate, but to ‘tell the Church.’ Neither does it belong to him to preach the Word or to administer the sacraments. Neither is he, as a magistrate, seated by Christ in his Church, but is to be subject to the Church in all spiritual things as a member thereof. Neither is it in his power to appoint what government he please in the Church, no more than what religion he please. And this we prove:
1. Because Jesus Christ (as has been already showed) has appointed a particular Church-government in his Word, to be observed by all kingdoms and States immutably and unalterably for the substantials of it.
2. Because the Church of Christ had a government within itself for 300 years before it had a Christian magistrate. The Scripture tells us that the Church in the apostles’ days had power to meet for ordering Church-affairs, for excommunicating scandalous offenders and obstinate heretics. And this power was not derived to them from the magistrate, being then heathen; nor were they traitors and rebels against the State in challenging this power. And when the magistrate afterwards became Christian, the Church did not lose that power which it had before when he was heathen.
For the truth is, when a heathen magistrate becomes a Christian, he does not acquire more authority over the Church of Christ than he had before, no more than a heathen husband converted, does over his wife which he married when unconverted. A magistrate by becoming Christian is better enabled to do service to Christ and his right is sanctified to him, but his authority is no greater than it was before.
3. Because the power of the magistrate, in reference to the power of the Church, is not privative of the Church’s power, but cumulative and additional. For if it were otherwise, then the condition of the Church should be worse under a Constantine than under a Nero, under a Christian magistrate than under a heathen, which is contrary to all those Scriptures which tell us what glorious advantages the Church should have by the magistrate’s becoming Christian (Isa. 49:22; Ps. 72:10-11; Isa. 60:10); and that the magistrate shall bring honor and glory to the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:24) and not take away that power that properly belongs to the new Jerusalem.
4. Because that this assertion denies an intrinsical power to the Church to preserve itself in unity, to purge out spiritual defilements and to take care for its own preservation against Church-destroying enemies and iniquities; which makes the happiness of the Church wholly to depend upon the civil magistrate; and is contrary, not only to the nature of the Church (1 Cor. 5:12), but of all other societies, which have a power within themselves of self-preservation; and is contrary to the experience of former ages, which tell us that the Church of Christ did flourish more in truth and holiness (though not in wealth and honors) whilst it was under heathen persecuting emperors than afterwards. From the apostles, even unto the dregs of our time, the Church of Christ, both in its infancy and fuller growth, increased by persecutions and was crowned by martyrdoms: But after it had Christian princes, indeed it was greater in power and riches, but less in piety, says Jerome (tome 1 in vita Malchi).
5. Because that this opinion that the magistrate is the fountain of all Church-power, derives upon the Christian magistrate most of that power which the Pope did formerly most unjustly and tyrannically usurp over the Churches of Jesus Christ; and thereby makes the Christian magistrate to become a political Pope and sets up a civil Antichrist instead of a spiritual, for one great part of Antichristianism consists in the Pope’s making himself to be the original of all spiritual jurisdiction.”
.
Latin
Articles
Walaeus, Antonius – vol. 2, ‘A Tract of the Ministry of the Church, and an Inspection of the Magistrate around [circa] it’, pp. 1-79 in All the Works (Includes vols. 1 & 2, Leiden, 1643)
Walaeus (1573-1639). This was a response to the Arminian Utenbogard’s work of 1610. See Cunningham, Historical Theology 2.578.
Voetius, Gisbert – Ecclesiastical Politics, vol. 1 (1st part of the 1st part) (Amsterdam, 1663)
Voet’s main life-long opponent in this matter was Lewis Du Moulin, of the French school. See Cunningham, HT 2.580.
Book 1, Tract 2, Of the Power, Polity & Canons of the Churches
2. The Power and Right of the Magistrate Around the Sacred is Decided. 124
3. Fonts of Solutions and Responses to Arguments and Evidences that the Adversaries are Accustomed to Using are Set Down. 149
4. Some Particular Questions about the Power of the Magistrate Around the Sacred are Determined. 182
Appendix: Of the Presence of the Magistrate in All Presbyterial & Consistorial Assemblies… 199
5. Some Particular Questions are Determined about the Subject of Ecclesiastical Power [Who may Hold and Exercise it]: Is it of the Magistrate and other Political Confederations? At Least During a Corrupt or Turbulent State of the Church? [Is it held by] The Pope, Bishops, etc. Courts of them, Cathedrals of the Church, Councils; or of Solely the Ministry, a Court of Them, or an Ecumentical or Catholic Church; or the Populus? 211
.
Books
1600’s
Revius, Jacob – An Examination of the Dissertation of Nicholas Vedel on the Oversight [Episcopatu] of Constantine the Great, or of the Power of Reformed Magistrates about [circa] Things Ecclesiastical (Amsterdam, 1642) Various judgments of theological faculties are appended at the end.
Vedel (1596-1642) had been a professor of philosophy at Geneva, but was a professor of theology at Franeker, Netherlands when his Erastian work appeared, A Dissertation on the Oversight of Constantine the Great, or of the Power of Reformed Magistrates about [circa] Ecclesiastical Things… (1642, 140 pp.). The work has commendatory prefaces by Andrew Rivet & Johannes Maccovius.
The early Church Father, Eusebius (d. 339) had recorded in his Life of Constantine the Great (Bk. 4, ch. 24) that Constantine told a group of bishops, “that he himself too was a bishop… You are bishops whose jurisdiction is within the Church: I also am a bishop [overseer], ordained by God to overlook whatever is external to the Church.” Eusebius went on to say, “for he watched over his subjects with an episcopal [overseer’s] care, and exhorted them as far as in him lay to follow a godly life.” As the reformed held that magistrates could exhort the Church ministry to do its duty, clearly Constantine’s words are open to a bit of interpretation.
Trigland, Jacob – A Theological Dissertation on the Civil & Ecclesiastical Power, both being mutually subordinate and coordinate to each other, upon the occasion of Vedel’s Book on the Oversight [Episcopatu] of Constantine the Great (Amsterdam, 1642) ToC See especially ch. 7 and following.
This was written especially against Erastianism.
Apollonius, Willem – The Right of Royal Majesty about Sacred Things, or a Theological Tract on the Right of the Magistrate about Ecclesiastical Things, opposite the Tract of Nicholas Vedel on the Oversight [Episcopatu] of Constantine the Great, by the Authority and Command of the [Dutch] Classis [Presbytery] of Walcheren (1642) 411 pp. No table of contents
Apollonius (1602-1657) was a Dutch presbyterian minister. This work has been a classic on the Establishment Principle. Vedelius (1596-1642) was a reformed professor at Franeker, who, in refuting Arminians in a small work of 1641, assigned a much lesser role to the magistrate respecting religion, but even this was considered too Erastian for many of the Reformed. Apollonius’ work was one of three responses to Vedelius, being published just before the Westminster Assembly. See Cunningham, HT, 2.579-80.
“There is another very valuable work by the same author, written a short time before the meeting of the Westminster Assembly, but treating very fully of the Erastian theory.” – William Hetherington, History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, pp. 301-302
.
Table of Contents
Dedicatory Epistle
Preface to the Reader
1st Section, Of the Right of the Magistrate about Ecclesiastical Things in General
1 – A Description of the General Sentiment of the Orthodox 1
2 – An Examination of the First Question Proposed by the Celebrated Vedel: Whether the Magistrate has no Power in Ecclesiastical Things, so that He is [only] a Defender of the Church & an Executor of its Sentence? 8
3 – Of the End of the Power of the Magistrate about Sacred Things & the Order that He Holds to that End 46
4 – An Examination of the Second Question Weighed out by Vedel: Whether it ought not to pertain to the Magistrate to take care of the True Religion without attending to the Prescription of the Ministers of the Church 58
5 – Of the Object, Form & Mode of the Power of the Magistrate about Sacred Things 82
6 – An Examination of the Third Question Shaken out by Vedel: Whether the Power of the Magistrate itself Ought to Extend to All Parts of the Office of the Ministers of the Church 100
2nd Section, Of the Right of the Magistrate about Sacred Things in Specific
1 – Of the Calling of Pastors, & of the Right of the Magistrate & Church in it 140
2 – An Examination of the 4th Question Proposed by Vedel: Whether the Magistrate ought to have a Power for Calling Pastors or Ministers of the Church 162
3 – Of Synods & the Authority of the Magistrate about them 212
4 – An Examination of the 5th Question Shaken Out by Vedel: Of Judgment in the Cause of Faith and the Things of Religion in Synods 252
5 – Of the Coercive Power of the Magistrate about Ecclesiastical Things & Persons 326
6 – An Examination of the 6th Question Shaken Out by Vedel: In this Question the Celebrated Dr. of Divinity widely extended the fringes of the coercive power of the Magistrate; a bit is gathered together in a true explication of the body of the question and especially in response to the considerations. 361
Brown of Wamphray, John
‘Preface to the Reader’ in Two Books… in the Second, the Libertine-Erastian Judgment of Lambert Velthusius in his book in the [Dutch] vernacular, on Idolatry & Superstition, newly set forth, is detected and confuted; also the orthodox truth is vindicated from the exceptions of adversaries, whether Libertines, Erastians or others and is illustrated and confirmed by 32 Assertions opposite the Velthusian judgment, to which is prefixed a small preface, in which some things are briefly and summarily propounded on the Nature of the Visible & Invisible Church, and so of the Communion of the Church, tearing down the illegitimate Separation already begun in Belgium in 2 vols. (Amseterdam, 1670), vol. 1 This volume only contains the work on the interpretation of the Scriptures.
This preface, translated into English by Grange Press (2024), briefly lists out and illustrates Brown’s 32 assertions on the Church and Church government.
Brown was a Scottish covenanting minister who abode for many years in the Netherlands. Velthuysen (1623-1685) was generally reformed. Other reformed theologians likewise had complained of his concessions to Erastiansim in responding to Arminianism.
