Erastianism, the Preferred Doctrine of Tyrants, is Rejected by the Westminster Assembly

The Stuart and Tudor monarchs of the 16^th and 17^th centuries adored the doctrine of the divine right of kings, which they formulated out of doctrines popularized by Thomas Erastus. Erastus taught a doctrine first established by Marsilius of Padua, which he espoused in his book Defensor Pacis. Marsilius of Padua taught that all visible government was placed in the purview of the civil magistrate. The church had no Biblical authority to administer correctional action against offenders apart from the state. Because Thomas Erasmus popularized this doctrine when monarchs were ready to take more than full advantage of it, the outgrowth of it still bears his name today.

It was this doctrine advanced by Thomas Erastus that gave impetus to the doctrine of state supremacy over the church. Once the state was given some reign in the church it was not long before they demanded total authority over the church. Thus, the theories of Erastus expanded until they were eventually characterized by John Neville Figgis as, “the theory that religion is the creature of the state.” This gave the Stuart and Tudor monarchs full sovereignty over their realms.

It is impossible for tyrants to suppress the people in a culture where the church is institutionally separate from the state. A tyrant cannot wield unrestricted power when the church maintains its authority over ecclesiastical matters. By definition tyranny is total control, so if the church is allowed to exert authority separate from state control the death blow has been dealt to the tyrant. This is why tyrannical states always revert back to the Erastianism described by John Neville Figgis.

On the other hand, herein lies the importance of the victory of the anti-Erastians during the reformation. As late as the mid 17^th century the reformation still had no shortage of Erastians in the camp. During the Westminster assembly Erastianism was defended by the able Westminster divine Selden with a rather lengthy and intellectual discourse. A couple of the divines unsuccessfully attempted to answer Selden's arguments. The young George Gillespie was observed writing notes in his note book during Selden's speech and one of his Scottish brethren, some accounts say Samuel Rutherford, urged Gillespie, “Rise, George, rise up, man, and defend the right of the Lord Jesus Christ to govern, by his own laws, the church which he hath purchased with his blood.”

The young theologian rose and first recounted Selden's arguments reducing them to simplicity, then he altogether refuted Selden's arguments. His address convinced the assembly to reject Erastianism. Selden himself intoned bitterly, “That young man, by his speech, has swept away the learning and labour of ten years of my life.” Though his Scottish brethren knew of Gillespie's great abilities they were astonished enough at his performance to look into his note book to see what he had written during Selden's speech. Their view of Gillespie grew when they saw several short petitions such as, “Lord, give light.”

Thus it is that the Westminster Confession of Faith was graced with the Biblical doctrine of the separation of church and state. The first article of chapter twenty-five of the confession reads in part, “God...hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him over the people, for his own glory and the public good...” In this article, which cites Romans chapter 13 as one of the proof texts, you see the Biblical call for civil magistrates to operate under the authority of King Jesus, for the good of his subjects. This rejection of Erastianism is the Biblical doctrine of the separation of church and state that has been lost to many Christians in modern America.