O PRINCETON, N. J. '^^ 
 
 \ Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 BX 9070 .M232 1850 c.l 
 ! M' Parian, Patrick. 
 ! A vindication of the Churcl; 
 of Scotland 
 
Wi 
 
 
YINDICATION 
 
 CHURCH OF SCOTLAND: 
 
 OCCASIONED BY THE 
 
 DUKE OF ARGYLL'S "ESSAY ON THE ECCLESLA.STICAL 
 HISTORY OF SCOTLAND." 
 
 BY THE LATE 
 
 PATRICK'j^'FARLAN, D.D., 
 
 GREENOCK. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JAMES NISBET & CO., BERNERS STREET. 
 
 1850. 
 
GLASGOW: 
 RTED BY S. AND T. DUNN, 
 
 M, Prince's Square. 
 
/ 
 
 "pEIITCETOIl 
 THKOLOGICii 
 
 PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. 
 
 The Editor thinks it unnecessary to say anything of 
 the motives which influenced the Author to prepare 
 the present pubUcation, or of the object he had in 
 view in answering the Essay of the Noble Duke, since 
 these are sufficiently stated in the Introductory Chapter 
 of the work itself. The importance of a right under- 
 standing of the proper relations between the Church 
 and the State can scarcely be over-estimated. These 
 relations, however indifferent they may seem to those 
 who have not duly considered them, have given rise 
 from the beginning — as under the Roman emperors 
 and Charles V. — to some of the most mournful exhibi- 
 tions of oppression and cruelty on the part of states, 
 and of ambition, arrogancy, and earthliness on the 
 part of so-called churches, which the world has wit- 
 nessed. The place and authority of each, and the 
 right aspect of the one toward the other, need to be 
 well considered and clearly defined, so as to secure the 
 full efficiency and uncurtailed benefit of both ; at a time 
 especially when all the power for good belonging to 
 each and to both united is urgently required, first of 
 
IV rREFACK. 
 
 all, by the extreme extension and multiplication of all 
 the developments and interests of society ^vhich are 
 taking place in the present day, and next, by the 
 prodigious activity which now characterises every 
 principle of action, whether good or evil, whether in 
 the Church or in the State. The Author regarded the 
 one and the other of these great institutions as having 
 an independent existence given to it by the Great 
 Framer of both, and as under the regulation of special 
 laws which he, the only Supreme, enacted to make 
 them move harmoniously towards the highest good. 
 He viewed their action as indejDendent, each free from 
 the other's control, each bound to maintain its own 
 rights and liberties, the one recognising and loving 
 the other, and rendering to it the service which itsj^ro- 
 per province and power enable it to yield. He wished 
 the State to estahlish the Church in its liberty, aiding 
 it with temporal means and protection, and the Church 
 to estahliah the State, by owning aod obeying it, and 
 by training the people in rehgion, virtue, and loyalty. 
 In a word, he maintained that subordination of the 
 one to the other proves injurious to both, while, by 
 their unimpeded movements in their own respective 
 spheres, their harmonious and beneficent co-operation 
 is secured; and he endeavoured to prove, as against 
 the Noble Duke, that this was the doctrine held and 
 contended for by the Church of Scotland from the 
 time of the Reformation. 
 
 The whole question of religion, and of its relations 
 to and influence upon civil society, is now undergoing 
 
riiEFACE. V 
 
 in all quarters both a j^mctical and theoretical investi- 
 gation. It is indeed forcing itself on the attention of 
 all thoughtful men, whether belonging to the Church 
 or the State, and is plainly not to be settled or adjusted 
 by prejudice, or worldly interests, or power. It comes 
 to all with something like a sovereign authority, de- 
 manding a fair and thorough investigation of its claims. 
 It is surely no slighting of it, and nothing unbefitting 
 either the grandeur of the question itself, or the advan- 
 tage of that society of men which it addresses, to 
 inquire what lights past history throws on this subject 
 — what were the principles which our forefathers 
 adopted, and what the results to which the working 
 out of these principles, true or false, right or wrong, 
 did actually lead ? The Church of Scotland, small in 
 geographical extent indeed, and perhaps on that ac- 
 count sometimes superciliously disregarded by the 
 students of church history, has been all along redolent 
 of this question, and has in no age of its existence 
 been wanting in men of high intellect and heroic 
 temper ; while, at the same time, the national intelli- 
 gence and happiness have borne witness, somewhat un- 
 equivocally, to the practical sagacity and patriotic spirit 
 of the founders of this Church. It may, after all, be 
 true, that they very nearly, if not altogether, appre- 
 hended the great truth which lies at the foundation of 
 this whole subject. This much, at least, we may 
 affirm, that they set themselves to the task of discover- 
 ing it with as intense a mind, as free a spirit, and with 
 as much superiority to the fear of the world, as it is 
 
VI TREFACE. 
 
 possible for any now to do. The Noble Duke and 
 our Author both look into the i^rincijDles of these men, 
 and present them to the pubHc according to the 
 views which they entertain of them. Let intelligent 
 readers judge between the honourable oj^ponents. 
 
 E. 0. 
 
 Rothesay, Jan. 7, 1850. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 Sketch of the Author, ..... ix 
 
 Introduction, ...... 1 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 statement of the doctrine of the church of SCOTLAND 
 
 ON the subject of the spiritual jurisdiction THE 
 
 FIRST REFORMERS AND THEIR IMMEDIATE SUCCESSORS 
 AGREED ON THIS SUBJECT — PROOFS FROM HISTORY IN OP- 
 POSITION TO THE ASSERTIONS OF THE DUKE OF ARGYLL — 
 ERRONEOUS OPINION OF THE REFORMERS REGARDING THE 
 DUTY OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE TOWARDS IDOLATERS, AND 
 OTHERS — REFORjMERS NOT PERSECUTORS — VINDICATED 
 FROM THE CHARGE OF BIGOTRY AND FANATICISM, . H 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE DUKE OF ARGYLL'S OPINIONS RESPECTING THE TRUE 
 THEORY OF A CHRISTIAN CHURCH THE SAME WITH DR 
 ARNOLD'S — BRIEF STATEMENT OF DR ARNOLD'S OPINIONS 
 
 ON THIS SUBJECT THE CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH THEORY 
 
 IMPRACTICABLE — DR A.'S LATER IMPRESSIONS REGARDING 
 IT — THE PLAN PROPOSED ADMITTED BY THE ESSAYIST TO 
 BE IMPRACTICABLE IN THE PRESENT STATE OF RELIGIOUS 
 
 OPINIONS A PARTIAL COINCIDENCE OF CHURCH AND STATE 
 
 INADMISSIBLE ON DR A.'S PRINCIPLE VIRTUAL ASSUMP- 
 TION BY THE DUKE OF ANOTHER PRINCIPLE ESSENTIALLY 
 
 DIFFERENT HIS GRACSTs VIEWS OF THE RIGHT OF SELF- 
 
 GOVERN3IENT — HE CONCEDES AN UNDEFINED POWER OF 
 LIMITATION TO THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE — DENIES THAT THE 
 church's RIGHT IS FOUNDED IN SCRIPTURE — ^VINDICATION 
 OF THE FIRST SCOTTISH REFORMERS ON THIS HEAD, . 58 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Page 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION REGARDING THE EXCLUSIVE 
 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION — THE STATE HAS NO RIGHT TO 
 INTERFERE WITH THE RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS OF INDIVI- 
 DUALS — CHURCHES OUGHT TO BE EQUALLY FREE SCRIP- 
 
 TLTIE ARGUMENT — NATURE AND END OF CHRISTIANITY — 
 INEVITABLE INFERENCE — PROOFS FROM SCRIPTURE OF THE 
 EXCLUSIVE SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION — OLD TESTAMENT — 
 PS. ii. AND Ixii. NEW TESTAMENT — MATT. xxii. 17, AND 
 
 JOHN x\Tii. 36, 37 — 3IATT. xxviii. 18-20 — eph. iv. 8, etc. — 
 MATT. x^n. 13-19 — matt. xA-iii. 15, illustrated by john 
 XX. 23 — SUM OF the ARGL'^IENT, . . . 81 
 
 CHAPTER lY. 
 
 the doctrine of CHRIST'S HEADSHIP NOT A MERE QUESTION 
 OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT — IT IS OF NO SECONDARY IM- 
 PORTANCE EVEN TO PRIVATE CHRISTIANS — THERE IS NO 
 PORTION OF THE REVEALED WILL OF GOD LTflMPORTANT — 
 THE DOCTRINE IN QUESTION IS NO HIDDEN MYSTERY — THE 
 
 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION PRINCIPLE IS FUNDAJIENTAL 
 
 CHRISTIANITY OBTAINED AN ASCENDANCY IN THE WORLD 
 UNDER THE SHADE OF THIS PRINCIPLE, . . 126 
 
SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR. 
 