“Brown of Wamphray, while in exile in Holland, published, in 1670, an important and valuable work on this subject [of Erastianism], entitled Libertino-Erastianae… which is well worthy of perusal.” – Cunningham, HT 2.582
The general outline of this volume consists of 32 numbered assertions (different than those in the Preface above).
.
Assertion 1. Christ as Mediator is a king and has a kingdom in which He reigns and governs each one 47
2. The kingdom which is proper to Christ the Mediator is distinct from the ecumenical or universal kingdom, that which He reigns and governs as He is God, being so far equal in power and glory with the Father 50
3. This kingdom of Christ is the visible Church. True it is, Christ is by a special way the king and head of the invisible Church, or of the company of the elect and efficaciously called… 57
4. This kingdom of Christ, or this Church, here is considered politically, or is the company of men formally constituted, and by this peculiar polity ruled and governed 61
5. Christ is the sole king and head of this kingdom has instituted various external means or ordinances (so they are called), by which his work in the Church is brought forth, that is, some to a certain illumination, to conviction, to external obedience, and a profession is adduced, others even to true faith and repentance, to a firm union and communion with Christ, and at last to glory. These even are the means: the Word, sacraments and ecclesiastical censures or discipline, etc. 63
6. Christ the king and head of the Church instituted distinct ministers, or peculiar offices and particular functions, for these instituted means to be ordinarily administered as rites 63
7. It is allowed to none, whoever is not called legitimately and according to the order instituted by Christ, to discharge these offices or to administer these means ordinarily, publicly and authoritatively. I freely concede that by right, the word of God being read aloud in one’s family, one is able by gifts to apply private instruction and make it plain in proportion to his small measure of knowledge; to show, even, that some sin is reproved and some duty enjoined, according to Dt. 6:6-7; I concede he is able even privately, a brother giving occasion, to argue he sinned, to admonish of a duty, to teach and exhort, according to Mt. 18:15; Lev. 19:17; Heb. 10:25; 3:13; 1 Thess. 4 last and 5:11; Rom. 15:13; Col. 3:16; and so others privately to instruct and to edify by mutual speaking of divine things, Mal. 3:16; and one is able in this way to perform (especially in some urgent necessity, even as far as the announcing of the Gospel) all that which is not necessary here to refer to. But we deny him who is not legitimately called to assume to himself this office and to discharge it. 67
8. No one is allowed, not being legitimately called or sent, by being constituted and by ordination, to administer the sacraments. 118
9. To enter into a legitimate calling in the pastoral office the people’s election is not sufficient, but besides this the necessary ordination and separation to this office is required for it to be complete, that is, when it is able to be had (for in an extraordinary case I dispute not). By ordination I do not understand the rite of the imposition of hands, for the rite or complement is able here to be sometimes absent without the destruction of ordination; but I understand that authoritative sending by which any pastor is constituted, and with authority enters, is sent and is separated to that office. 131
10. This ordination, separation, authoritative sending and constitution of a pastor is not from the people, but from antecedent ecclesiastical persons, namely, instrumentally. Whether this act to ordain a presbyter or pastor is competent to ruling bishops, or yet presbyters or pastors and ecclesiastical doctors, that controversy is not of this place to treat, and as prelatic and presbyterian writings agree in this, that this power by the people is not competent. 155
11. In ordination, for this rite to be completed, the imposition of hands is required. 193
12. This ministry, or this pastoral office or function, by legitimately called pastors, elected and by rite properly ordained, is perpetual and necessary in Christ’s Church and will be enduring to the end. This assertion denies Enthusiasts, Anabaptists, Swenkfeldians, Socinians, Erastians… certain sects of Quakers and Seekers, and others, which the celebrated Voet enumerates in Ecclesiastical Politics, pt. 2, bk. 2, tract 1, ch. 1, pp. 217-18 ff. 205
13. Those pastors that are called, sent and ordained by that singular authority and power avail, or by that office that is imposed on them, they hold it with authority to discharge… This premissed, that we do not here speak of that special ecclesiastical authority and power, which is commonly called the power of jurisdiction, of that even after we will speak. This only in general or specially do we speak of, of the authority to announce in the Gospel, understanding the lesser, conditioned ministerial authority. 224
14. Amongst other things of this ministry, by the pastors of the Word from Christ commissioned, the ends and effects, subordinate and intermediate to the glory of God, this, which is the conversion of men to God and reconciliation with God, are to be numbered amongst the greatest. 258
15. To make complete in this office, especially in announcing the Gospel, all pastors hold to undertake faithfully to you according to the canon of the Word of God, and to know no other first, primary thing or principle, rule, norm or level. 280
16. The Church is a company or society wholly distinct by its nature from the [civil] republic. 290
17. The necessary divine power and authority is given in the Church to conserve and govern itself. By power and authority I do not understand that which is by compulsion, which kind is the power and authority of the political magistrate, but that which is able to be abstracted from all external compulsion… 300
18. That ecclesiastical and ministerial power and authority is competent to synods to decide controversies of faith, to establish canons, to mark heretics with censures, etc. 340
19. The first-primitive Church exercises this power or authority by divine right. 363
20. This ecclesiastical power greatly differes from the political power. 365
21. The ecclesiastical power is properly Spiritual and by divine right. 385
22. The Christian magistrate does not derive from Christ as Mediator and as the head and redeemer of the Church his political power or the magistratical office, nor by that rules or governs the Church as the vicar of Christ, nor is sent and instituted by Christ as the Church’s head to this end… these further things follow:
(1) The ecclesiastical power greatly differs from the political power.
(2) The political power does not flow from the same font from where the ecclesiastical power flows forth.
(3) The ecclesiastical power is not part of the political power.
(4) The ecclesiastical power is not properly subordinate to the civil power.
By this assertion we do not deny:
(1) The magistrate, as such, to be the vicar of God.
(2) Nor do we deny to be the vicar of Christ, as He is God co-equal with the Father and Holy Spirit.
(3) Nor do we deny the Christian magistrate to be able by his political power to promove the economic kingdom of Christ, in a way indicated by us above.
[4.] Nor lastly do we deny he ought, as he is a Christian, to promove this mediatorial kingdom of Christ as he is able: for surely we have said, not in that way, but as all Christians by the power of their general vocation, or as they are Christians, and he through his singular office, ought to promove and diligently perform all works, for the good of this kingdom.
Truly this is that which we assert, the magsitrate as such is not to govern the Church as the vicar of Christ, nor has his power from Christ as He is the Mediator, considered economically; nor does he properly and formally serve Christ the Mediator in promoving this economic kingdom. Our [George] Gillespie in his book in the vernacular, Aaron’s Rod, bk. 2, ch. 7, proves this assertion with eight arguments. 389
23. Christ has not committed the government of the Church to the magistrate as such. 412
24. The power and authority by right to mark scandalous persons by ecclesiastical censures, whether pastors or others, is competent to those going before [the civil magistrate] in the Church, and they greatly differ from political punishments, whatever Velthusius says.
Which are these ecclesiastical censures is not that which we point out here since they are understood to correspond with these: public admonition or reprehension, lesser and greater excommunication (by which the vile and scandalous are restricted from the use of the Lord’s Supper and are broken off from their ecclesiastical rights and the Church’s communion), the suspension and deposition of pastors and others going before, according to their scandals and errors. 420
25. Excommunication (the same is also to be said of other ecclesiastical censures) is a spiritual punishment or censure, whatever Velthusius snarls. 505
26. This sentence of excommunication is not private, but public and authoritative, being borne by those authoritatively furnished ecclesiastical persons and governors going before. 511
27. It is lawful to the governors of the Church to restrict persons from the Lord’s Supper, but not from the hearing of the Word. Velthusius is seen to deny this, but it is easily able to be proved indeed. 515
28. The apostolic, or first-primitive Church did not exercise ecclesiastical discipline solely by the right of confederation [from delegated civil power]… 549
29. Neither in the time of the apostles, nor in our days was this founded, or was the administration of ecclesiastical discipline by ecclesiastical governors or those going before in the Church granted [to them by the magistrate], which custodianship the political magistrate himself had abdicated or may abdicate. 574
30. That ecclesiastical discipline is administered by ecclesiastical governors under Christian magistrates is not less necessary than it is under ethnics [idolaters], etc. 578
31. Ecclesiastical power, though it may be destitute of the political magistrate’s secular arm, help or cooperation, is nonetheless intrinsically complete, and for attaining its intended spiritual ends is an efficacious and perfect means in its own order. 586
32. A particular form of the ecclesiastical kingdom is given, instituted by divine law for all Churches in every age obliging, so that it is not free for the Church, having set aside the form instituted by Christ and the apostles, to institute or prescribe any other. 591
.
.
Latin: on Ecclesiastical Discipline & Excommunication with Respect to Erastianism
Articles
Ursinus, Zacharias – Judgment Concerning Ecclesiastical Discipline & Excommunication 1569 17 pp. in Works, vol. 3, pp. 801-18
“Yea, Dr. Ursinus, in his Judicium de Disciplina Ecclesiastica et Excommunicatione, exhibited to the Prince Elector Palatine Frederick III (who had required him to give his judgment concerning Erastus’ theses), does once and again observe, that all the reformed churches and divines, as well as those that did not practice excommunication as those who did practice it, agree, notwithstanding, in this principle, that excommunication ought to be in the church; which is a mighty advantage against Erastianism.”
“…I reckon Zecharias Ursinus a most solid and judicious divine… wherein [in this work] he does soundly confute the theses of Erastus; neither has any reply been made thereto, that ever I could learn of.” – George Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod, pp. 76, 78
Brochmand, Casparus – ch. 13, ‘Of Ecclesiastical Discipline’ 1638 59 pp. in A System of Universal Theology, vol. 2, pp. 977-1032
Brochmand (1585-1652) was a Lutheran and a Professor of Theology at Copenhagen. “…where he examines the most substantial arguments of Erastus.” – Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod, p. 78
.
Book
Beza, Theodore – A Pius & Moderate Tract on the True Excommunication & Christian Presbytery contra Erastus (1590) 138 pp.
