Erastianism
Erastianism is a vague word with many meanings ; it is derived from a German doctor of the sixteenth century, Thomas Lieber, whose name, like that of Melanchthon and a host of others, was translated into a Greek form, Erastus. His view was that the State, and not the Church, should exercise coercive jurisdiction. But it has been denied that Erastus was Erastian, just as it may be maintained that Machiavelli was not really Machiavellian ; and the modern use of the word seems to imply a right on the part of the State to set up any creed it likes and compel its subjects to acknowledge it. Erastus himself died in exile rather than admit this; and modern Erastianism is rather the policy adopted by Henry VIII and expounded by Thomas Hobbes. Without attempting any exact definition, a country is Erastian where the State, and theocratic where the Church, is the predominant partner.
Now in England in the sixteenth century there is no doubt that the State was the predominant partner. The Reformation is a naked and brutal assertion of that fact, which no amount of ingenuity can explain away. It was forced on the Church and against its will by the State, and it was not till late in Elizabeth's reign that the Church accorded a conscientious assent to a settlement extorted from it by force. In Henry VIII's reign the pretence of consulting the Church through Convocation and the pretence of electing Bishops by Chapters were kept up. But Chapters had to elect the royal nominee within twelve days under pain of praemunire. Even the taxes the Church imposed on itself could not be collected till Parliament gave its consent.
The Elizabethan settlement was intended to be comprehensive and embrace the whole English people. It was therefore drawn in such a way as to satisfy the religious needs of all but extreme Romanists and extreme Puritans. Lord Chatham once declared that the Church of England had " an Erastian clergy, a Calvinistic creed, and a Catholic liturgy." This description is not exactly true, but it bears witness to the fact that the Prayer-Book is drawn in such a way that people of divergent views can conform to it. The methods of patronage kept the clergy in touch with lay feeling, the services were largely drawn from ancient Catholic sources, and Calvinism has had considerable influence on the form of the Thirty-nine Articles.
Why was Parliament so much stronger than Convocation? The answer is that Parliament represented the feelings of the predominant middle classes and Convocation represented only the clergy ; it did not even represent the Church in the modern sense of the word. Later, one would speak of a Churchman in distinction to any kind of nonconformist, and the Church party included a number of eminent laymen. In those days no layman could be described as a Churchman; the Churchman was always an ecclesiastic, and only such were represented in Convocation ; the rest of the people, who all belonged to the Church, were represented by Parliament. Convocation was thus the organ of a class, almost a privileged caste, whose privileges existed at the expense of the laity; and thus it could not be the organ of the mass of the people. Nevertheless, this privileged class had been able to hold most of what it called its own throughout the greater part of the Middle Ages, because it had represented all the education and almost all the intelligence and the enthusiasm of that time. That was no longer the case.
There is nothing necessarily Erastian in the exaltation of the temporal power over the Church, whether that temporal power be King or Parliament. Bishops in the fourth century exalted the power of the Emperor Constantine. The assertion of the entire independence of the civil power from the ecclesiastical, and the denial to the spiritual authorities of all jurisdiction in temporal matters was admitted by all but ultramontane Papists. It was held by the whole church till the time of Gregory VII, and even after his time it was often admitted in general terms, by those who were practically denying it. It was, however, only a part of a wider and more general truth, namely, that which asserted that the State and the Church are two distinct and independent powers, each having its own province, and each possessed of supreme jurisdiction in its own sphere.
Ultramontanists contravene this general truth, in so far as the State is concerned, by virtually denying its independence, and by ascribing to the Church jurisdiction, direct or indirect, over its affairs. Erastians contravene it, in so far as the church is concerned, by virtually denying its independence, and by ascribing to the civil power jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters. Erastianism proposes the unwarrantable interference of the civil power in the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs, and the unwarrantable submission to this interference by the church. Something of this sort was exhibited in most Protestant churches, though it was been generally condemned and resisted by Scottish Presbyterians.
Scriptural views of the church, as a distinct and independent society, preserved the Gallican divines from the Erastian extreme; and scriptural views of the State, as being also a distinct and independent society, preserved them from the Ultramontane, or as, from its general prevalence in the Church of Rome for many centuries, we are warranted in calling it, the Popish, extreme. The Gallican divines thus succeeded in reaching, on the subject of the relation that ought to subsist between-the civil and the ecclesiastical authorities, the golden mean that has been generally professed by Scottish Presbyterians ; and they have made valuable contributions to the exposition, illustration, and defence of the principles on which this was based.
As the Presbyterians had been commonly accused by the Erastians of adopting the Popish principle of subjecting the civil to the ecclesiastical, so the Gallicans were usually accused by the Ultramontanists of adopting the Erastian principle of subjecting the ecclesiastical to the civil. Both accusations were unfounded - both were mere controversial artifices. It is true that instances occurred in which some of the court bishops and crown lawyers, who took part in the defence of the Gallican Liberties, failed to distinguish aright the true boundary between things civil and things ecclesiastical, and made statements of a somewhat Erastian tendency.
While the Erastians had been accustomed to accuse Presbyterians of holding Ultramontane, and the Ultramontanists to accuse the Gallicans of holding Erastian, views in regard to the relation between the civil and ecclesiastical powers, the controversy in France combined with the controversy in Scotland in making it manifest, that Erastians and Ultramontanists really agreed in some of the leading principles by which they defend their respective positions. The chief argument by which Erastians usually assailed the independence of the church, as maintained by Presbyterians, is this - that in every country there must be some one supreme power which has ultimate jurisdiction over all persons and in all cases, and that without this there would arise the absurdity and the mischief of an imperium in imperio. It was by the very same argument that the Ultramontanists assailed the independence of the State, as maintained by the Gallicans.
The parties who concur in adopting this general principle, of course differ in their application of it-the one vesting the supreme and ultimate jurisdiction in the State, and the other in the church. But the fact, that they both make this general principle the mainstay of their argument, is a curious and instructive one. Erastus himself has appealed to the authority of the Romanists in support of this general principle, which he held in common with them ; and Louis du Moulin, who was Professor of History at Oxford during the Commonwealth, and who labored most strenuously in maintaining Erastianism upon Independent or Congregational grounds, has followed his example on this point.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