 It may be interesting to the reader of the following 
 pages to be informed, that the highly esteemed author 
 ■was called away from this world when he had con- 
 ducted through the press all but the last half-sheet. A 
 perusal of what he has written cannot fail to convince 
 any one that he well understood, held very dear, and 
 could admirably explain and defend, the whole subject 
 of which he here treats. His work is a vivid picture 
 at once of his zeal for divine truth, his critical know- 
 ledge of the scriptures, his intimate acquaintance with 
 sound theology, and his lively apprehension of the 
 grand principles and laws of the true church of Christ ; 
 while it displays his characteristic clearness of under- 
 standing, powers of reasoning, cultivated taste, correct 
 style, and christian and gentleman-like bearing. 
 Though he owned no authority in religion or in the 
 constitution and government of the church but that of 
 Jesus Christ, its Creator and Lord, he yet cherished 
 a high respect for his fellow-men, and habitually 
 rendered to all orders the honour which, according to 
 the law of his Lord, he held to be their due. During 
 
 his whole public life, to its very close, he was ever 
 
 b 
 
X SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR. 
 
 found ready as -^ell as able to vindicate, in tbe most 
 becoming manner, the often misrepresented, maligned, 
 and injured independence and glory of the kingdom 
 of God. He may truly be said to have died as he had 
 lived, loving and upholding, both by word and deed, 
 the honour of the King of kings, and the order which 
 he would have established in the church and in the 
 world. 
 
 Descended from a long line of highly respectable 
 ancestors — some of them distinguished in the ministry 
 — he was blessed with what might be called a hereditary 
 public spirit, and grew up in circumstances well 
 fitted to develop and enlighten it. He was born and 
 wholly educated in the city of Edinburgh, his father 
 being one of its ministers. He thus, from his earliest 
 years, enjoyed the very best means both of a literary 
 and religious training, which the grace of God led him 
 very diligently to improve. The most distinguished 
 divines of his day honoured him with their friendship, 
 and stimulated his ardent mind to successful study of all 
 the branches of knowledge appropriate to his chosen 
 profession. He breathed an atmosphere which gave 
 health and vigour to all his intellectual and moral 
 powers, and remarkably fitted him for the active ser- 
 vices to which Providence afterwards called him. 
 
 He was born in 1781, ordained to the ministry in his 
 twenty-fifth year, and was successively pastor of Kip- 
 pen, Polmont, and of St John's, and St Enoch's, in the 
 city of Glasgow, and, last of all, in the town of Greenock, 
 where he died, after a few days' illness, on the 13th of 
 
SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR. XI 
 
 November, 1849, in the sixty-ninth year of his age. 
 In all those stations he was distinguished among his 
 fellows by ability, fidelity, and high and general excel- 
 lence in all the parts of personal character, official duty 
 and public service. It was on this account, indeed, that 
 he was so often promoted to more important places 
 during the course of his life. It was this which 
 pointed him out as a fit successor to the celebrated Dr 
 Chalmers in the church of St John's, Glasgow, and to the 
 late Sir Michael Shaw Stewart as most worthy to under- 
 take the important charge of the West Parish, Greenock, 
 and to enjoy there the best living in the Church of Scot- 
 land. It was this also which led to his being called to 
 fill the Moderator's chair in the General Assembly, 
 first of the Established Church in 1834, and after- 
 wards of the Free Church in 1845. 
 
 His first speech in the General Assembly, shortly 
 after his appointment to Kippen, made a deep impres- 
 sion on all who heard it, and led the church to form those 
 high expectations of him, which were amply realised 
 during his life. He had, on that occasion, spoken, 
 necessarily without preparation, and yet with such 
 promptitude, judgment, clearness, order, fluency, and 
 elegance, as amazed every one, and drew forth many 
 congratulations from his friends, and, among the rest, 
 from the venerable and justly-distinguished Dr Robert 
 Balfour of Glasgow, who coming up to him as he left 
 the Assembly House, said to him, ' My dear young 
 friend, take good care of that gift of speaking so 
 readily and well which God has given you. You will 
 
Xll SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR. 
 
 tempted to trust to it. Be sure always to write 
 your sermons carefully, and take warning by me. I 
 found out too soon that I could get on without writ- 
 ing, and now I cannot write when I would.' He took 
 the warning, and during his whole life was remark- 
 able for his care in the composition of his discourses, 
 though he never lost his early talent for elegant ex- 
 temporaneous speaking. 
 
 His whole life presented a very striking consistency 
 of conduct with principles, of deeds with professions, 
 of steadfastness with ardour, and of undeviating recti- 
 tude with many public temptations to swerve. He 
 loved the Church of Scotland, its principles, consti- 
 tution, and history, with a most intelligent and al- 
 most passionate fondness. He contended nobly yet 
 tem^oerately for its rights and liberties, against the 
 encroachments made on them by courts of law, and 
 by the rude hand of mere worldly power; and when 
 these at last prevailed in the outward conflict, he 
 still held calmly and firmly what he had ever held as 
 truth and right, and therefore, with his mother church 
 in his heart, he left the bond church to cherish 
 her in the free ; thus at last giving proof that he 
 'counted all things but loss for the excellency of Christ 
 Jesus his Lord, for whom he sufiered the loss of all 
 things, and did count them but dung that he might 
 win Christ, and be found in him, not having his own 
 righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is 
 through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is 
 of God by faith ; that he might know him, and the 
 
SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR. XUl 
 
 power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his 
 sufferings, heing made conformable unto his death ; 
 if by any means he might attain unto the resurrection 
 of the dead/ 
 
 In one so far advanced in life, of so calm and clear 
 a judgment, so free from the tendency of being carried 
 away by joassionate or enthusiastic feelings, and so 
 full of courage as not to be afraid to express his dif- 
 ference of opinion even from chief friends and as- 
 sociates, it was very touching to witness, (and all 
 might have witnessed it in his countenance,) the 
 exceeding happiness he enjoyed in his ow^n soul, and 
 in all his work after the Disruption of the church. 
 Before that event he passed days and nights of 
 greatest anxiety, almost overwhelmed with the sense 
 of responsibility which lay on the church and himself. 
 In one day he j)assed, as it were, from this darkness 
 into light and joy. The happiness of his spirit made 
 everything appear bright to him, and when any one 
 spoke to him of the great sacrifices he had made, he 
 would say, ' I do not feel that I have made any 
 sacrifice ; my wants are all abundantly supplied, and 
 I am so happy in my work.' Thus he realised the 
 promise of ' receiving manifold more now in this pre- 
 sent time.' 
 
 It is much to be regretted that one so well qualified 
 in every respect for high authorship did not leave be- 
 hind him more to instruct and edify another genera- 
 tion. The cause of this regret, however, is to be found 
 in the remarkably constant activity of his public life, 
 
XIV SKETCH OF THE AUTHOE. 
 
 and his most exemplary discharge of all his pastoral and 
 official duties. With the exception of a few fugitive 
 sermons and pamphlets, a series of letters on the 
 church controversy, which are of high excellence, and 
 which made a deep impression at the time, a very 
 interesting correspondence with the Duke of Suther- 
 land on the suhject of granting sites for churches and 
 schools, alike honourable to both parties, and which 
 engendered a high mutual esteem and confidence on 
 both sides, and more than all, a beautiful sketch of 
 the life of his beloved friend and successor in St 
 John's, Glasgow, the late Dr Thomas Brown, prefixed 
 to a posthumous volume of that holy man's ser- 
 mons, in which it seems difficult which to admire 
 the most, the described or the describer, we know 
 of nothing more which he gave to the press till this 
 work of his last days. 
 