“…which was not printed until Erastus’ reply unto it was first printed. Whereunto, as Beza, in a large preface, lays the foundation of a duply, so he had prepared and perfected his duply had he not been hindered by the great troubles of Geneva, at that time besieged by the Duke of Savoy; Beza himself being also at that time seventy-one years old: howbeit, for all that, he did not lay aside the resolution and thought of that duply, if he should have opportunity, and see it requisite or called for; all which is manifest from that preface.” – George Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod, p. 78
See also Cunningham, Historical Theology, vol. 2, pp. 569-70.
.
.
Bibliographies of Latin Works on Erastianism
Gillespie, George – Aaron’s Rod, p. 78
Cunningham, William – Historical Theology, vol. 2, pp. 578-81
.
Theological Points
.
Church & State Co-Extensive
On Erastianism
Murray, Robert H. – Political Consequences of the Reformation: Studies in Sixteenth-Century Political Thought (1960), pp. 276-77, 280-81
“To a man of [Richard] Hooker’s frame of mind there was no point in discussing the relationship between the Church and State. ‘There is not,’ he says,
‘any member of the commonwealth which is not also a member of the Church.’ If men were born into the State, they were baptized into the Church. If they owed civil duties to the State, they owed spiritual duties to the Church. ‘With us,’ he points out, ‘therefore the name of a Church imports only a society of men, first united into some public form of regiment, and secondly distinguished from other societies by the exercise of Christian religion…’
‘We hold, that seeing there is not any man of the Church of England but the same man is also a member of the commonwealth; nor any man a member of the commonwealth which is not also a member of the Church of England; therefore as in a figure triangular the base does differ from the sides thereof, and yet one and the selfsame line is both a base line and also a side; a side simply, a base if it chance to be the bottom and underlie the rest; so, albeit, properties and actions of one kind do cause the name of a commonwealth, qualities and functions of another sort the name of a Church to be given unto a multitude, yet one and the selfsame multitude may in such sort be both, and is so with us, that no person appertaining to the one can be denied to be also of the other.’
We are travelling considerably from the positions either of [the Scots] George Buchanan or John Melville.
In essence the Church and the State are precisely the same body regarded from different angles. It follows, then that the legislature is competent to pass laws on spiritual matters as well as on temporal matters…”
…
“No one can understand the sixteenth century who does not grasp the fact [Edmund] Burke [1730-97] set forth: ‘In a Christian commonwealth the Church and the State are one and the same thing, being different integral parts of the same whole.'”
.
Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries (1644) p. 70
“…the Church and State in Israel were two incorporations formally distinguished. And I see not, but those who do confound them [the Erastians], may also say that the Christian State and the Christian Church be all one State, and that the government of the one must be the government of the other; which were a confusion of the two kingdoms.”
.
Presbyterianism
See Gillespie argue against the Erastian position in Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, Book 2, ch. 4, the 8th Difference, p. 89
.
Divine-Right Church Government
Gillespie, George
A Treatise of Miscellany Questions n.d.
New Testament
ch. 1, ‘That the Ministry is a Perpetual Ordinance of Christ in the Church, and that ministers are to be received as the ambassadors of Christ now as well as in the primitive times’ n.d. 4 pp. in A Treatise of Miscellany Questions, pp. 1-4
“That which has long lurked in the hearts of many Atheists is now professed and argued for by that fierce furious Erastian, whose book was published the last year at Franeke. He cries out that the world is abused with that notion of a pretended sacred ministerial calling…” – p. 1
Old Testament
ch. 19, ‘That there was Among the Jews a Jurisdiction and Government Ecclesiastical Distinct from the Civil’ 4 pp. pp. 97-100
.
On the Erastian View of there being Two Heads of the Church: One Visible (the King) & One Invisible (Christ)
Contra this View
Cartwright, Thomas – Second Reply, pp. 410-11
Rutherford, Samuel – Introduction, Section 2 in The Divine Right of Church Government… (1646), pp. 13-26
.
Ordination
Gillespie, George
A Treatise of Miscellany Questions n.d.
ch. 2, ‘Of the Election of Pastors with the Congregation’s Consent’ 10 pp. pp. 4-14
ch. 3, ‘Whether Ordination be Essential to the Calling of a Minister?’ 9 pp. pp. 14-23
“Also, in the Queries Touching the Ordination of Ministers [1647], written in opposition to the learned and much-approved book entitled Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici [The Divine-Right of Church Government], the same controversy is touched upon frequently with more railing than reason by that furious Erastian [William Aspinwall, †1662] who composed the Grallae [Stilts] against [Willem] Apollnius [1602-1657]…”
ch. 4, ‘Objections Against the Necessity of Ordination Answered’ 4 pp. pp. 23-27
.
The Lord’s Supper & Excommunication
About
Erastianism held either that there was no excommunication at all taught in Scripture, or that, if there were, it was in the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate.
Erastians also tended to deny the distinction between lesser and greater excommunication (a person only being barred from the Lord’s Supper, yet remaining a member of the Church, versus being kicked out of the Church altogether). Having manifest unbelievers taking the Lord’s Supper necessitated the nature of the Lord’s Supper to be a converting ordinance (contra presbyterianism).
In addition, if an Erastian held that there were some amount of discipline in the membership of the Church (whether exercised by the Church or State), it was a much lower standard (tolerating far more) than what presbyterians argued from Scripture.
.
Erastian
Prynne, William
The presbyterian Herbert Palmer responded to this (below).
“Prynne maintained the supremacy of the state over the church, and denied in his pamphlets the right of the clergy to excommunicate or to suspend from the reception of the sacrament except on conditions defined by the laws of the state… He was answered by Samuel Rutherford in ‘The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication,'” – DNB
One of the pamphlets this is likely to be in response to is that of the presbyterian Herbert Palmer, below. Gillespie responds to this work of Prynne’s Aaron’s Rod, especially the third book of it.
Suspension Suspended: or the Divines of Syon College Late Claim of the Power of Suspending Scandalous Persons from the Lord’s Supper (1646) 41 pp.
.
Presbyterian
Administration of the Lord’s Supper
Gillespie, George – ch. 6, ‘Whether any other but a Minister, Lawfully Called and Ordained, may Administer the Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper?’ n.d. 3 pp. in A Treatise of Miscellany Questions, pp. 36-38
“The Socinians, and the Erastian crutch-maker before-mentioned, so plead against the necessity of ordination, that they hold it lawful and free to gifted persons not ordained, not only to preach, but to administer the sacraments.” – p. 36
.
The Lord’s Supper is not a Converting Ordinance
Gillespie, George – Aaron’s Rod, Book 3 (1646)
‘Whether the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper be a Converting or Regenerating Ordinance?’ being ch. 12 7 pp.
‘Twenty arguments to prove that the Lord’s Supper is not a converting ordinance’ being ch. 13 9 pp.
‘Mr. Prynne’s 12 Arguments, brought to prove that the Lord’s Supper is a Converting Ordinance, Discussed and Answered’ being ch. 14 8 pp.
.
Excommunication
On Excommunication Generally
Withers, George – ‘A Brief Refutation of the Sophisms by which certain persons attempted to overthrow Ecclesiastical Discipline in a Public Discussion held in Heidelberg’ (1568) 11 pp. in Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, pp. 453-363 Buy (1591) tr. George W. Williard
“…a public dispute at Heidelberg, in the year 1568, upon certain theses concerning the necessity of church government, and the power of presbyteries to excommunicate; which theses were exhibited by Mr. George Withers, an Englishman, who left England because of the ceremonies, and was at that time made doctor of divinity at Heidelberg.”
Ursinus, Zecharias – Question 83, ‘What are the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven?’ from 31st Lord’s Day in Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, pp. 440-53 (d. 1583)
In this “…he plainly disputes against the Erastian principles. The more strange it is, that Mr. Hussey [an Erastian], in his Epistle to the Parliament, would make them believe that Ursinus is his, and not ours, in this controversy.” – Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod, p. 78
Answers the Erastian Prynne’s piece above. This was (likely) answered by Prynne in another piece (above).
Gillespie, George – Book 3 of Aaron’s Rod Blossoming (1646) 130 pp.
The fullest discussion of the Erastian views on excommunication, especially in response to William Prynne.
Humfrey, John – A Second Vindication of a Disciplinary, anti-Erastian, Orthodox, Free Admission to the Lords-Supper; or, The state of this controversy revised and proposed (1656) 147 pp. ToC
Humfrey (1621-1719) was reformed.
Blake, Thomas – Mr Humphrey’s ‘Second Vindication of a Disciplinary Anti-Erastian, Orthodox, Free-admission to the Lord’s-Supper’, taken into Consideration, in a Letter (1656) 12 pp.
Blake (1597?-1657) defends Humfrey. Blake is known for his Treatise of the Covenant of God, which has been reprinted.
Turretin, Francis – 32. ‘Does the spiritual power of excommunicating contumacious and scandalous sinners belong to sacred ministers? We affirm against Erastus and his followers.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 3, 18th Topic, p. 293 ff.
.
On Fencing the Table
Gillespie, George – ‘Whether it be a Full Discharge of Duty to [only] Admonish a Scandalous Person of the Danger of Unworthy Communicating; and whether a minister, in giving him the sacrament, after such admonition [and not barring him from the Table], be in no way guilty?’ (1646) 6 pp. being ch. 11 of book 3 of Aaron’s Rod Blossoming
.
Proving that Lesser Excommunication (from the Table) is Distinct from Greater Excommunication (from the Church)
Gillespie, George – Propositions 9-29 of 111 Propositions Concerning the Ministry and Government of the Church (1647)
.
That Excommunication does not Involve Civil Shunning
Gillespie, George – ‘A Further Demonstration that these Words, ‘Let Him be Unto Thee as an Heathen Man and Publican,’ are not Meant of Avoiding Civil, but Religious or Church Fellowship’ (1646) being ch. 3 of Book 3 of Aaron’s Rod
.
