QUESTIONS.

1. What do separatists assert as to the guidance or governance of Christian assemblies?

2. Give some practical refutations to these assertions.

3. State in substance the Rev. Mr Spurgeon's experience, and the question put from Anthony Burgess.

CHAPTER VII.

THE GOVERNMENT DEVISED.

And hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the Head over all things to the Church, which is His body.'

ERASTIANISM.

ERASTIANISM denies that there is a government in the hand of church officers, by yielding the rule of Christ's house, either wholly or partially, into the hand of the civil magistrate.

This opinion, although discussed from the fourth century, was brought into prominence in modern times by Thomas Erastus, doctor of medicine at Heidelberg, in Germany. Beza was his great opponent. Erastus had incurred the discipline of the Church, and refused to submit. He then wrote a book, in which he endeavoured to prove―(1.) That the Church has no right to decide on the character of its members, in order to their admission or exclusion from sealing ordinances; and (2.) That all government, civil and ecclesiastical, is, by Divine authority, vested in the civil magistrate. In 1568 this opinion was maintained in a public disputation at Heidelberg by Dr George Withers, an Englishman.

Erastus did not go so far as his followers. He made two important admissions-First, That all persons ought not to be admitted to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper-as idolaters, apostates, the ignorant, heretics and sectaries, non-conformists to Christ's institution, defenders of wickedness, and the unrepent

M

ant; Secondly, That admission ought to be according to the rule of the Church. Now, that rule at Heidelberg was the suspension of the scandalous, and the excommunication of the obstinate. Erastus seems to have taken exception to the Presbytery in judging of the sincerity of the repentance professed, by the known actions of the person. He yielded the rule which a Church proposed to itself for guidance, but denied that Christ had given to it this explicit power of rule.

These views were speedily adopted, and extended by-(a) Magistrates and people, who desired to have the outward ordinances of religion, and yet live as they pleased. They were also cordially embraced and acted upon (b) by errorists, as the followers of Arminius, and (c) the advocates of absolute despotism, or the royal prerogative.' Thus, a Senator of the College of Justice in Scotland argued that there was— -(1.) No distinction between the laws of Church and State; (2.) That synods had no power of censure; and (3.) That the supreme civil governor has the power both of framing laws for the Church and of correcting transgressors. Many great changes would have been made if princes had deemed it for the public good to regulate ecclesiastical matters according to the prescriptions of certain great and excellent men, who, near the close of the seventeenth century, led on by Christian Thomasius, attempted a reformation of our system of ecclesiastical law. These famous jurists, in the first place, set up a new fundamental principle of church polity, namely, the supreme authority and power of the civil magistrate; and then, after establishing with great care and subtlety this basis, they founded upon it a great mass of precepts which, in the judgment of many, were considered, and not without reason, as tending to this point-(1.) That the sovereign of a country is also sovereign of the religion of its citizens, or is their supreme pontiff; and (2.) That ministers of religion are not to be accounted ambassadors of God, but vicegerents of the civil magistrate' (Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. p. 792). This theory was embraced by the infidel Hobbes. It was also favoured by most of the State Churches of Europe. Scotland happily contended continuously against it. Expressly by statutes, Scotland has been found repudiating and casting out of her constitution all claim of the

sovereign to be considered supreme governor in causes ecclesiastical and spiritual. This Erastian theory was, however, embodied in the English Constitution, in the Act of Supremacy of Henry VIII., renewed by Edward VI and Elizabeth, and is still the law of that country.

The principle of Erastianism is threefold:-First, That there is no government of the Church independent of the State; the Church being merely one of its general functions, everything in the Church must be subject to the civil power. Secondly, Every subject of the State is thus a member of the Church, and entitled to all its privileges. Thirdly, Ministers of religion have simply power to preach and administer sacraments. They have no power of discipline, since to exclude from ordinances would deprive men of their civil rights.

This extreme Erastianism is not generally avowed at the present day. A modification is plausibly presented thus:—There must be a power in a nation to regulate all other powers. It is then assumed that the civil alone is entitled to this supremacy; and it is maintained that, consequently, civil courts of law are entitled to review and control the proceedings of ecclesiastical courts, whether their decisions respect spiritual matters only, or affect temporal possessions.