 We have spoken of his deep interest in his native 
 land and church. It is but justice, however, to his 
 memory and labours to record his extraordinary con- 
 cern for the progress of the kingdom of Christ in other 
 lands, and especially on the continent of Euroj)e, over 
 which he had travelled, and where he made many friends, 
 with whom, till the close of his life, he maintained 
 frequent and profitable correspondence. 
 
 In private life he was distinguished by the cordiality, 
 strength, and steadfastness of his friendships, by atten- 
 tion to innumerable instances of kindly remembrances 
 of friends, by remarkable sympathy with, and services 
 rendered to the sick, the poor, the fatherless, the 
 
SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR. XV 
 
 widow, and orphan — many of whom were observed 
 weeping in the train of his funeral procession — and 
 by the charms of his deportment in his family circle, 
 consisting of two daughters, and a son who but lately 
 left the paternal roof to enter on the ministry else- 
 where. His young grandson, by his daughter, widow 
 of the late Mr Melville, minister of Falkirk, was 
 an object of his fondest affection and hopes. The visible 
 happiness that reigned in his house might easily be 
 traced to his pervading mind and wise superintendence, 
 he having been left a widower by his beloved wife, a 
 daughter of the late venerable Mr Clason, minister of 
 Logie, when their offspring were but infants. Her 
 death, which was singularly happy and triumphant, 
 greatly influenced the whole of his after life, being 
 often recalled by him as a means of stirring up his 
 faith and hope to lively exercise. The remembrance 
 of his own trials and consolations at that time, pecu- 
 liarly fitted him for comforting those who were in any 
 trouble, and made him ever a most acceptable visitor 
 in the dwellings of the dying and bereaved. 
 
 *The memory of the just is blessed.' 'Blessed are the 
 dead which die in the Lord.' This was emphatically 
 true of his Uteral death-bed. During the few days he 
 lay there, his spirit and words were full of the rest 
 and hopes of heavenly glory, on which he spoke of 
 being immediately to enter. He breathed his last, 
 repeating the brightest and most cheering promises of 
 God. 
 
 The church and the world suffer grievous loss by 
 
XVI SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR, 
 
 the deaths of men of the author's character, attain- 
 ments, and labours, as both have been benefited by 
 their having Hved such hves. Both need such truly 
 heroic examj^les of the power of the gospel, raised by 
 Providence to places in which they cannot fail to be 
 seen and admired. The departed author now forms 
 one of that portion of the heavenly galaxy to which 
 his country has been honoured to contribute in the 
 century now passing, so abundant already in dark and 
 bright spots, in omens of evil and of good, in efforts for 
 overthrowing, and in influences for upholding the 
 cause and kingdom of God. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 It must be gratifying to Scotsmen to have a -well- 
 written book from the pen of a Scottish Peer. Using 
 the uncomplimentary language which the Duke of 
 Argyll has — we think with less justice — applied to 
 another body of men; the Peers of the realm of 
 the present day 'are not generally remarkable for 
 extensive learning.' With the best opportunities for 
 the acquisition of knowledge, their youth is spent 
 in the idleness, and, too often, the dissipation of a 
 college life; and their manhood in the frivolous amuse- 
 ments and perpetual whirl of fashionable society. A 
 noble lord, devoted to scientific or literary pursuits, or 
 even moderately well acquainted with the history, and 
 politics, and institutions of his country, is a vara avis 
 in terris. There is little to reward the labour neces- 
 sary to such acquisitions; and the feeling of responsi- 
 bility is in most cases too feeble to overcome the 
 temptations of the steeple-chase, and the race-course, 
 and the gaming-table. 
 
 The Duke of Argyll is an honourable exception to 
 these remarks. In early life he appears to have been 
 
I INTRODUCTION. 
 
 conscious of his mental powers, and to have felt the 
 laudable ambition of improving them for his own grati- 
 fication and the good of his country. He kept aloof 
 from the frivolous pursuits of too many of his rank and 
 prospects: he stored his mind with useful knowledge; 
 and very soon afforded the pleasing indications of 
 superior talents and a manly independent spirit, worthy 
 of the heir-apparent of the house and titles of Argyll. 
 Before he had completed his twentieth year, he had 
 written and published his * Letters to the Peers,' in de- 
 fence of the Church of Scotland, which were not less 
 distinguished by the ease and chasteness of their style, 
 than by the boldness and force of argument with which, 
 on legal and constitutional grounds, he maintained the 
 justice of our claims, in opposition to the courts of law, 
 and ill-informed statesmen, and a no less ill-informed 
 and an unthinking aristocracy. He now appears as an 
 author a second time ; and, whatever may be the opinion 
 which the different parties whose history and principles 
 he professes to elucidate may entertain of his peculiar 
 views and sentiments, and of the arguments by which 
 they are enforced, every candid man must admit that 
 he has given new proof of his talents ; and, as an 
 author, has not, at least, diminished his well-earned 
 reputation. 
 
 We hail the appearance of this work on another 
 ground. Though entitled, 'An Essay on the Eccle- 
 siastical History of Scotland,' it is virtually an essay on 
 the theory of a christian church, and the connection 
 which ought to subsist between it and the civil govern- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ment. Judging from the speeches and actings of our 
 leading statesmen of all parties during the last twenty 
 years, they have been at no pains to arrive at sound 
 principles and conclusions on that most important 
 subject. Naturally unwilling to discuss in parliament 
 questions purely theological, they have repudiated the 
 obligation lying on the civil government to judge which 
 is the only true religious belief, and which the form of 
 church government best fitted to promote the religious 
 education and moral imj^rovement of the people. They 
 do not seem to acknowledge, or have never contem- 
 plated, the wide and eternal distinction between truth 
 and error, and the difierent and opposite effects of these 
 on the moral and social condition of mankind. History 
 and observation, the great teachers of political wisdom, 
 have spoken to them in vain. In three of the pro- 
 vinces of Ireland, they beheld a hideous system of 
 superstition and mental tyranny, degrading, and crush- 
 ing, and pauperising the greater part of its population ; 
 the fourth, under the influence of a purer faith, pro- 
 sperous and happy: and not contented with putting 
 the Romanists on a footing of perfect equality with 
 their fellow-subjects in resjDect of civil rights — as jus- 
 tice and sound policy required — they have adopted 
 measures which can have no other effect than that of 
 prolonging the reign of error and turbulence in that 
 unhappy country. In the same island they found an 
 Established Church, which, some time ago, they had 
 it in their power to reform, and render efficient as a 
 missionary church to a benighted and ignorant people, 
 
^ INTRODrCTION. 
 
 and they allowed it to remain, with all its imperfections 
 and abuses, and in all its impotence, a reproach to 
 those who hold the lawfulness and utihty of the con- 
 nection between Church and State. On the other 
 hand, in Scotland another Church Establishment, emi- 
 nent for its purity and efficiency, has been broken up, 
 because a British parliament, under the leading of a 
 so-called conservative government, refused to inquire 
 into the foundation of certain rights and privileges 
 which that church had enjoyed and used for centuries, 
 but which the civil courts, by a novel interpretation 
 of an unconstitutional act of parhament, had taken 
 away. 
 
 While these political blunders — to the last of which 
 the principal actor is reported to have pleaded guilty — 
 are being committed, it is matter of congratulation that 
 one member of parliament, high in rank, and destined, 
 we trust, to exert a beneficial influence in the delibera- 
 tions of the Upper House, has directed his attention to 
 what must be regarded as the vital and fundamental 
 part of the subject to which we have referred. We are 
 very far from thinking that the Duke of Argyll enter- 
 tains a sound or well-matured opinion on the main 
 question which he professes to discuss. On the con- 
 trary, we deeply regret that he has not observed the 
 Horatian rule* so far as to suj^press the publication of 
 his volume, if not till the ninth year after it was com- 
 posed, at least till the lapse of the half of that period. 
 But we willingly entertain the hope that the present 
 
 * Nonum prematnr in annum. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 volume is only the commencement of inquiries by the 
 noble Duke, which, with more accurate research, and 
 more profound consideration, may issue in juster con- 
 clusions, and be of real and lasting benefit to his coun- 
 try. Meanwhile he has set a good example to others. 
 He has not thought it unworthy of him to study the 
 first principles of ecclesiastical polity; other statesmen 
 may follow in the same field : and the time may come 
 when sound christian principle, instead of a miserable 
 expediency, shall guard the spiritual interests of the 
 British dominions. 
 