Mediatorial Kingdom & that the King is the Vice-Gerent of Christ
Erastians
Quotes
George Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod, pp. 90, 96-97
“The controversy which has been moved concerning the civil magistrate’s vice-gerentship, and the holding of his office of, and under, and for Jesus Christ, as He is Mediator, has a necessary coherence with, and dependence upon, another controversy concerning a twofold kingdom of Jesus Christ…
It is a distinction which Mr. Hussey [an Erastian] cannot endure, and no marvel, for it overturns the foundation of his opinion. He looks upon it as an absurd assertion, p. 25, ‘Shall He have one kingdom as Mediator, and another as God?’ He quarrels all that I have said of the twofold kingdom of Christ, and will not admit that Christ, as Mediator, is King of the church only, p. 25-27, 35-37.
…
He holds that Christ, as Mediator, has placed the Christian magistrate under Him, and as his vice-gerent, and has given him commission to govern the church, which, if he or any man can prove from the word of God, it will go far in the decision of the Erastian controversy…
Mr. [Thomas] Coleman [c.1597-1646] in his Re-Examination, p. 19, was fearful to set his foot upon so slippery ground. He was loath to adventure upon this assertion, that magistracy is derived from Christ, as Mediator, by a commission of deputation and vice-gerentship… Wherefore he made a retreat and held him at this: ‘That magistracy is given to Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom.’ But out steps Mr. Hussey and boldly avers a great deal more. I much mistake if he shall not be made either to make a retreat, as Mr. Coleman did, or to do worse.”
.
Articles
Hooker, Richard – Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book 8, ch. 4, sections 6-7, pp. 374-384 ff. (d. 1600)
Hooker was the preeminent, foundational theologian for the Anglican Church.
Maxwell, John – ‘All Christian Kings are Dependent from Christ, & may be called his Vice-Gerents’ (1644) being ch. 5 of Sacro-Sancta Regum Majestas, or, The Sacred and Royal Prerogative of Christian Kings
John Maxwell was an English Erastian. Rutherford refutes this chapter in Lex Rex (below).
.
Reformed
ed. Fentiman, Travis – All of Gillespie’s Writings on Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom is the Church Only (RBO, 2017) 110 pp.
Gillespie argues against the Erastians Thomas Coleman (c.1597-1646) and Mr. Hussey.
Rutherford, Samuel – ‘Whether all Christian Kings are Dependent from Christ and may be Called His Vice-Regents?’ 1644 being Question 42 in Lex Rex, p. 210 ff.
This is a point-by-point refutation of John Maxwell’s (c.1590-1647) chapter above. Maxwell was an English Erastian.
.
More
See also our page, The Extent of Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom
.
Scriptural ‘Qualifications’ of Civil Rulers
Rutherford Argues Against an Erastian, that the Scriptural commands to magistrates are moral injunctions, not qualifications as to the essence of civil authority.
Samuel Rutherford, Divine Right of Church Government, pp. 547-48
“Objection 4: When it’s required that the magistrates be men fearing God, hating covetousness, etc. [Ex. 18:21; 2 Sam. 23:3-4; Prov. 28:16], is not this an essential ingredient of a king as a king, that he read in the Book of the Law, that he may fear God (Deut. 17:18-19)?
Answer: There is a twofold goodness here to be considered: (1) of the magistrate as a magistrate, another (2) as a good and Christian magistrate.
(1) The former is an official goodness, or a magisterial prudence, justice and goodness. This is required of all magistrates as such in order to judge the people. So the acts of an heathen magistrate done according to common, natural equity[3] by Nebuchadnezzar, Pilate, Cesar, Felix and Festus are to be acknowledged as acts of a lawful magistrate, valid and no less essentially magisterial, than if performed by King David. And of this goodness the Scriptures speak not as essential to a magistrate as a magistrate.
(2) But there is another goodness required of magistrates as they are members of the Jewish Church and as they are Christians, and of these the Scripture speaks. And so magistrates, not as magistrates but as good and Christian, are to be such as ‘fear God, hate covetousness, respect not the face and favor of men.’ So it’s denied that the fear of God and hating of covetousness are essential ingredients of kings as kings.
For kings as kings intend justice, peace and godliness materially considered, both ex conditione operis [from the resultant condition the work produces], and operantium [the intention of the working itself]. But for justice and righteous judgment in a spiritual and an evangelical way, that belongs not to the essence of a magistrate nec ex conditione seu ex intentione operis, nec ex conditione operantis [from the quality or intention of the work, nor of the quality of working].
The Holy Ghost requires it of judges as they would approve themselves to be truly holy and religious and would be accepted of God. And in this sense kings as kings do not serve God, nor the Mediator Christ, nor yet as men; only they serve God and the Mediator Christ as Christian kings, or as Christian men rather.”
.
Do Heathen Magistrates have the Authority of God
Erastus: Yes
Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod, p. 108
“But what will Mr. Hussey say, if his great master Erastus be found… Confirm. Theses, book 3, ch. 2, p. 184, speaking of the heathen and unbelieving magistrates, before whom the Corinthians went to law one against another, he says, An non est impius quoque magistratus a Deo praepositus, ut subjectos quoslibet ab injura et vi tueatur? Is not the ungodly magistrate also preferred by God, that he may defend any of his subjects from injury and violence?”
.
Hussey: No
See pp. 107-8 of Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod.
“It is justly condemned as one of the errors of the Anabaptists, that an heathen magistrate is not to be acknowledged as a lawful magistrate, or as being from God. See [Johann] Gerhard, Loc. Com., vol. 6, pp. 498-99; P. Hinkelmannus, de Anabaptismo, disp. 13, ch. 1.”
.
Theonomy
On Erastus & Erastians
Samuel Rutherford
ed. Travis Fentiman, ‘Samuel Rutherford on the Judicial Laws of Moses: Excerpts Arranged Topically’, pp. 4-6, 23
The Due Right of Presbyteries (1644) p. 70
“…the Church and State in Israel were two incorporations formally distinguished. And I see not, but those who do confound them [the Erastians], may also say that the Christian State and the Christian Church be all one State, and that the government of the one must be the government of the other; which were a confusion of the two kingdoms.
It is true, God has not prescribed judicials to the Christian State, as He did to the Jewish State, because shadows are now gone when the body Christ is come; but God’s determination of what is morally lawful in civil laws is as particular to us as to them; and the Jewish judicials did no more make the Jewish State the Jewish Church, than it made Aaron to be Moses and the priest to be the king and civil judge…”
.
Divine Right of Church Government (1646) pp. 383, 493-94
“[If Erastus’ argument were true:] Then the Christian Church should be conform[ed] yet to the Jewish, we should have those same bloody sacrifices, judicial laws, ceremonies that they had. The judicatures and officers are positive things, flowing from the positive will of God who does appoint one jurisdiction for them, most wise, and another to Christians different from them, and in its kind, most wise.
…
“But we read not” (says Erastus) “where Christ has changed those laws in the New Testament.” It is true, Christ has not said in particular: “I abolish the debarring of the leper seven days, and he that is thus and thus unclean shall be separated till the evening;” nor has He said particularly of every carnal ordinance and judicial law: “it is abolished.” But we conceive the whole bulk of the Judicial Law, as judicial, and as it concerned the republic of the Jews only, is abolished, though the moral equity of all those be not abolished…
…
But sure Erastus errs who will have all such to be killed by the
magistrate under the New Testament because they were killed by him in the Old: Why, but then the whole judicial law of God shall oblige us Christians as Carolostadius and others teach? I humbly conceive that the putting of some to death in the Old Testament, as it was a punishment to them [the malefactors], so was it a mysterious teaching of us how God hated such and such sins; and mysteries of that kind are gone with other shadows.”
.
George Gillespie
Aaron’s Rod, p. 2. Gillespie is arguing against an Erastian:
“Now all this being unquestionably true of the Jewish Sanhedrin: if we should suppose, that they had no supreme Sanhedrin but that which had the power of civil Magistracy, then I ask where is that Christian State, which was, or is, or ought to be molded according to this pattern.
Must ministers have vote in parliament? Must they be civil lawyers? Must all criminal and capital judgments be according to the Judicial Law of Moses, and none otherwise? Must there be no civil punishment, without previous admonition of the offender? Must Parliaments sit, as it were in the Temple of God, and interpret Scripture, which sense is true, and which false, and determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience, and judge of all false doctrines?”
.
On Compliance with, or a Tolerable Submission to Practices of Erastianism under Necessity
See also ‘On Occasional & Partial Conformity without Sin, or Moderate Puritanism’.
.
Order of
Articles 2
Quotes 5
.
Articles
1600’s
English Puritans – A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025)
pt. 1, p. 237
pt. 2, pp. 261-63 & 267-68
.
2000’s
Fentiman, Travis – 3. “Principled Partial Conformity in Government:
The Church of Scotland under Erastianism & Episcopacy (1660–1688)” in “Editor’s Extended Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; 1644; RBO, 2025), pp. 94-159
.
Quotes
Order of
Geneva
Gifford
Ames
Baxter & Savoy
Henry
.
1500’s
Genevan ministers
John Quick, Synodicon in Gallia reformata… (London: Parkhurst, 1692), Synod 4, of Lyons (1563), ch. 21, ‘Three Answers of the Pastors & Professors of Geneva’, answer 2, p. 50
“About consistories [presbyteries] there was this question: How may we carry ourselves towards those delinquents who are guilty of crimes deserving civil or corporal punishments? For if you call them into the consistory, their crime will be published, for the [French Romanist] magistrate is usually present in the consistory.
The brethren of Geneva’s answer:
Article 1. It’s very difficult in this case to shut the doors against those persons who delight in sin, for one inconveniency draws on another. It is a most mischievous things, that the king’s [Romanist] officers, being of another religion, are brought by an absolute power into the consistory: but so it is, and there is no remedy. They have more power than could be wished them; so that since we cannot hinder it, if they have just cause of punishing delinquents, even let them do it.
