by Parliament upon their ancestress: not upon the second, because the supremacy of an English king is as undeniable before his coronation as after it. So that whatever authority he possesses must be dependent solely upon the Territorial System; upon his claim as the representative of the worldly power. And this power is wholly irrespective of that peculiar virtue which was supposed to be inherent in monarchs, and to come out as soon as they became Christians. For the present line of English Sovereigns, though restricted from becoming Roman Catholics, are not bound to any positive belief. A Socinian or Swedenborgian would be as good a Protestant in the eye of the law as a Churchman. If there were any peculiar authority therefore over religion which was possessed by Christian, and not by heathen emperors, it is manifestly inapplicable to our present circumstances, because we are subject to a legal supremacy, which would not be impaired if the sovereign ceased to be a member of the Church. And though the arguments which have been noticed still exercise influence over many minds, yet they cannot now be adduced except as advocating such pure Erastianism, as would have made it the duty of the Apostles to obey men rather than GOD. Their real tendency was always towards this system, but so long as they were built upon the divine right of kings, they were capable of a less sordid application. The Scotch Episcopalians might no doubt have continued to use them during the last century, while they referred to the Court of S. Germain's in the appointment of their Bishops. Their employment, under present circumstances, by members of the English Church, would imply either want of perception or want of honesty."-pp. 57-60.

But while men were thus learning to believe in the king, they were also learning to disbelieve in the Church. The reformed theology which, as popularly understood, deprived the Church of authority, the sacraments of grace, and the priesthood of any divine mission, after long struggling with the catholic element of our Church, obtained the ascendancy in the last century. Its triumph was celebrated by the silencing of convocation, and in spite of their loud boasting its present adherents seem to think their safety lies in keeping convocation silent. And, admit this theory, and the ignoring of any authority in the Church must follow. If there be no special presence of CHRIST in His Church, if there be no special grace in Sacraments, if the priesthood have not a special power derived by succession from the holy Apostles, how can any claim to guide and direct the conscience be made by them. Resolve dogmatic theology into opinions, the Church into a mere society composed of men voluntarily gathered together, the sacraments into outward signs, and the priest into a minister, there is no great impropriety, no great inconsistency in subjecting all these things to the temporal power. The archdeacon truly asks :

"Now, if this last system be adopted, what great harm can there be in Erastianism? What is the Church in this case but a set of external rules, by which men are held together? It matters little whence these

pied in the English Church. sistency with themselves are passage.

Their real tendency and their inconwell summed up in the following

"Such were the three sets of argument by which the Divine right of kings to give rule to the Church was defended in the age of the Stuarts. And inconclusive as were all three, they had great weight in a loyal age, when men's prepossessions were enlisted in their favour. They were adduced, too, in support of that Episcopal System which had been recognized by common consent at the Reformation and which promised to maintain the religious unity of the nation. And yet, though employed to support the Episcopal System, their real tendency was to something very different. They could have no real weight except as arguments for the Territorial System or Erastianism. For the discriminating difference between this last, and the Episcopal System, is that the Episcopal System maintains a balance between the clergy and the crown-the Territorial System subjects the one to the other. Now, in the cases upon which these arguments are built, the crown is not asserted to have co-operated with the Clergy, but to have exercised arbitrary authority. However readily, therefore, they were accepted by the loyalty of those who advocated the Divine right of kings, they made nothing in reality for the Episcopal System, and there is a fundamental inconsistency by which all of them are vitiated. For the Divine right of kings was supposed to be some inherent virtue, which did not come into life and energy till they became Christians. Its advocates were not so far gone in the principles of slavery, as to suppose that they were bound to renounce Christianity at the will of a heathen prince. So that the nation was bound to accept whatever teaching was authorized by the prince, because Ecclesiastical supremacy was inherent in him by Divine right; and yet he was supposed to lose this power whenever he believed what was erroneous. The clergy again were bound to believe whatsoever the prince should prescribe; but only so long as the prince prescribed that which they were bound to believe. Such a system must of necessity result in confusion, unless, as Grotius suggested, its natural effects were providentially intercepted. And this, therefore, is Mason's answer, when he is reminded that the sovereign might cease to be a Christian. I answer,' he says, that this title (Head of the Church) has been given by Christians to a Christian king, in a country which for centuries has been Christian. And therefore they might hope (why should they not hope it? for charity hopeth all things), that this kingdom will always continue in the faith of CHRIST.'