 The Essay, like the 'Letters to the Peers,' is charac- 
 terised by perfect independence of thought and opinion. 
 The author not only refuses to call any man master, 
 but, like Dr Arnold, whom he seems to have taken for 
 his model, undervalues the labours, and rejects the 
 conclusions of all who have gone before him, and reso- 
 lutely determines to elaborate everything for himself 
 The consequences of this determination are : Jirsit — 
 that he has fallen into some of the crude and erroneous 
 notions of that great and amiable man; and, secondly — 
 that he involves in one indiscriminate condemnation 
 men and things of every class and character. He 
 spares neither friend nor foe. Episcopalian and Pres- 
 byterian — the Scottish Establishment and the Free 
 Church of Scotland — the Spottiswood Society and Mr 
 Gray's Catechism — all come, more or less, under the 
 rod of his castigation. Some may be inclined to ac- 
 cuse him of fool-hardiness in thus exposing himself to 
 the assaults of so many adversaries; and it must, we 
 
b INTRODUCTION. 
 
 think, be admitted that there are those whose hostility 
 he has needlessly provoked. Candid and reflecting 
 men, however, will augur favourably from this fearless 
 spirit. They will fondly cherish the belief that they see 
 in the Duke of Argyll one who will not be biassed by 
 the opinions of the dead or the living; by the preju- 
 dices of political partisanship, or by ambitious views 
 and the desire of place; but, like another noble lord, 
 one of the brightest living ornaments of the British 
 peerage, will pursue his own course free and unfet- 
 tered; and, with a judgment matured by years, and 
 reading, and exj^erience, will one day compel the assent 
 of the legislature to wiser maxims, and better rules of 
 state policy than it has been the lot of past generations 
 to witness. Already has the Duke manifested this in- 
 dependence in the discussions which have taken place, 
 and the votes he has given in the House of Lords, and 
 in the exercise of his own rights, and the management 
 of his own affairs. Is it too much to expect that when 
 a careful examination shall have altered or modified the 
 principles which he now holds, and shall have given 
 greater weight to his opinions in the estimation of his 
 fellow- citizens, he will discover the same manly inde- 
 pendence, and will exert a growing influence on the 
 deliberations of the senate, and the thinking portion of 
 the community? 
 
 Much as we admire the spirit to which we have re- 
 ferred, we have no very sanguine expectation of any 
 favourable change in his Grace's opinions with regard 
 to the Free Church of Scotland. The feeling towards 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 that body with which the Essay is written, almost en- 
 tirely precludes the hope of any such change. It is a 
 historical disquisition, in which the author traces the 
 ecclesiastical history of Scotland from the Reformation 
 to the Revolution, dividing it into six periods of un- 
 equal duration, as follows: — 
 
 1st, from 1560 to 1584. 
 
 2d, 
 
 
 1584 " 1592. 
 
 3d, 
 
 
 1592 '* 1603. 
 
 4th, 
 
 
 1603 " 1638. 
 
 5th, 
 
 
 1638 " 1660. 
 
 6th, 
 
 
 1660 " 1688. 
 
 Its declared object is, 'to give a comjorehensive sketch 
 of the principles and tendencies of the Scottish Refor- 
 mation; to distinguish those which are primary and 
 essential from those which, being the growth of acci- 
 dental circumstances, are local in their origin, and as 
 local in their meaning; and especially to point out the 
 value of the former in the existing controversies of the 
 christian church' — 'to redeem the history of Presby- 
 tery from the prejudice which some of its traditions 
 have cast upon it, in the eyes of impartial j udges, — to 
 extricate the great principles on which its system was 
 deeply founded from the inflated language and provin- 
 cial dogmas in which they have been too long misre- 
 presented ;' and to give ' the plain and true reading of 
 a plain and true story.'* The noble author is avowedly 
 and from conviction a Presbyterian, and, we rejoice to 
 add, a decided enemy to Scottish Prelacy and Enghsh 
 
 * Fref'dce passim. 
 
8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Tractarianism. The Essay, as he himself informs us, 
 was originally intended as a review of a book, entitled, 
 'Presbytery Examined,' by Bishop Sage, of the Scot- 
 tish Episcopal Church; a book written about 150 
 years ago, and lately republished by the Spottiswood 
 Society. A portion of the Essay, therefore, is occupied 
 in showing that, since the Reformation, Episcopacy 
 has had no real existence in Scotland, as the form of 
 church government of the people of that country. But 
 it is not, as its title would lead the reader to expect, on 
 the conflicting claims of Presbytery and Episcopacy. 
 Bishop Sage and his book, and the Spottiswood So- 
 ciety are scarcely noticed ; and Presbytery in itself is 
 very inadequately explained and vindicated. It is 
 manifestly the chief object of the author to note what 
 he alleges were the different and opposite opinions of 
 the Fathers of the Reformation in Scotland with regard 
 to the connection which ought to subsist between the 
 Church and the State, and to announce his own very 
 peculiar, and, to us, obscure conceptions on this sub- 
 ject. Turning away from Bishop Sage, with whom he 
 had entered the lists on the title-page, he challenges the 
 Established Church, of which he is a member, and pro- 
 claims war against one of the leading doctrines of its 
 Confession, and the formula in which it is expressed. 
 All the while, however, his quarrel is with the Free 
 Church; and, with reference to its distinctive opinions, 
 he tells his readers, in the somewhat enigmatical para- 
 graph of the Preface, quoted in the preceding page, 
 that it is his object to distinguish those principles and 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 tendencies of the Scottish Eeformation which are pri- 
 mary and essential, from those which are the grow^th 
 of accidental circumstances; that is, as we find on 
 perusing the book, to show^ that the doctrine of the 
 exclusive spiritual jurisdiction was not held by Knox, 
 but only by those who followed him — that it was 
 broached and maintained by them more in conse- 
 quence of the circumstances and events of the times > 
 than from a conviction of its scriptural authority — and 
 that, in point of fact, it has no foundation in the w^ord 
 of God. Bishop Sage claims John Knox as a favourer 
 of Episcopacy, because he recommended the appoint- 
 ment of superintendents; the Duke of Argyll claims 
 him on equally slender grounds as a favourer of Eras- 
 tianism. 
 
 In a historical disquisition, the accuracy and dispas- 
 sionateness of the historian are indispensable. We are 
 sorry to say that the Duke has shown himself sadly 
 deficient in both. We do not allude to his observations 
 on the Scotch Episcopal Church ; that part of the work 
 we leave entirely to the Spottiswood Society. We refer 
 to inaccuracies in the statement of facts and opinions, 
 of which some proofs have been given by Mr Gray of 
 Perth, in his 'Letter to the Duke of Argyll,' and 
 others w411 be adduced in the following pages; and 
 to the angry, and sometimes contemptuous, tone m 
 which he speaks of the men, and the principles, and 
 the writings, of the Free Church of Scotland. What 
 would any one think of the historian who, professing 
 to write the history of the Church of Scotland in Co- 
 a2 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 venanting times, should speak thus of the noble, and 
 intrepid, and learned, and truly christian men who in 
 1638 withstood the tyranny of Archbishop Laud and 
 the first Charles? ^We know that the men of those 
 days themselves — especially those connected with 
 Scottish Presbytery — argued with themselves pain- 
 fully on a subject on which they were led to a decision, 
 however much they may have been deceived, neither 
 by the suggestions of conscience nor by the rules of 
 logic, but by the stern necessities of circumstances and 
 of passion :'* Or — w^ho should sj)eak in the following 
 terms of upwards of 500 men, who, a few years ago, 
 renounced their status in society, and their emoluments 
 as ministers, or expectant ministers, of an EstabHshed 
 Church ? ' In our times, when a church, or a party 
 in a church, either becomes dissatisfied with its exist- 
 ing constitution, or are offended by changes introduced 
 
 * Essay, p. 138, 1st Ed.; p. 134, 2d Ed. 
 