Article 2. If it be alleged that this will hinder poor sinners from a free confession and acknowledgment of their offences, and that we shall be utterly disabled to bring them unto repentance, and that there will be a world of hypocrisy and ostentation, and dissembling in our churches: But what can’t be helped must be endured till such time as God shall have blessed us with a better remedy.
However, there may be some course found out whereby poor wretches who are fallen into scandalous offences may be saved from peril: Let two or three members of the consistory remonstrate to them in private their miscarriages; and though they may palliate and dissemble the matter, yet we may be contented to have dealt thus with them: In short, we must use our best endeavours to divert the bad affections of the Church’s enemies from it, and to keep them from hurting and doing that mischief to it they would.
But in case the crimes be scandalous, rather than nourish them, let discipline be exercised. In those towns where the magistrates are godly persons and professors of our religion, there may be means of communicating the matter to them, that so they may punish and chastise these offenders gently and after a Christian-manner, who deserve to be punished by law. And so the consistory shall be exempted of blame; and the confession shall not be made to it, but to the civil magistrate.”
.
1600’s
George Gifford
A Short Treatise Against the Donatists of England, whom we call Brownists… (London, 1590), p. 105
“…if this Christian prince do err in some matters of doctrine, or touching the rules of discipline, yet holding and maintaining all the fundamental points of the Christian faith, so that there be abuses and corruptions in the Church, every private godly man is to keep a good conscience, not breaking the unity and peace of the faithful, but not to take public authority to reform.”
.
William Ames
A Second Manuduction for Mr. [John] Robinson. Or a Confirmation of the Former in an Answer to his Manumission (Amsterdam, 1615), pp. 6-7
“There is some authority in the bishops derived from the king which may be acknowledged [as] lawful. Such is this of giving license, liberty and civil authority for men to do good. The civil magistrate may do it himself, or appoint others to do it, 2 Chron. 17:7. The abuse of this authority does not make it unlawful.”
.
Richard Baxter
A Second Admonition to Mr. Edward Bagshaw… (London, 1671), sect. 41, pp. 103-5
“5. Did you know before you wrote this, that all such as we persuade men to hear, have by oath renounced their Christian liberty? what oath is it that you mean? If you mean the Oath of Supremacy or Allegiance, unless Popery be Christian liberty, we know of none such which these renounce. And I know of no other oath, except that of canonical obedience in licitis et honestis [in things lawful and honest]. And for that:
1. I find not that the act or canons do impose it on those that come for ordination (nor am so well skilled in the law as to know by what law it is done).
2. I know that men have been ordinarily ordained without it. And to such your reason for separation is vain.
3. Mr. [William] Bradshaw and other old non-conformists were wont to say that they obeyed the diocesans and so did promise them obedience only as they are the king’s officers, deputed for the exercise of that civil or coercive power which magistrates have in causes called ecclesiastical [i.e. circa sacra]. And what liberty does that give away?
4. But suppose that you are the wiser man, and that those that are more ignorant do mistakingly think that canonical obedience and the oath (with that of Supremacy) to be their duty, and no renouncing of their Christian liberty: Is it not false doctrine to conclude that Christ never sent out any that had as great a sin as this? what none? when he sent out Judas himself, who was first a thief and after a traitor? Do you think then that Christ ever sent out liars, railers, furious Church-dividers, false accusers, etc.?
5. That indeed they are nothing else, as to the whole discharge and exercise of their office, but the servants of men, is another slander and untruth. He that is a servant of Christ, and a true pastor of a Christian Church, and a sound preacher of the Gospel, and a helper of believers’ faith, and a lover of the people’s souls, and a diligent upright laborer for men’s salvation, is something else than a servant of man (even in the discharge of their ministerial office). But such are many of the conformable ministers:
Therefore prove if you can that Dr. Preston, Sibbes, Stoughton, Whittaker, Mr. Bolton, Whateley, Gataker, Fenner, and all the late [Westminster] Assembly save eight or nine at most (being all conformists) were nothing else but the servants of men, and not at all the servants of Christ. Your Father thought otherwise of Mr. Bolton, and perhaps they were both as wise as you. Prove now that Mr. [William] Gurnall, Mr. [John] Trapp, Dr. [John] Lightfoot, Dr. Walker, Mr. Langley, and many others that I can name that are worthy men in London and round about it, are nothing else but the servants of men? And will it not be as hard to prove one to be a servant of Christ who serves Satan by falsehood and malice, and calumniating Christ’s Churches and servants, as those that are thus the servants of men.”
.
The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689) The preface is dated 1683.
ch. 3, pp. 11-13
“But those [leading presbyterian and congregationalist ministers] that were called [to the Savoy Conference] by the king, and one another, 1660 and 1661, to treat of concord, and that assembled at Sion College, and elsewhere about it, did openly make known their minds: And I think they meddled not against any of these things following, by any accusation of them as sinful:
…
XI. They spake not against episcopacy, as it is a presidency among and over presbyters differing in degree, and not in office, called ‘order’, and that in a Church of the lowest species.
…
XIII. They said nothing against metropolitans, patriarchs, lay-chancellors, commissaries, officials, surrogates, archdeacons, etc. as officers of the king, appointed to do nothing (besides the sacred ministry if they be clergymen) but what belongs to magistracy [according to circa sara].
XIV. They said nothing against any promise of obedience to them only in the capacities and in the exercise of the power forementioned.
XV. Much less did they ever oppose or question swearing to the king, according to the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy: And I with diverse others also being (for some ends) entered as his chaplains in ordinary, took also that Oath of Fidelity which the king’s household servants take.
XVI. We never were for any dishonoring of kings by public excommunications, much less by subjects or foreigners, whom kings never choose to be their pastors; but only in case of necessity, for such a denial of sacramental communion to them, as Bishop Andrewes in Tortura Torti and Bishop Bilson [The True Difference between Christian Subjection & Unchristian Rebellion, pt. 3, pp. 376-77] plead for, which is but to forbear ourselves a sinful act.
XVII. We never pleaded for any elders’ (or chancellors’) power of the keys, who are but laymen.
XVIII. We never held that magistrates are bound to add their force by the sword to the censures of the Church as such, and to punish men more because the Church has by excommunication cast them out, or because they are not reconciled.
XIX. We never thought that things indifferent do become unlawful to us because the magistrate commands them.”
.
ch. 6, p. 31
“1. We do not question the duty of obeying the king and all his officers, governing as magistrates by the power of the swords which the king may commit to them. If bishops or lay-chancellors be made magistrates, we will obey them as such: And therefore when they summon us, we appear and answer, because the king authorizes them.
And many non-conformists have defended the taking the promise [of canonical obedience to a bishop or ordinary in things lawful and honest] as supposing that the word ‘ordinary’ signifies only the judge of a court set up by the king as supreme governor by the sword in matters and over persons ecclesiastical as well as civil, according to the true sense of the Oath of Supremacy.”
.
Philip Henry
Matthew Henry, The Life of the Rev. Philip Henry, pp. 129-30 in The Lives of Philip & Matthew Henry, ed. J.B. Williams, 2 vols. in 1 (Banner of Truth, 1974)
“All the power to be owned in bishops, is derived to them from the King; and, in those things wherein the King has power in church matters, in those things we may obey the bishops, as his delegates and substitutes…
the law calls the King patron-general of England. His appointing me to preach [in the second indulgence], supposes I must have hearers, and those, of necessity, out of some parish or other. What we do is to serve the present necessity, and not of choice.”
.
The History of Erastianism
Quote
William Cunningham
The Reformers & the Theology of the Reformation, ch. 7, ‘Calvin & Beza’, pp. 350-51
“A class of subjects same to be discussed in the latter part of the sixteenth century which had not engaged so much of the attention of the earlier Reformers–especially the Erastian and the Prelatic controversies–and in the discussion of these matters Beza bore his part nobly as an able and faithful champion of the truth.
The Erastian controversy, indeed, as conducted between Erastus and Beza, turned mainly upon the particular subject of the excommunication of church members; and it was not till the following century, that the whole of the principles usually regarded by Presbyterian divines as comprehended in the Erastian controversy, were subjected to a full and thorough discussion.
Still, even at that early stage, the quested was mooted, on which the entire progress of the subsequent discussion, down even to our own day, has made it more and more manifest that the whole controversy hinges–viz. whether or not Christ has appointed in His church a government, distinct from, independent of, and in its own province not subordinate to, civil magistracy. And on this great question, as well as on the particular topic of excommunication comprehended under it, Erastus took the side which has always been supported by politicians, sycophants [obedient flatterers], and worldlings, while Beza ably defended that which has been adhered to by all intelligent and conscientious Presbyterians.”
.
Articles
1600’s
Gillespie, George – ‘Of the Rise, Growth, Decay and Reviving of Erastianism’ being Book 2, ch. 1 of Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, pp. 75-79
A historical (and satirical) account of the rise of Erastianism from Erastus in the late-1500’s to Gillespie’s day.
.
1800’s-1900’s
Wilberforce, Robert Isaac – A Sketch of the History of Erastianism, together with Two Sermons on the Reality of Church Ordinances and on the Principle of Church Authority 1851 150 pp.
Cunningham, William – ‘The Erastian Controversy’ 30 pp. in Historical Theology, vol. 2, pp. 557 ff.
Allen, J.W. – ‘The Erastian Point of View’ 1938 6 pp. being ch. 5 of Part 5 of English Political Thought, 1603-1660, vol. 1 (1603-44), pp. 339-345
Book
Gunnoe, Charles – Thomas Erastus & the Palatinate: a Renaissance Physician in the Second Reformation (Brill, 2010) 544 pp. ToC
.
On Martin Luther & Lutheranism
Cunningham, William – Historical Theology, vol. 2, p. 567
ed. Schmid, Heinrich – Sections 5-9 of ch. 60, ‘The Political Estate’ 1875 2 pp. in The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, pp. 60-61
This is an anthology of excerpts from the early (1500’s-1700’s), classic Lutheran writers. While the early Lutherans were good on the magistrate upholding both tables of the Law, and establishing the Church in the land, yet they erred somewhat on the side of Erastianism.