That these Erastian opinions are unscriptural, and that 'the Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of church officers distinct from the civil magistrate' (C. of F. 30, § 1), is manifest when the Divine Word is examined.

1. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE JEWISH CHURCH

was distinct from that of the State. The laws given by Jehovah, their King, consisted not only of moral and ceremonial precepts suitable for the Jews as a religious body, but also of judicial determinations as to their conduct as a nation. Rites abundant were engaged in as a Church, and rules carried out as to admission or exclusion from these, whilst crimes were punished by the State. Priests and Levites were officers of the Church, whilst judges were ministers of State. A supreme council or Sanhedrim

was appointed for the Church, as well as another for the State. Jehovah said unto Moses, 'Come up unto the Lord, thou, and Aaron, and Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel' (Exod. xxiv. 1). 'Also, they saw God, and did eat and drink.' This constitution of a court in reference to spiritual things was different from that for deciding matters between man and man. The spiritual was instituted shortly after coming out of Egypt at Mount Sinai. Judges were not chosen for civil government, acting on the advice of Jethro, until the beginning of the second year or end of the first (Exod. xviii.); whereas the law was given to Moses and the spiritual court constituted on the third day after their arrival at Sinai. These seventy, for judicial purposes, are only mentioned as chosen when they departed from Sinai to Paran, in the second year and twentieth day of the second month (Num. x. 11, 12). It was thus, after the seventy were called up regarding the worship of God and the tabernacle service, that Jethro beheld Moses exhausting himself, sitting from morning to evening in the decision of civil causes without any assistance. Traces of this distinction of courts are found in all the after history of Israel. David divided the Levites to set forward the work of the house of the Lord; six thousand of them were made, some officers, some judges (1 Chron. xxiii. 4). ‘Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the priests, and of chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the Lord' in church matters, and for controversies between man and man (2 Chron. xix. 8-11).

The ecclesiastical court continued to the apostolic period. Herod gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, and demanded of them where Christ should be born' (Matt. ii. 4). When Jesus' was come into the Temple, the chief priests and elders of the people' demanded, 'By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?' (xxi. 23). He was at length led away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled,' who pronounced Him guilty of blasphemy (xxvi. 57–65). This Luke terms the presbytery' (geoßuregio) of the people (Luke xxii. 66). This their Sanhedrim or Council examined Jesus of His discourses and doctrine, as also the testimony of witnesses, and

In

pronounced judgment. So the apostles were examined. every case it was something relative to religion that was tried, whether actions or matter of controversy. Things relative to natural relationship were judged by the other court. The Romans took away the Jewish state and civil government, but the Jewish Church in the exercises of religion remained. The Jewish State differed somewhat in its constitution when under Moses, Joshua, the judges, the kings, and after the captivity; while the Church remained the same. There were some persons proselytes, who were admitted as members of the Church, who were excluded from certain privileges of the State. No doubt most of the individuals were members both of the Church and the State, but this did not destroy the distinction there, any more than in another land.

Even if no distinction were traceable, the theocracy of the Jews would not prove a sufficient precedent for Erastians, unless it be allowed that the ministers of religion are still to have as large a share in the civil government of the nation, and that parliament itself is to sit in judgment in regard to all that is true or false, and to determine in cases of conscience.

2. SOME ACTIONS OF JEWISH MAGISTRATES

were extraordinary and typical, by the special appointment of God. Thus, by the call of God, Moses acted as head both of the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions. David, the man of God, commanded' as a prophet rather than as king in the ministrations of the Levites' (2 Chron. viii. 14). The deposition of Abiathar was for the civil crime of treason; and Zadok was chosen to be priest by the congregation before his appointment by King Solomon (1 Chron. xxix. 22). Hezekiah exhorted and set in order only according to the divine appointment; 'for so was the commandment of the Lord by His prophets' (2 Chron. xxix. 25). Such extraordinary actions can only prove examples for extraordinary occasions. The judgments on Korah and his company, and upon Uzza, are solemn warnings to all to beware of meddling with sacred things without the express sanction of the Lord.