 The author probably refers to Mr Robert Baillie, who, in questions of any 
 difficulty, appears to have been slow in coming to a decided opinion ; and on 
 that, and, at least, one other occasion, stood for some time alone among his 
 brethren. There is no evidence, so far as we know, that either he or his 
 brethren, in the judgment to which they ultimately came, were guided by 
 < the stem necessities of circumstance and of passion.* 
 
 The Duke's observations have reference to the conduct of the Scotch in 
 taking arms against Charles I. We think it can be shown that, with one 
 exceptiou, they acted then, as in the preceding century, strictly on the de- 
 fensive; it was with the utmost reluctance that they appeared in arms 
 against their sovereign. If any one will take the trouble of reading their 
 published apology for the expedition into England in 1640 — to which we 
 have alluded as an exception — he will find that it involved a very nice ques- 
 tion in casuistry ; and of this he will be convinced, that — however erroneous 
 the determination at which they arrived — it was not dictated either by the 
 ' necessities of circumstances' or by 'passion.' 
 
INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 from within, or from without, the ready, and, as we 
 think, the too ready and immediate resource, is sepa- 
 ration — the institution of a new rehgious society or 
 sect."* What should we say of the historian whose 
 works w^ere interspersed with such passages as these, 
 but that he was warped by prejudices so strong as to 
 disquahfy him for the task of forming a calm and sound 
 judgment of the men and the principles whose history 
 he professed to elucidate? 
 
 The disqualification to which we have referred has 
 its root in another, which we most earnestly wish and 
 pray may one day be removed. 
 
 Hayley was incapable of writing correctly, and with 
 success, a life of the poet Cowper; and Southey, of John 
 Wesley; and Principal Robertson, a history of the Re- 
 formation; because these distinguished men did not un- 
 derstand, or, understanding, did not sympathise with, 
 the religious opinions and feelings of the persons whose 
 life and character they sought to delineate. We are 
 compelled to say, that, for a similar reason, the Duke of 
 Argyll is not, in our judgment, qualified to give a just 
 or accurate account of the principles and opinions of 
 the Presbyterians of the Church of Scotland. We do 
 not entertain a doubt of his j^rofound respect for Chris- 
 tianity ; we are persuaded that he believes it to be 
 divine, and that his profession of Christianity is sincere. 
 Bat we do entertain serious doubts of his having looked 
 into the subject-matter of Christianity with the profound 
 and solemn attention necessary to his apprehending 
 
 * Essay, p. 67, 1st Ed. ; p. 66, 2d Ed. 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the vast importance of a pure faith— a faith founded 
 on a sound interi^retation of the word of God.* He 
 seems to have forgotten that the reformation from 
 Popery originated in the discovery, and cordial hehef, 
 of great scripture truths, which the Church of Rome 
 had carefully concealed, and wickedly corrupted; and. 
 that our Reformers held the doctrine of the Headship— 
 in other words, of the supreme authority of Christ's 
 word in matters spiritual— not only on its own account, 
 and for the honour of their divine Master, hut as a 
 great first principle in Christianity, and the only safe- 
 guard to the profession of truths which they felt to be 
 the life of their souls. Theirs was not a contest for 
 power, but for truth, or, as they called it, ' the evan- 
 gel;' and for sound princijole in the relation between 
 Church and State, as subservient to truth. It is this 
 which furnishes the only key to the conduct of the 
 Protestant Reformers on the Continent and in Britain, 
 without a perception and due appreciation of which, no 
 historian can do them justice. If it had been rightly 
 apprehended by the author of the Essay, he would 
 have shown more respect to our persecuted forefathers 
 than to describe them, in the first page of his work, as 
 ' the men who sung psalms among the hills with the 
 sword in the one hand and the bible in the other.' 
 
 * Like Southey, who, in all probability, read his prayer book more fre- 
 quently than his bible, the Duke of Argyll does not always recognise a bible 
 phrase when he meets with it ; for, describing the change which took place 
 in the mind of Alexander Henderson, under the preaching of the celebrated 
 Bruce, he says, ' Henderson left the church a changed, or, as he himself 
 termed it, in the language of his day, a " converted'' man.' 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 With these introductory remarks, from some of 
 which, if we could, we should have gladly abstained, 
 we proceed to a more minute examination of the work 
 under review, in the confident expectation of being 
 able to vindicate the Church of Scotland from the mis- 
 representations — unintentional, we firmly beheve — 
 which the work contains. In fulfilling this painful, 
 but not very arduous, task, we shall endeavour, in the 
 first place, to show that there was no opposition, but, 
 on the contrary, a perfect agreement, between Knox 
 and Melville, respecting the province of the civil 
 magistrate in matters of religion; secondly, to ascer- 
 tain and disprove the pecuhar views of the Duke 
 upon this subject; and, lastly, to state the scriptural 
 authority for the principles of church government 
 held, and almost unanimously professed, by the 
 Established Church before the Disruption, and still 
 held as the distinctive principles of the Free Church 
 of Scotland. 
 
STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTL.\ND 
 ON THE SUBJECT OF THE SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION — THE 
 FIRST REFORMERS AND THEIR IMMEDIATE SUCCESSORS 
 
 AGREED ON THIS SUBJECT PROOFS FROM HISTORY IN 
 
 OPPOSITION TO THE ASSERTIONS OF THE DUKE OF ARGYLL — 
 ERRONEOUS OPINION OF THE REFORMERS REGARDING THE 
 DUTY OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE TOWARDS IDOLATERS, 
 AND OTHERS — REFORMERS NOT PERSECUTORS — VINDICATED 
 FRO:m the CHARGE OF BIGOTRY JlSD FANATICISM. 
 
 From the vague terms in which the author of the 
 Essay writes of the princij)les of the Church of Scot- 
 land, those who have read the Essay only may be led 
 to suppose that we hold that the separation between the 
 civil government and the church is absolute,* and that 
 the magistrate has no duty to perform in matters of 
 religion. It is necessary, therefore, before entering on 
 the first part of our vindication, to state distinctly what 
 are the principles which our church has always main- 
 tained on this head. 
 
 They are declared in the Westminster Confession of 
 Faith in the following words : — 
 
 ' The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his church, 
 
 * Essay— Ap. p. 316, Note G, 1st Ed. ; p. 356, 2d Ed. 
 
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES. 15 
 
 hath therein aj^pointed a government, in the hand of 
 church-officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.' * 
 
 ' The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the 
 administration of the word and sacraments, or the 
 power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; yet he 
 hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order that 
 unity and peace be preserved in the church — that the 
 truth of God be kept pure and entire — that all blas- 
 phemies and heresies be suppressed — all corruptions 
 and abuses in worship and discipline prevented, or 
 reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, 
 administered, and observed. For the better e£fecting 
 whereof, he hath power to call Synods — to be present 
 at them, and to j^rovide that whatsoever is transacted 
 in them, be according to the mind of God.' f 
 
 ' For the better government and further edification 
 of the church, there ought to be such assemblies as are 
 commonly called Synods or Councils. 
 
 ' As magistrates may lawfully call a Synod of mini- 
 sters, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with 
 about matters of religion ; so, if magistrates be open 
 enemies to the church, the ministers of Christ, of 
 themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other 
 fit persons, upon delegation from their churches, may 
 meet together in such assemblies.' J 
 
 The circumstances in which the civil magistrate is 
 called to exercise his authority in matters of religion, 
 as thus set forth, are stated in the Act of Assembly, 
 
 * Westminster Confession of Faith, c. sxx. s. 1. 
 f Ibid, c. xxiii. s. 3. + Ibid., c. xxxi. s. 1,2. 
 