Instances include: the magistrate, ‘directing the Church and the Christian religion in their external government’, ‘appointing suitable ministers of the Church’, ‘the framing and maintenance of the laws of the Church’, etc.
.
Arminians
William Cunningham, Historical Theology, vol. 2, pp. 577-78
“The earliest discussions upon this subject, in the seventeenth century, were connected with the rise and progress of the Arminian controversy in Holland, and arose out o the interference of the civil authorities in the theological disputes which the views of Arminius and his followers produced –so much so, that it has been said that this might be regarded as a sixth point or article in the Arminian controversy. The Arminians generally adopted Erastian views… The cause of this was partly, no doubt, because they found that, during the earlier stages of the controversy, previous to the calling of the Synod of Dort, the civil authorities generally favored them, and were disposed to promote their views…
But their leaning to Erastianism had a deeper foundation than this, in the general character and tendency of their doctrinal views, especially in their latitudinarianism, which implied or produced a want of an adequate sense of responsibility connected with the discovery and the maintenance of all God’s truth; and thus tended to dispose them towards an allowance or toleration of the interference of a foreign and incompetent authority in the decision of religious controversies, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs.”
.
Congregationalists
William Cunningham, HT 2.580
“…Lewis Du Moulin… a son of the famous Molinaeus, who took so active a part in the Arminian controversy, and was long the leading divine in the Protestant Church of France. Lewis settled in England, and obtained a chair in Oxford during the Commonwealth. He adopted Independent, or Congregational, views on church government, chiefly, it would appear, because he thought them more favorable to Erastianism than Presbyterian principles, a notion for which he could plead the authority of Congregational divines of the highest eminence–namely, the five dissenting brethren, as they were called, in the Westminster Assembly.
They, in their Apologetical Narration, had asserted that they gave as much, or, as they thought, more, power to the civil magistrate in religious matters than the principles of Presbyterians would allow them to do, a declaration which, whether it be regarded as made honestly or hypocritically, has been very galling to those who have succeeded them in the maintenance of Congregational principles.”
See also the appendix to Rutherford’s Due Right, where he argues against Erastian notions of the New England, congregational puritans.
.
At Westminster
Articles
1600’s
Gillespie contra Erastianism at the Assembly
pp. xxi-xxviii of ‘Memoir of the Rev. George Gillespie’ in The Presbyterian’s Armoury, vol. 1.
The Famed Anecdote of Gillespie debating Selden, ‘Lord give Light!’
pp. xxii-xxiii of ‘Memoir of the Rev. George Gillespie’, in The Presbyterian’s Armoury, vol. 1
.
1800’s
Hetherington, William – ch. 6, ‘The Erastian Controversy’ in History of the Westminster Assembly (1878), pp. 232-74
.
1900’s
Crowley, Weldon S. – “Erastianism in the Westminster Assembly” in Journal of Church & State, vol. 15, no. 1 (Winter 1973), pp. 49-64
.
On the Church of England
Article
Cunningham, William – ‘Royal Supremacy in the Church of England’ (1863) 30 pp. being ch. 6 of Discussions on Church Principles, pp. 164 ff. (1863)
.
Books
Bruce, Archibald – A Historico-Politico-Ecclesiastical Dissertation on the Supremacy of Civil Powers in Matters of Religion, Particularly [Against] the Ecclesiastical Supremacy Annexed to the English Crown 1802 152 pp.
Bruce (1746-1816) was a Secession (Anti-Burgher) minister author and professor of Divinity (successor to Moncreiff).
Pretyman, J.R. – The Church of England and Erastianism since the Reformation (1854) 380 pp. London
Kilcrease, Bethany – The Great Church Crisis and the End of English Erastianism, 1898-1906 Pre
Fuller, David – English Church and State: a Short Study of Erastianism Pre 2016 LuLu
.
On the English Oath of Supremacy, 1534 / 1558 / 1661
Intro
See Wikipedia: ‘Oath of Supremacy’.
.
The Oath of Supremacy
1558
“I A. B. do utterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the Queen’s Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her Highness dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal; and that no foreign prince, person, prelate [such as the Pope], State or potentate has, or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the Queen’s Highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, privileges, preeminencies and authorities, granted or belonging to the Queen’s Highness, her heirs and successors, or united and annexed to the imperial crown of this realm. So help me God, and by the contents of this book.”
.
1661
The Oath of Supremacy in Scotland (1661) was initially for parliamentarians to take. It was, per Robert Wodrow:
“I, for testification of my faithful obedience to my most gracious and redoubted sovereign Charles, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, do affirm, testify, and declare, by this my solemn oath, that I acknowledge my said sovereign, only supreme governor of this kingdom, over all persons, and in all causes; and that no foreign prince, power, or state, nor person civil or ecclesiastic, hath any jurisdiction power, or superiority over the same:¹ and therefore I utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, and authorities; and shall at my utmost power defend, assist, and maintain his majesty’s jurisdiction foresaid, against all deadly, and never decline his majesty’s power or jurisdiction, as I shall answer to God.” (History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland, 1.92)
¹ [This phrase is ambiguous and may easily speak only of foreign ecclesiastical powers, such as the Pope, as the following sentence clarifies.]
.
That the Oath can be Honestly taken by a Divine-Right Presbyterian (Recommended)
Order of Contents
Quotes 5
Articles 2
.
Quotes
Order of
Bradshaw
London Presbyterians
Presbyterians & Independents
Baxter
Turretin
.
1600’s
William Bradshaw
English Puritanism… (London: 1641), ch. 6, p. 19
“They [puritans] hold that the civil magistrate, as he is a civil magistrate has and ought to have supreme power over all the churches within his dominions, in all causes whatsoever.”
[This qualifier may mean that the magistrate’s supremacy is only in a civil respect and not ecclesiastical.]
.
London (Presbyterian) Provincial Assembly
A Vindication of Presbyterial Government… (London, 1650), p. 7
“We say that the magistrate is, in a civil notion, the supreme governor in all causes ecclesiastical;”
.
Leading English & Presbyterian Ministers
The Grand Debate between the most reverend Bishops & the Presbyterian Divines appointed by His Sacred Majesty as Commissioners for the Review & Alteration of the Book of Common Prayer... (London, 1661), ‘The Papers’, pp. 69-70
“…we fear it is against our Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy for us to own any such power.”
.
Richard Baxter
A Christian Directory… (London: White, 1673)
pt. 3, ch. 5, title 2, p. 706
§27. Rule 13. If any impose an ambiguous oath and refuse to explain it, and require you only to swear in those words, and leave you to your own sense, Dr. Sanderson thinks that an honest man should suspect some fraud in such an oath and not take it at all, till all parties are agreed of the sense, pp. 193-194.
And I think he should not take it at all, unless there be some other cause that makes it his duty. But if a lawful magistrate command it, or the interest of the Church or State require it, I see not but he may take it, on condition that in the plain and proper sense of the words the oath be lawful, and that he openly profess to take it only in that sense.
§28. Rule 14. If any power should impose an oath or vow or promise which in the proper usual sense were downright impious or blasphemous or sinful, and yet bid me take it in what sense I pleased, though I could take it in such a sense as might make it no real consent to the impiety, yet it would be impious in the sense of the world, and of such heinous consequence as will make it to be unlawful.
As if I must subscribe or say or swear those words ‘There is no God’, or ‘Scripture is untrue,’ though it’s easy to use these or any words in a good sense if I may put what sense I will upon them, yet the public sense of them is blasphemy; and I may not publicly blaspheme on pretense of a private right sense and intention.
§. 29. Rule 15. If the oath imposed be true in the strict and proper sense, yet if that sense be not vulgarly known, nor sufficiently manifest to be the imposer’s sense, and if the words are false or blasphemous in the vulgar sense of those that I have to do with, and that must observe and make use of my example, I must not take such an oath, without leave to make my sense as public as my oath.
As if I were commanded to swear that ‘God has no foreknowledge, no knowledge, no will, etc.’. It were easy to prove that these terms are spoken primarily of man, and that they are attributed to God but analogically or metaphorically, and that God has no such human acts formaliter, but eminenter and that forma dat nomen [the form gives the name], and so that strictly it is not knowledge and will in the primary proper notion that God has at all, but something infinitely higher, for which man has no other name. But though thus the words are true and justifiable in the strictest proper sense, yet are they unlawful, because they are blasphemy in the vulgar sense: And he that speaks to the vulgar is supposed to speak with the vulgar, unless he as publicly explain them.
§30. Rule 16. If the supreme power should impose an oath or promise which in the ordinary, obvious sense were sinful, and an inferior officer would bid me take it in what sense I pleased, I might not therefore take it: because that such an officer has no power to interpret it himself; much less to allow me to take it in a private sense.
But if the lawgiver that imposes it bid me take it in what sense I will, and give me leave to make my sense as public as my oath, I may take it, if the words be but dubious and not apparently false or sinful (so there be no reason against it, aliunde [from elsewhere], as from ill consequents, etc.).
§31. Rule 17. If any man will say in such a case (when he thinks that the imposer’s sense is bad), I take not the same oath or engagement which is imposed, but another in the same words, and I suppose not inferior officers authorized to admit any interpretation, but I look at them only as men that can actually execute or not execute the laws upon me; and so I take a vow of my own according to my own sense, though in their words, as a means of my avoiding their severities:
As this is a collusion in a very high and tender business, so that person (if the public sense of the oath be sinful) must make his professed sense as public as his oath or promise, it being no small thing to do that which in the public sense is impious and so to be an example of perfidiousness to many.”
.
pt. 4, Ch. 3, ‘Directions for Subjects concerning their duty to their Rulers’, pp. 20-21
§50. Question 2. May our Oath of Supremacy be lawfully taken, wherein the king is pronounced supreame Governor in all causes ecclesiastical as well as civil?