"The contingency, however, arose which Mason thought it uncharitable to forecast. There was a division between the clergy and the crown. And neither the clergy nor the nation showed themselves disposed to abandon their opinions at the dictation of James II. Those who have yielded obedience to the monarchs who have since occupied the throne, cannot rest the Sovereign's Ecclesiastical supremacy upon a Divine right inherent in kings, either by hereditary descent or as anointed sovereigns. Not on the first, because the descendants of the Electress Sophia can claim no other right than that which was conferred

by Parliament upon their ancestress: not upon the second, because the supremacy of an English king is as undeniable before his coronation as after it. So that whatever authority he possesses must be dependent solely upon the Territorial System; upon his claim as the representative of the worldly power. And this power is wholly irrespective of that peculiar virtue which was supposed to be inherent in monarchs, and to come out as soon as they became Christians. For the present line of English Sovereigns, though restricted from becoming Roman Catholics, are not bound to any positive belief. A Socinian or Swedenborgian would be as good a Protestant in the eye of the law as a Churchman. If there were any peculiar authority therefore over religion which was possessed by Christian, and not by heathen emperors, it is manifestly inapplicable to our present circumstances, because we are subject to a legal supremacy, which would not be impaired if the sovereign ceased to be a member of the Church. And though the arguments which have been noticed still exercise influence over many minds, yet they cannot now be adduced except as advocating such pure Erastianism, as would have made it the duty of the Apostles to obey men rather than GOD. Their real tendency was always towards this system, but so long as they were built upon the divine right of kings, they were capable of a less sordid application. The Scotch Episcopalians might no doubt have continued to use them during the last century, while they referred to the Court of S. Germain's in the appointment of their Bishops. Their employment, under present circumstances, by members of the English Church, would imply either want of perception or want of honesty."-pp. 57–60.

But while men were thus learning to believe in the king, they were also learning to disbelieve in the Church. The reformed theology which, as popularly understood, deprived the Church of authority, the sacraments of grace, and the priesthood of any divine mission, after long struggling with the catholic element of our Church, obtained the ascendancy in the last century. Its triumph was celebrated by the silencing of convocation, and in spite of their loud boasting its present adherents seem to think their safety lies in keeping convocation silent. And, admit this theory, and the ignoring of any authority in the Church must follow. If there be no special presence of CHRIST in His Church, if there be no special grace in Sacraments, if the priesthood have not a special power derived by succession from the holy Apostles, how can any claim to guide and direct the conscience be made by them. Resolve dogmatic theology into opinions, the Church into a mere society composed of men voluntarily gathered together, the sacraments into outward signs, and the priest into a minister, there is no great impropriety, no great inconsistency in subjecting all these things to the temporal power. The archdeacon truly asks :

"Now, if this last system be adopted, what great harm can there be in Erastianism? What is the Church in this case but a set of external rules, by which men are held together? It matters little whence these

rules are derived, provided they are found in practice to answer their purpose. Neither does it follow because one set of rules are the best which could be devised, that another may not be adequate. That which suits in one country might be inapplicable in another. So that, looking to the contention and misery which is always engendered by religious disputes, it would seem wiser to keep to that system under which men happen to be placed, without troubling themselves with its origin or authority. Even if its introduction should have been harsh and arbitrary, and a violation of the principles of reason and conscience, yet when these hardships have been surmounted, and the will and habits of individuals have learnt to run in unison with public law, to acquiesce in the system which they find must be better than to incur the risk of altering it. Such must be the conclusion of thoughtful men, if Churchgovernment be merely a set of arbitrary rules, invented by human sagacity. But if there be indeed a Divine system in the world, through which God the Son imparts Himself to mankind; if the participant of the Holy Eucharist truly and not only in imagination receives his Maker; if GOD the HOLY GHOST really has His dwelling in the Church of the redeemed-then of course it must be of great moment to preserve entire and inviolate the principles of that Institution, through which things so momentous are communicated. If this be believed, no fear of consequences must prevent us from maintaining conditions which are essential to the validity of our highest blessings."-pp. 64, 65.