16 DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES. 
 
 J 047, approving the Westminster Confession : 'It is 
 declared that the Assembly understandeth some parts 
 of the second article of the thirty-first chapter only of 
 kirks not settled, or constituted in point of govern- 
 ment; and that, although in such kirks a synod of 
 ministers and other fit persons may be called by the 
 magistrate's authority and nomination, without any 
 other call, to consult and advise with, about matters of 
 religion ; and although hkewise the ministers of Christ, 
 without delegation from their churches, may, of them- 
 selves, and by virtue of their office, meet together 
 synodically in such kirks not yet constituted ; yet 
 neither of these ought to be done in kirks constituted 
 and settled ; it being always free to the magistrate to 
 advise with synods of ministers and ruling elders, 
 meeting upon delegation from their churches, either 
 ordinarily, or being indicted by his authority, occa- 
 sionally, andj)?'o re nata ; it being also free to assem- 
 ble together synodically, as well j)ro re juita as at the 
 ordinary times, upon delegation from the churches, by 
 the intrinsical power received from Christ, as often as 
 it is necessary for the good of the church so to assemble, 
 in case the magistrate, to the detriment of the church, 
 withhold or deny his consent, the necessity of occa- 
 sional assemblies being first remonstrate unto him 
 by humble suj)plication.' So clearly has the Church 
 of Scotland described the circumstances in the state of 
 religion and of the church, in which the civil magis- 
 trate, by his own authority alone, may call Synods to 
 consult and advise about matters of religion ; and so 
 
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES. 17 
 
 great was her earnestness that, while the distinction 
 between the civil and the spiritual jurisdiction was 
 sacredly observed, there should be a mutual co-opera- 
 tion for the preservation of the truth, the reformation 
 of corruptions and abuses in worship and disciphne, 
 and the due administration of the ordinances of God. 
 ' The powers (civil and ecclesiastical) which God hath 
 ordained, and the liberty (spiritual liberty) which Christ 
 hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, 
 but mutually to uphold and preserve one another.' * 
 
 The duty of the civil magistrate in matters of reli- 
 gion, declared in the passages of the Westminster 
 Confession now quoted, has been frequently defined 
 in the single sentence : He has power circa sacra, 
 but not in sacris. He may, he ought to be occuj)ied 
 about things sacred, but not in things sacred. He 
 may not prescribe what shall be the faith of his sub- 
 jects, and command and enforce submission by the 
 strong hand of power : For ' God alone,' saith our 
 Confession, ^ is Lord of the conscience, and hath set 
 us free from the doctrines and commandments of men, 
 which are in anything contrary to his word, or beside 
 it, in matters of faith or worship. 'f But he may, and 
 he ought to make provision for the preaching of the 
 word, and ' the godly up-bringing ' of the people. 
 He may not authoritatively determine in controversies 
 of faith, and cases of conscience, or set down rules 
 and directions for the public worship of God, and the 
 government of the church; for this belongs to Synods 
 * Westminster Confession of Faith, c. xx. s. 4. f Ibid., c. xx. s. 2. 
 
1 8 DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES. 
 
 and Councils, who, as they may err, and have erred, 
 are not to be made the rule of faith or practice ; but 
 are to be submitted to only for their agreement with 
 the word. * But he may, and he ought to withdraw 
 his countenance and encouragement from a church 
 which has become notoriously corrupt in principle and 
 practice; and, in his own province, and in the exercise 
 of his office, he may, and ought to provide for the 
 quiet and undisturbed observance of the ordinances of 
 religion, and may fortify the jurisdiction and adminis- 
 tration of the church. 
 
 Such is the doctrine of the Church of Scotland on 
 this subject — a doctrine practically denied, but not 
 yet professedly abjured by the Established Church ; 
 and held in all its integrity by the Free Church of 
 Scotland. It has its basis in one great scripture 
 principle — the supremacy of Christ in his church, 
 'over his own house' — the essential and perpetual 
 distinction between the secular and the spiritual, be- 
 tween the ' power of the sword,' and ' the power of the 
 keys.' The Church of Scotland declares the duty of 
 the civil magistrate, in matters of religion, to consist 
 in what is purely secular — in the calling of Synods 
 and Councils for the rectification of existing errors, and 
 in the protection and encouragement of true religion. 
 Acting thus, he is ' the minister of God for good.' 
 The church welcomes him as such ; does not refuse, 
 but seeks his aid. To give that aid is his duty to 
 God, whose minister he is, and his duty to the people 
 
 * Westminster Confession of Faith, c. xsxi., s. 3, 4. 
 
THE FREE CHURCH. 19 
 
 over whom he rules ; for a greater benefit, even in a 
 temporal point of view, cannot be conferred on any 
 people, than the dissemination and encouragement of 
 pure and undefiled rehgion. But she repudiates his 
 interference in matters spiritual. She believes it to 
 be contrary to the word of God, and injurious to the 
 best interests of the State ; and that the peace and 
 wellbeing of a nation can be successfully promoted, 
 only when the civil and the spiritual powers confine 
 themselves strictly, each to the limits of its own juris- 
 diction. 
 
 The Free Church of Scotland did not become what 
 is improperly termed Voluntary, when she dissolved 
 her connection with the State. She continued to hold 
 the Establishment princix^le. By no public act has 
 she indicated that she has receded from it a single 
 hau'-breadth. And we beheve that her ministers and 
 people, perceiving the importance of that principle in 
 the presently-existing struggle against the desecration 
 of the Sabbath, adhere to it more firmly than ever. 
 In opposition to the no-establishment men, we hold 
 that the State has, or ought to have, a conscience, — 
 in other words, that the civil magistrate, as such, is 
 not only entitled, but is bound to judge for himself 
 what is false, and what is true, in matters of rehgion, 
 that he may discountenance the former, and give to 
 the latter his encouragement and support. When we 
 assert this, we suppose him to be the professedly 
 christian ruler of a professedly christian country, and 
 therefore to believe that Christianity is divine, and 
 
20 OPIJflONS OF KNOX AND 
 
 that every man may learn from it what is the truth of 
 God — that the bible is a revelation from heaven. And 
 we hold that it is as much his duty, in his official 
 capacity, to ascertain this from the word of God, as it 
 is his duty, and the duty of the humblest of the sub- 
 jects, to make this most important of all discoveries, 
 with a view to the salvation of their immortal souls. 
 As the minister of God unto the people for good, he is 
 bound to make this discovery, and to act accordingly. 
 If he err, the right of the Church to act independently 
 of his opinion and his will remains. She asserts her 
 own liberty, and waits for better times, when Church 
 and State shall harmonise, and both shall work to- 
 gether for the glory of God, and the real good of 
 mankind. 
 
 We repeat, therefore, that neither does the Estab- 
 lished Church nor the Free Church of Scotland main- 
 tain, or profess to maintain, the absolute separation 
 between civil power and church power ; and that the 
 latter cheerfully gives obedience to the former ' doitig 
 that which appertains to his charge.' How far the 
 sentiments of the men of the present day differ from 
 those of the first Reformers, will be shown in a subse- 
 quent part of this work. 
 
 We have said that the author of the Essay affirms 
 that there was an essential difiPerence between the 
 opinions — perhaps we express his Grace's idea more 
 correctly when we say, the policy of Knox and Mel- 
 ville — regarding the power of the civil magistrate in 
 matters of religion. He affirms that the former ad- 
 
THE FIRST SCOTTISH REFORMERS. 21 
 
 mitted, not only that it is the ' right and duty of the 
 civil magistrate to exercise his own judgment on the 
 affairs of the christian church/ but that he possesses a 
 ' spiritual authority' in matters of religion,* whilst this 
 is expressly denied by Melville and his contemporaries. 
 The Duke asserts this to be a historical fact, and ad- 
 duces the evidence by which he thinks it is estabhshed. 
 With all deference to his Grace, we shall state our 
 reasons for coming to an opposite conclusion. 
 
 In the first place, he rests his assertion on the fol- 
 lowing and similar j)assages in an Address, by Knox, 
 to the Nobihty and Estates of Scotland, printed at 
 Geneva in the year 1558: * The ordering and refor- 
 mation of religion, with the" instruction of subjects, 
 doth especially appertain to the civil magistrate.' He 
 places the chief stress of the argument on the term 
 ' ordering^ which, he thinks, must imply the exercise 
 of powder and authority by the civil magistrate in the 
 determination of matters spiritual. The connection in 
 w^hich the w^ord stands does not, in our o^^inion, war- 
 rant such an interpretation. 
 
 The document from which the words are taken is 
 entitled, ' The Appellation ( appeal) of John Knox 
 from the cruel and most unjust sentence pronounced 
 against him by the false hishoppes and clergie of Scot- 
 land, with his sup)plication and exhortation to the 
 nohilitie, estates, and commonaltie of the same realme.' 
 In his absence on the Continent the popish bishops 
 had passed sentence of death against him; and, not 
 
 * Essay, p. 39, 1st Ed.; 38, 39, 2d Ed. 
 