Answer: There is no reason of scruple to him that understands:
1. That the title ‘causes ecclesiastical’ is taken from the ancient usurpation of the Pope and his prelates, who brought much of the magistrate’s work into their courts, under the name of ‘causes ecclesiastical’.
2. That our canons and many declarations of our princes have expounded it fully by disclaiming all proper pastoral power.
3. That by ‘Governor’ is meant only one that governs coercively, or by the sword: so that it is no more than to swear that in all causes ecclesiastical, so far as coercive government is required,¹ it belongs not to Pope or prelates under him, but to the king and his officers or courts alone: Or that the king is chief in governing by the sword in causes ecclesiastical as well as civil. So that if you put ‘spiritual’ instead of ‘ecclesiastical’, the word is taken materially and not formally: not that the king is chief in the spiritual government by the keys of excommunication and absolution, but that he is chief in the coercive government about spiritual matters, as before explained.
¹ See Bilson of subject, pp. 238, 256: ‘Princes only be governors in things and causes ecclesiastical: that is, with the sword. But if you infer, therefore bishop be no governors in those things, meaning no dispensers, guiders nor directors of those things, your conclusion is larger, etc.’ So p. 256.
§. 51. Question 3. Is not this to confound the Church and State, and to give the Pastors’ Power to the Magistrate?
Answer. Not at all: It is but to say, that there may be need of the use both of the Word and sword against the same persons, for the same offence, and the magistrate only must use one and the pastors the other. An heretical preacher may be silenced by the king upon pain of banishment and silenced by the Church upon pain of excommunication. And what confusion is there in this?
§52. Question 4. But has not the king power in cases of Church discipline and excommunication itself?
Answer: There is a magistrate’s discipline and a pastoral discipline: Discipline by the sword is the magistrate’s work: Discipline by the Word is the pastors’ work. And there is a coercive excommunication and a pastoral excommunication… But to command it only upon divine and spiritual penalties, belongs to the pastors of the Church…”
.
The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689), pp. 11-12 The preface is dated 1683.
“But those [leading presbyterian and congregationalist ministers] that were called by the king, and one another, 1660 and 1661, to treat of concord, and that assembled at Sion College, and elsewhere about it, did openly make known their minds: And I think they meddled not against any of these things following, by any accusation of them as sinful:
…
XV. Much less did they ever oppose or question swearing to the king, according to the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy: And I with diverse others also being (for some ends) entered as his chaplains in ordinary, took also that Oath of Fidelity which the king’s household servants take.”
.
Francis Turretin
Institutes, vol. 3, topic 18, question 34, ‘What is the right of the Christian magistrate about sacred things, and does the care and recognition of religion belong in any way to him? We affirm.’
“XX. The name ‘Head of the Church,’ given to the King of England, is not understood of intrinsic, formal and spiritual ecclesiastical power, but of extrinsic, objective or defensive power about ecclesiastical matters. This is evident from the articles of religion approved by the Synod at London in the year 1562 and by the public consent of the Queen and the orders of the kingdom, of which the thirty-seventh is this:
“When we ascribe to her royal Majesty the supreme government, by which title we understand the minds of certain calumniators are offended, we do not give to our rulers the administration either of the word of God or of the sacraments, which even the injunctions by Queen Elizabeth lately published most clearly testify, but only that prerogative which we find was always ascribed in the holy Scriptures by God himself to all pious princes, i.e., that they should continue in duty all states and orders committed to their faith by God, whether ecclesiastical or civil and should restrain with civil sword the obstinate and delinquent” (cf. Cardwell, Synodalia [1842], 1:71).
It is confirmed from Lancelot Andrewes, where setting forth the primacy of kings (the adversary objecting being Calvin), he answers:
“Calvin as he did not approve of the king as pope, so did not approve of the pope as king; nor do we approve in the king what we detest in the pope, while both he with us and we with him think that the duties of King James in the Christian church are the same as those of Josiah in the Jewish church, nor do we ask that anything beyond should be done” (Tortura Torti [1609], p. 379).
And:
“If you prefer an example from Christian rulers, the king demands this, that he should be a bishop of things without (ton ektos), which Constantine, as a ruler of religion, did; which not only Charlemagne, but also Louis the Pious did” (ibid., p. 382).
In the same manner James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh, in a speech published with a controversial work against the Jesuit, Hybemus, defends the oath of fidelity which declared the king to be the sole, supreme governor in the kingdom. Thus he distinguishes
“two distinct powers established by God in these lands, one of which is of the keys committed to the church, the other of the sword entrusted to the civil magistrate; the former ordained to operate about the internal man, having an immediate relation to the remission and retention of sins; the latter ordained to operate about the external man, affording protection to the obedient, and inflicting external punishments upon the rebellious” (which in the same place he explains and proves) (A Speech Delivered in the Castle-Chamber at Dublin the xxii of November, Anno 1622, pp. 3-4).
And afterwards:
“Although in this way we make the prince and priest guardians of both tables, and although the matter about which they exercise their office can be the same, still the form and mode of governing in it is distinct in every way. One extends itself only to the external man, the other to the internal; one binds or looses the soul; the other attends to the body and things pertaining to it; one has a special regard to the judgment of the future world, the other refers to the present retention or privation of some of the conveniences of this life” (ibid., p. 6).
He at length concludes after many other things,
“According to the common opinion and public authority of the Anglican church by the supreme government of the king is meant the civil and the power of the sword, nor can it in any way be extended to a government which is purely of another kind” (ibid., p. 7).
He who desires more on this subject should consult the celebrated Voetius (Politicae Ecclesiasticae, Pt. I [1663], Bk. I, Tract. II, pp. 149-82).”
.
Articles
Tombes, John – A Serious Consideration of the Oath of the King’s Supremacy… (London: Hills, 1660) 27 pp.
“…finding many persons of different persuasions scrupling the taking of the oath of supremacy now beginning to be urged, by reason of their unacquaintance with it through the long disuse of it, by various conferences I convinced sundry of them that the end and matter of the oath was not such as they imagined…” – To the Reader
“The Admonition annexed to the Queen’s Injunctions.
The Queen’s Majesty being informed that in certain places of this realm, sundry of her native subjects, being called to ecclesiastical ministry in the Church, be by sinister persuasion and perverse construction induced to find some scruple in the form of an oath which by an act of the last parliament is prescribed to be required of diverse persons, for the recognition of their allegiance to her Majesty, which certainly neither was ever meant, ne by any equity of words or good sense, can be thereof gathered: Would that all her loving subjects should understand that nothing was, is, or shall be meant or intended by the same oath, to have any other duty, allegiance, or bond required by the same oath than was acknowledged to be due to the most noble kings of famous memory, king Henry VIII, her Majesty’s father, or king Edward VI, her Majesty’s brother.
And further her Majesty forbids all manner her subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons which most sinisterly and maliciously labor to notify to her loving subjects how by the words of the said oath, it may be collected the kings or queens of this realm, possessors of the crown, may challenge authority and power of ministry of divine offices in the Church, wherein her said subjects be much abused by such evil disposed persons. For certainly her Majesty neither does, ne ever will challenge any other authority than that was challenged and lately used by the said noble kings of famous memory, king Henry VIII, and king Edward VI, which is and was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of this realm.” – pp. 3-4
“Objection 3: If kings be governors in all causes over all persons, then may they dissolve churches and their government, and mold and order them as they will.
Answer: So far as Church constitution, government and ordering is by Christ’s appointment, or such example which has the force of an institution of Christ, it may not be altered by a king; But in such things as are left to human prudence, and there is a concernment of the weal-public, kings have authority to order them so, as that they tend to the real good and advantage of the churches of Christ and the glory of God, which is the highest and ultimate end of all.
Objection 4: This will make the use of synods and assemblies of pastors to determine things of religion and to order government unnecessary, since the determination of all will lie in the king’s breast.
Answer: Though statute-laws require the king’s assent, and the government is to be exercised in his name, by his commission, yet are not debates in parliament and passing bills by both Houses, nor consultations with judges, nor their decisions of cases unnecessary [but assumed in the oath]:
The like is to be said of the use of synods and assemblies of Pastors and learned men, though the calling of them, and validity of their canons, that is rules, in respect of the imposing them on others with civil penalties, require the king’s concurrence.
Objection 5. This has occasioned great evils in so much that persecution has been raised against godly persons as heretiques and schismatics, when princes have been misled so as to burn, banish, imprison and otherwise to afflict persons judged by prelates and others to be such.
Answer: ‘Tis true this has fallen out when princes ignorant of the true religion, corrupted in their education, perverted by seducers and ungodly guides in their judgments have yielded too much to the misinformation of others, and so have been unhappy in the abuse of their government to the great hurt in life, liberty and estate of innocent persons: And the like has been in mal-administration of civil affairs through the like causes: yet the power and authority in neither is to be denied for some abuse: for that would introduce a worse evil of anarchy and mischievous confusions.
On the other side when princes have been good, and have used such good counselors, as Jehoiada was to Joash, their government in religion has been of great advantage to the Church of Christ. And as things have stood in England, it was the means under God whereby Popery was expelled and the protestant Reformation was established.
…
Objection 8: The acknowledgement of this supremacy of the king has been opposed by sundry godly protestants who have in their writings excepted against it, as Calvin and the Century writers of Magdeburg.
Answer: Tis true they excepted against the title of Head of the Church given to King Henry VIII, as Stephen Gardiner [a Papist] and such like persons misreported it, as if it gave to the king an uncontrollable authentic power, to determine of faith and worship of God: but when those learned protestants better understood what was meant by it, they withdrew their exceptions, as doctor Rainold shows in his Conference with Hart in the Tower [1584], ch. 10 [pp. 673-74].
Objection 9: Many godly persons are offended with the taking and defending the lawfulness of the taking of this oath as fearing it many tend to the taking away those liberties of their consciences in religion, which are dearer to them then their lives: and being jealous of those who take it, lest they betray those liberties.