In this way then has Erastianism gained ground among us. And in every department of the Church, save holy orders, have the positions of the spirituality and temporality been changed-the one advancing, the other receding. The ecclesiastical courts are to all practical purposes prevented from regulating admission to communion, any clergyman who rejects the unbeliever or the profligate, must do so on his own responsibility, and at the risk of a civil action-the State appoints whom it pleases to the episcopate, it claims for itself the right of judging doctrine in the last resort. Where will it all end? What has taken place in Germany through Erastianism is enough to make us tremble. The theories of Pfaff which derive the prince's authority in spirituals from the concession of the people, whilst they only served as a poor disguise to the offensive features of Erastianism, have been readily acquiesced in by rationalism, which instinctively perceives how its way is prepared by Erastianism. The archdeacon points out the startling fact that the chief feature of rationalism in Germany is denial of the authenticity and inspiration of Scripture. He truly asks "on what authority do either of these stand but the authority of the Church?" destroy that-what guide is there amid the interminable controversies which must spring up? Spener and Thomasius established Erastianism' and Erastianism has developed into the speculations of Strauss.

1 The following summary of Erastus' system by Mr. Wilberforce may be interesting to some. "He was a physician of Heidelberg, born 1524, and he denied the

And strange as it may seem that a nation like England, which is so jealous of its liberties, so positive in asserting its rights, which has deposed more than one of its rulers, beheaded another, and banished a third-should acquiesce in the intrusion of the civil sword into the sacred things of conscience, we must remember that there are circumstances connected with our constitutional history which will account for this phenomenon. A little thought will show us that the royal supremacy of which we hear so much, means nothing more than the supremacy of the people.

"The assertion of the unfettered liberty of individual belief has made many persons indifferent through what means the Church expresses her judgment. If they felt bound in conscience to respect her decisions, it would be of some moment by whom they were made, but why should men feel anxious about the decisions of a judge, in whom they recognize no authority? Again, the power which was formerly vested in the person of the sovereign is now held in common among the king and the estates of the realm, and is exercised practically by the minister who has the confidence of the representatives of the people. While the determination of doctrine rests nominally therefore with the Sovereign, it depends really upon the popular opinion of the day. And this is exactly that arrangement which Pfaff suggested as accounting for the state of things in Germany; and which he called the Consistorial System. So that while the forms of the Territorial System have remained, we have passed in reality to that other order of things, which has been shown to be so intimately allied with Rationalism. world in general, however, feels little repugnance at leaving the decision of religious questions to the sovereign power, because the sovereign power is virtually their noble selves." The decision in Church matters on late occasions has avowedly been less influenced by the strict rules of law, than by a reference to public opinion; and thus the formal Erastianism of our position is made tolerable by that virtual deference to the public sentiment, which is the essential feature of the Consistorial System."-pp. 84, 85.

The

Thank God the evils which have prevailed in Germany through the prevalence of Erastian theories have not, as yet, at least openly been developed amongst ourselves. Yet like causes will eventually, we may fear, produce like effects, unless GoD save us. As it is, the confusion which exists must, we should think, make any candid person admit, that there is "something rotten" in the present relations Church's power of excommunication, and in consequence, had been led to affirm that the jurisdiction by which it is determined what her pastor shall teach, and her people must believe, is derived exclusively from the civil magistrate. His work published after his death, gave the title of Erastianism to the system, which teaches that the civil magistrate has not only a peculiar commission, as being invested by divine appointment with a place in the Church's administration (which the Episcopal system was ready to allow) but that he possesses this power by inherent authority, whether he be a Christian or no; and further that he is not bound to refer to the Church, as directed by supernatural guidance in the discovery of truth." These views were adopted by Thomasius.-Wilberforce on Erastianism, p. 36.