22 KNOX AND THE FIRST REFORMERS 
 
 being able to reach himself, they burned him in effigy 
 at the Cross of Edinburgh. He felt a just resentment 
 at this gross iniquity, and appealed for protection for 
 himself and his brethren in Scotland, to the Scottish 
 Parliament. But his chief object in printing and 
 publishing the Apj)ellation was to represent to his 
 countrymen, and especially to the Supreme Council of 
 the State, the necessity of uprooting, by the strong 
 hand of power, a system so thoroughly corrupt, and 
 so unfriendly to the best interests of the country, as 
 the Church of Kome. With this view, in his Letter to 
 the Queen-Regent, republished, with additions, in the 
 same year as the Appellation, he offers himself as 
 the accuser of the bishops and their apostate church, 
 on these two conditions : that the question should be 
 judged by Parliament, the bishojDS, as parties, being 
 denied the right of voting, and that the standard or 
 rule of judgment should be the word of God. And, 
 confident of success in so bold an enterprise, he invites 
 the Queen-Regent, and the nobility, and the estates of 
 Scotland to judge between him and his adversaries; 
 and, if they found he made good his charges against 
 the Papacy, to proceed, as in duty bound, to ' the or- 
 dering and reformation of religion,' by doing what the 
 civil power alone can do, namely, disestablishing Po- 
 pery, and giving its countenance and encouragement 
 to pure, scriptural Christianity. 
 
 The whole tenor of the Appellation shows this, and 
 this only, to be the meaning of the Reformer in the 
 words quoted by the Duke. We venture to affirm that 
 
VINDICATED. 23 
 
 there is not, in that remarkable and well-pondered 
 Address, one sentence to which, by fair interpretation, 
 another and different meaning can be affixed. The 
 paragraph from which the quotation is made, is alone 
 sufficient to determine the sense in which the words 
 are to be understood. It runs as follows: — 
 
 'Of the jDremises, it is evident that to lawful powers 
 is given the sword for punishment of malefactors, for 
 maintenance of innocents, and for the profit and utility 
 of their subjects. Now, let us consider whether the 
 reformation of religion fallen in decay, and punish- 
 ment of false teachers, do appertain to the civil magis- 
 trate and nobility of any realm. I am not ignorant 
 that Satan of old time, for the maintenance of his 
 darkness, hath obtained of the blind world two chief 
 points : Former (first) , he hath persuaded to princes, 
 rulers, and magistrates, that the feeding of Christ's 
 flock appertaineth nothing to their charge ; but that it 
 is rejected upon the bishops, and estate ecclesiastical. 
 And, secondarily, that the reformation of reHgion, be 
 it never so corrupt, and the punishment of such as be 
 sworn soldiers, in their kingdom, are exempted from 
 all civil power, and are reserved to themselves and 
 their own cognition. But that no offender can justly 
 be exempted from punishment, and that the ordering 
 and reformation of religion, with the instruction of 
 subjects, doth especially appertain to the civil magis- 
 trate, shall God's perfect ordinance, his plain word, 
 and the facts and examples of those that of God are 
 highly praised, most evidently declare.' He then pro- 
 
24 VINDICATION OF KNOX. 
 
 ceeds, in proof and illustration of the doctrine thus 
 stated, to refer to the examples of Moses and the kings 
 of Israel and Judah, cases certainly not parallel with 
 those of kings under a merely human government, yet 
 proving nothing more, so far as matters purely spiritual 
 were handled by them, than that, acting ministerially 
 for God, Moses communicated to the priests the will 
 of God concerning the ritual observances of the law; 
 whilst the kings — Jehoshaphatfor example — acting in 
 the same capacity, gave instructions to the priests and 
 Levites for the ordering and reformation of religion, 
 when it had fallen into decay and become corrupt; and 
 when, by their authority alone could idolatry be rooted 
 out, and the purity of divine worship restored. Make 
 the supposition that the Queen-Eegent and Estates of 
 Scotland had, at the solicitation of Knox, done that, 
 which was actually done two years afterwards — that, 
 without going beyond the province of the civil magis- 
 trate, they had repudiated Eomanism, and declared the 
 Protestant religion to be the religion of Scotland, in what 
 more appropriate terms could this have been described 
 than that they had effected 'the ordering and reforma- 
 tion of religion?' This, at least, we are entitled to 
 assert, that unless it can be proved from other passages 
 of the same document, or from the history of the Ee- 
 formation in Scotland, that, by 'ordering,' Knox meant 
 to concede to the civil magistrate the power of autho- 
 ritatively deciding in matters of faith, or worship, or 
 church discipline, the mere use of that word does not 
 warrant such a conclusion. 
 
THE FIRST REFOKMERS VINDICATED. 25 
 
 The Duke does refer to history in support of his 
 assertion. This is the second of his proofs. He refers 
 first of all to the fact that in the Confession of Faith, 
 approved by Parliament in 1560, it is declared that to 
 civil rulers belongs the 'purgation and maintenance' 
 of religion, ^Yords, says his Grace, which 'directly im- 
 ply that an idea of spiritual responsibility, and there- 
 fore of spiritual authority, was attached to the civil 
 magistrate,* and perfectly agree with the words "order- 
 ing and reformation" in the Letters (Appellation) from 
 Geneva.' Then, in the same paragraph, he adds, that 
 when the First Book of Discipline was framed, in com- 
 pliance with a charge from the Council of State, 'it sets 
 forth to that body, and ''offers to their wisdoms," the 
 judgment of the Reformers on "the common order and 
 uniformity" — that it "adjured them neither to admit 
 anything which God's word did not approve, nor re- 
 ject anything which it enjoined;" for they would not 
 bind the Council to their judgments farther than they 
 were able to "prove by God's plain scriptures." ' 
 
 Passing by the illogical statement that ' spiritual re- 
 sponsibility' imphes 'spiritual authority,' we have only 
 to observe, on the first part of this proof from history, in 
 addition to the remarks which have just been made on 
 the corresponding passage in the Appellation, that the 
 meaning in both passages is precisely the same. In 
 the Confession of Faith the power of the magistrate, 
 in the purgation and maintenance of religion, is sup- 
 ported by the same scripture examples by which Knox, 
 
 * Ess^y, p. 39 ; p. 38, 2d Ed. 
 B 
 
26 CIVIL AND SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 in the Appellation, pleads for the exercise of his autho- 
 rity in the ' ordering and reformation of religion.' *To 
 kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates,' says the Con- 
 fession, 'we affirm that chiefly and maist principally the 
 reformation and purgation of religion apperteanes ; so 
 that not only they are appointed for civil policey, hot for 
 mantenance of the trew religioun, and for suppressing 
 of idolatry and superstition quhatsomever, as in David, 
 Josaphat,' &c.* What Knox had expressed two years 
 before as his own opinion, is thus declared to be the 
 rehgious belief of the Protestant Church of Scotland; 
 but with this remarkable proviso — a proviso which, 
 strange to tell, the Duke has not overlooked — the 
 magistrate ' doing that thing which apperteanes to his 
 charge.' These words his Grace quotes in corrobora- 
 tion of his argument ; but he does this on the assump- 
 tion that he has interpreted correctly the words, 're- 
 formation and purgation of religion;' and that these, 
 in the sense which he affixes to them, are things per- 
 taining to the office of the civil magistrate. If his in- 
 terpretation be incorrect, the words referred to give no 
 additional strength to his Grace's argument. To us 
 it appears perfectly clear that the clause is expressly 
 intended to qualify the preceding statements regarding 
 the duty of the civil magistrate in the suppression of 
 idolatry and superstition. ' Kings, princes,' &c., says 
 the Confession, ' are appointed for maintenance of the 
 true religion, . . . as in David, Jehoshaphat, and 
 others highly commended for their zeal. And, therefore, 
 
 * Confession of Faith, (1560) Art. xxiv. 
 