Answer: It is to be considered by those conscientious persons who make this objection that the takers, and defenders of the taking of this oath do apprehend that the imposing this oath was for the excluding the Pope’s jurisdiction and other foreign power, as the admonition of Queen Elizabeth here prefixed shows…
But they that have taken it, or conceive they may take it if imposed, do it, as being satisfied in their consciences by the foregoing arguments or such like that they do but what they may do lawfully without offence, and hope that it will fall out as it did in the business of the altar of Ed, Josh. 22, that a right intelligence of their fact will prevent any breach between them and others and unite them more closely.” – pp. 22-23
“What was used in the days of Henry VIII and Edward VI appears by the book of acts and monuments and statutes in their days, to wit, the rejecting the Pope’s jurisdiction, appointing visitors, judging and deposing some bishops, commands to take down images, causing divine service to be in the English tongue, the Bible in the English tongue to be in churches, with many other things of the like kind. The promise to defend them is ‘to our power’ whether by opposing the bringers in of a foreign power, especially the Pope’s or by aiding the king in the right use of this authority, neither is the power granted which may not be lawfully used or exercised, nor is the abuse of it required to be defended.” – pp. 25-26
A Supplement to the Serious Consideration of the Oath of the King’s Supremacy… (London: Hills, 1661) 41 pp.
.
That the Oath cannot be Honestly taken by a Divine-Right Presbyterian
Article
1600’s
Brown of Wamphray, John – in An Apologetical Relation of the Particular Sufferings of the Faithful Ministers and Professors of the Church of Scotland, since August 1660 (Rotterdam, 1665)
.
Works of Erastians
English
1500’s
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – 3. ‘Whether there may be Two Heads of the Church, One Visible & Another Invisible’ in The Common Places… (London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 4, pp. 35-41
Erastus, Thomas
The 75 Theses of Erastus Touching Excommunication 1st ed. (1589; rep. 1844) ed. with a preface by Robert Lee. A speech by Bulstrode Whitelocke (an Erastian) to the English Long Parliament, 1645, is appended
This was the major work of Erastus on the topic that is available in English. In his Theses, Erastus explained that sins of professing Christians are to be punished by civil authority, and not by the withholding of sacraments on the part of the clergy. Lee (1804-1868) was a progressive in the Church of Scotland.
Erastus reveals his position of State control over the Church in the preface and conclusion of this work. For more background to this work, see Cunningham, Historical Theology, vol. 2, pp. 569-71.
Hooker, Richard – Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Books 1-4, 5, 6-8 ToC
Hooker (1554-1600) was an Erastian and perhaps the most, foundational theologian for the Church of England. This, his major work, was ‘the first major work in the fields of politics, theology and philosophy to have been written in English’ (A.S. McGrade) and was largely a defense of the status quo Church of England against the puritans.
ToC
1 – Of Laws in General
2 – Contra the Regulative Principle of Church Government & Worship
3 – That there is not an unalterable form of Church Government prescribed in Scripture
4 – Defending Popish Ceremonies in the Anglican Church generally
5 – Defending specific Anglican worship practices: Church Buildings, Preaching, Reading, Liturgy of Prayer, Vestments, Responsive Readings, Instruments, Hymns & creeds, Natures of Christ & Sacraments, Festival Days, Endowments, Tithes, etc.
6– Contra Ruling Elders
7 – Defending Prelacy
8 – The English King’s human-right of supreme authority over the Church
Here is a scholarly Commentary on The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, vol. 1 (Books 1-4), 2 (Books 5-8) 1993 ed. W. Speed Hill.
.
1600’s
Maxwell, John – Sacro-Sancta Regum Majestas, or, The Sacred and Royal Prerogative of Christian Kings (1644)
John Maxwell was an English Erastian. This work defends the ‘divine right of kings’.
“The immediate reason for the rewriting of the earlier manuscript [of Lex Rex by S. Rutherford] was the publication, in January 1644, of a royalist treatise, Sacro-Sancta Regum Majestas… Its author was John Maxwell, the deposed ‘Canterburian’ Bishop of Ross and one of the major architects of the notorious Scottish Prayer Book. Rutherford found this treatise by an old enemy deeply provocative, and over the winter, spring and summer of 1644, he spent much of his free-time away from the Westminster Assembly writing a detailed refutation…
Maxwell had written his book because he felt that it was appropriate for a divine to put the case for absolutism, since it had already been convincingly argued by eminent lawyers like Bodin and Barclay, and since it was so strongly supported by Scripture and Christian tradition. Rutherford clearly could not let this go unchallenged. The natural-law contractualism of the Scottish-parliamentarian alliance needed to be defended by a theologian.” – Coffey, Politics, Religion, pp. 148-49
Goodwin, John
Goodwin (1594–1665) was an Arminian, , Erastian, Latitudinarian Church of England theologian. The Arminians were at the same time Erastians and for a broad toleration of doctrines, sects and schisms (especially their own).
Prynne was also an Erastian, but “loudly called on parliament to crush the sectaries (Just Defence of John Bastwick, 1645; The Liar Confounded, 1645; Fresh Discovery of some prodigious new wandering blazing Stars, 1645). Yet, while vehemently opposing the demands of the independents for liberty of conscience…” – DNB
Prynne, William – The Sword of Christian Magistracy Supported, or, A Vindication of the Christian Magistrate’s Authority under the Gospel, to punish idolatry, apostasy, heresy, blasphemy, and obstinate schism, with corporal, and in some cases, with capital punishments (1653) 174 pp.
Prynne (1600–1669) “loudly called on parliament to crush the sectaries… Yet, while vehemently opposing the demands of the independents for liberty of conscience, Prynne was equally hostile to the demands of the presbyterian clergy for the unrestricted establishment of their system. ‘Mr. Prynne and the Erastian lawyers are now our remora,’ complains Robert Baillie in September 1645 (Letters, ii. 315).” – DNB
Selden, John – Table Talk (d. 1654) 190 pp.
This is a collection of familiar anecdotal quotes from Selden, arranged by topic in alphabetical order.
For some interesting quotes revealing of Erastianism, see Abbeys, Articles, Bishops, Chancellor, Church, Clergy, Excommunication, Jurisdiction, Jus Divinum, King of England, Ministers, etc.
Du Moulin, Lewis – Of the Right of Churches & of the Magistrate’s Power over Them (1658) 394 pp. ToC
Du Moulin (c.1605-1680) was an antagonist to Voet.
“…Lewis Du Moulin… a son of the famous Molinaeus, who took so active a part in the Arminian controversy, and was long the leading divine in the Protestant Church of France. Lewis settled in England, and obtained a chair in Oxford during the Commonwealth. He adopted Independent, or Congregational, views on church government, chiefly, it would appear, because he thought them more favorable to Erastianism than Presbyterian principles…” – Cunningham, HT 2.580-1
Honyman, Andrew
Honyman (1619-1676) was a zealous covenanter before the Restoration of 1660, though turned his back to the cause and became a chief antagonist. Honyman, in his works, argues for the Erastian divine-right of kings.
For the covenanting works Honyman is responding to see Defenses of Scottish Covenanting.
Mackenzie, George – Jus Regium, or, The Just, and Solid Foundations of Monarchy in General, and more especially of the Monarchy of Scotland: Maintained against Buchannan, Naphtali, Dolman, [John] Milton, etc. 1684 160 pp.
Mackenzie (1636/1638–1691) was a Scottish lawyer, Lord Advocate, essayist and legal writer. This work was written against the political-resistance writings of George Buchanan, Rutherford’s Lex Rex and James Stewart’s Naphtali and Jus Populi Vindicatum, amongst others, and advocates the divine-right of kings. It was written during some of the worst days of the Killing Times.
.
1800’s
Pusey, E.B. – The Royal Supremacy Not an Arbitrary Authority, but Limited by the Laws of the Church, of Which Kings are Members, Part 1: Ancient Precedents 1850 270 pp.
Pusey (1800–1882) was a High-Church Anglican. On the one hand, this work documents helpful historical references guarding the power of the Church, on the other-hand, it does the same for some principles that are considered by presbyterians to be Erastian.
William Cunningham responds to this work in his article (above) on the Royal Supremacy in the Church of England.
.
Latin
Erastus, Thomas – Thesium Confirmatio in 6 books 1570
This was Erastus’ further reply to Beza’s piece against Erastus’ 75 Theses.
“Erastus’s name, however, could not probably have been generally employed to designate a controversy which for more than two centuries has been commonly regarded and spoken of amongst Protestants as comprehending a discusssion of the whole subject of the relation that ought to subsist between the civil and the ecclesiastical authorities, if he had confined himself rigidly to the one topic of excommunication…
And accordingly we find that, in the preface, and in the conclusion to his [75] Theses, and still more fully in the first chapter of the third book of the Confirmation, he has distinctly entered upon the wider field above described, as embraced by the controversy which has since been called after his name.” – Cunningham, Historical Theology 2.571
Selden, John – Of the Sanhedrims and Juridicial Governments of the Ancient Hebrews, vol. 1, 2, 3 (1650-55)
Selden (1584–1654) was an English jurist, a scholar of England’s ancient laws and constitution and a scholar of Jewish law, who debated in the Westminster Assembly.
“The chief Erastian book of this period [mid-1600’s] is Selden, De Synedris, which is directed to the object of assailing Presbyterian principles with materials derived from the Old Testament and the Jewish polity, materials which are discussed in the first book of Gillespie’s Aaron’s Rod Blossoming.” – Cunningham, HT 2.581
Grotius, Hugo – A Commentary on the Sum of the Commanding Powers around the Sacred (1661) 402 pp.
Grotius (1583-1645) was an Arminian, Latitudinarian, Erastian Anglican. On this work, see Cunningham, Historical Theology, vol. 2, p. 565.
“An elaborate defence of a system of the grossest Erastianism, such as some even of his Prelatic correspondents in England could not digest.” – Cunningham, Historical Theology 2.578
.
.
.
Related Pages