OPINIONS OF THE FIRST REFORMERS. 27 
 
 we confess and avow, that such as resist the supreme 
 power, doing that which apperteanes to his charge, do 
 resist God's ordinance, and therefore cannot be guilt- 
 less.' The qualifying clause could not have been 
 omitted but at the risk of conveying the sentiment 
 that the civil magistrate had absolute power in matters 
 spiritual. The first Scottish Keformers knew, and 
 clearly apprehended, the distinction between the civil 
 and spiritual powers. On one side they stretched the 
 power of the civil ruler by much too far ; we mean in 
 the execution of what pertained to 'his charge/ by the 
 infliction of capital punishment on idolaters. On the 
 other, where God and conscience stood supreme, and 
 where, therefore, the civil touches on the spiritual, the 
 line of demarcation was clearly defined. The civil 
 ruler had his duty to perform about the church, but 
 no rule or authority in the church. It was his duty 
 to disestablish a church which had become totally 
 corrupt in faith and practice, and oppressive in its 
 administration. It was no less his duty to maintain 
 and fortify a church which, to his judgment, proved 
 itself from scripture to be a section of the true catholic 
 church — ' the church of the living God.' 
 
 With regard to the second part of the historic proof 
 in support of the Duke's assertion — that part, namely, 
 in which he refers to the language of the Eeformers in 
 presenting the First Book of Discipline to the Council 
 of State — it appears to us that, instead of confirming 
 his Grace's opinion, it leads to a conclusion directly 
 opposite. 
 
28 CIVIL AND SPIRITUAL JcRISDICTION. 
 
 The Reformers were sane men : and, whatever his 
 Grace or the world may think of them, they were 
 reasonable men. They had obtained the sanction of 
 Parliament to the Confession of Faith, in which the 
 doctrine of the Protestant Church, now established, 
 was declared. In addition to this, they desired — and 
 here the Council of State coincided with them — to 
 have the sanction of Parhament, in like manner, to a 
 form of ecclesiastical j^olity or church government. 
 In prosecuting this object, they did not regard the 
 members of the Council as automatons — they did not 
 imagine that they had only to present to them a certain 
 number of propositions, and demand their assent to 
 them. They knew that they had to deal with rational 
 and intelligent beings, whose understanding must be 
 convinced ere they could attain the object which they 
 had in view. They did not think themselves infallible ; 
 therefore they would not bind the Council to their 
 judgments, farther than they ' were able to prove by 
 God's plain scriptures.' But they were not sceptics 
 in Christianity. They believed the bible to be a reve- 
 lation, a clear discovery of the will of God to the 
 learned and the unlearned. In the language of Knox 
 to the unhappy Queen Mary, when she said to him, 
 ' You interpret the scriptures in one way, and they 
 (the Romish priests) in another' — they said to every 
 one, ' You shall believe God, who plainly speaketh in 
 his word ; and farther than the word teacheth you, 
 you shall believe neither the one nor the other. The 
 word of God is plain in itself; and, if there appear 
 
OPINIONS OF THE FIRST REFORMERS. 29 
 
 any obscurity in one place, the Holy Ghost, who is 
 never contrary to himself, explains the same more 
 clearly in other places, so that there can remain no 
 doubt, but unto such as are obstinately ignorant/ 
 After careful consideration and inquiry, they believed 
 that they had ascertained the mind of the Spirit 
 regarding the government of the church. They of- 
 fered to prove this ; and, speaking as to wise men, 
 they invited the Council to judge what they said, that, 
 if convinced of its truth, they might recommend to 
 Parliament to give its sanction to the scheme of eccle- 
 siastical polity which they, the Keformers, proposed. 
 Accordingly, after they had declared that they had no 
 desire to bind the Council to their judgments, &c., 
 they add, ' So we most humbly crave of you, even 
 as you will answer in God's presence, before whom 
 both ye and we must appear to render account 
 of all our actions, that ye repudiate nothing for 
 pleasure and affection of men, which ye are not 
 able to improve (disprove) by God's written and 
 revealed word.'* 
 
 In all this there is no mingling of the civil and the 
 spiritual powers, no merging of the one in the other. 
 On the contrary, throughout the whole transaction, 
 they are, of purpose, kept separate and distinct. The 
 right of the Council of State to judge whether the 
 Book of Discipline laid down such a form of church 
 government, as it was their duty, and the duty of Par- 
 liament to sanction, is conceded to the fullest extent. 
 
 * Kow's Historie of the Kirk, p. 16 ; Wodrow Ed, 
 
30 CIVIL AND SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 But the Council is not invited to join with the church 
 as one body; nor do the Eeformers express a wish that 
 either the Council or Parliament should assume or 
 exercise any power or jurisdiction not purely secular. 
 We admit that, before presenting the Book of Disci- 
 pline to the Council, they earnestly strove to obtain 
 the approbation and concurrence of the Protestant 
 nobility, members of the church. But they were alone 
 in preparing the document. Neither the nobihty, as 
 a body, nor the Council of State, exercised or craved 
 any portion of spiritual authority. Precisely the same 
 course was followed on occasion of presenting the 
 First Book of Discipline, which had been followed in 
 presenting to Parliament the Confession of Faith. 
 The one was presented to the Council of State, the 
 other to Parliament, in order to their exercising their 
 judgment upon them, and giving to them the sanction 
 of the State, if they should be found agreeable to the 
 word of God, and beneficial to the Church. It is not 
 surprising that the Duke prefaces the reasonings on 
 which we have been commenting, with these words : 
 ' It is probable that Knox and his coadjutors, in 
 framing this sentence' — the sentence where the words 
 ' maintenance ' and ' purgation * occur — ' had no other 
 idea before them than that of impressing on the legis- 
 lature of Scotland the duty of giving legal sanction to 
 the doctrines, and legal force to the anathemas which 
 they had pronounced to be indisputably founded on 
 the word of God.' We appeal to the candid reader, 
 whether it be not only probable, but indubitably cer- 
 
SECOND BOOK OP DISOIPLI>fE. 3 I 
 
 tain, that they meant nothing else — that they had no 
 other object in view.* 
 
 The last and chief ground on which the author of 
 the Essay rests his assertion that the first Eeformers 
 and their immediate successors differed, in some degree, 
 in their opinions respecting the spiritual jurisdiction, 
 is the fact, that the distinction between the civil and 
 spiritual powers is more clearly brought out in the 
 Second Book of Discipline, drawn up by Andrew Mel- 
 ville and his contemporaries in 1578. The author tells 
 us that, 'in the summer and autumn of 1560, the first 
 Scotch Reformers were an enthusiastic and hopeful 
 company. They trusted that Christ's law, as their 
 own ardent dispositions had interpreted it, was to be 
 adopted and engrossed in man's law ; and thus, that 
 Scotland was to become, under an opened gospel, as 
 one of the "kingdoms of God, and of his Christ." But 
 before the first year of the established Reformation had 
 expired, they had already, in some degree, discovered 
 their mistake. The Council would not ratify the book. 
 The State thus suggested that it was, indeed, separate 
 from the Church. The latter had no recourse but to 
 
 * We find this remarkable passage in Knox's Historie. Referring to 
 Sir James Sandilands' mission to France to obtain from the Queen the 
 ratifications of the Act of Parhament approving of the Confession of Faith, 
 and other Acts regarding the Protestant religion, Knox says, ' How the 
 said Lord St John (Sir James Sandilands) was entreated, we list not to re- 
 hearse ; but alvvays no ratification brought he to us. But that we little 
 regarded, or yet do regard ; for all that we did was rather to show 
 our dutiful obedience, than to beg of them any strength to our religion, 
 which from God has full power, and needeth not the suffrage of man.' — 
 Historie, p. 255. 
 
32 CIVIL AND SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 fall back upon her instinctive sense of the diflference 
 of her province, and of her independence in it ; and 
 that public sanction which the Council refused, the 
 General Assembly gave.' He then proceeds to say, 
 that ' the course of eighteen years still farther taught 
 the Reformers, by many a lesson of hard experience, 
 that the time had not yet come when the ideas of 1560 
 could be realised. . . . The Second Book of 
 Discipline is, accordingly, in many respects, a very 
 different production from the first. That which is 
 but incidentally mentioned, and not at all pursued, 
 in the one, becomes the dominant pervading idea of 
 the other. . . . We hear of the " Power of the 
 Keys" as distinguished from the *' Tower of the 
 Sword." We hear of the former being a direct com- 
 mission from Christ himself to them unto whom 
 the spiritual government of the church, by lawful 
 calling, is committed; and we even hear of that power 
 being held by them as the " true successors of the 
 apostles." ... It was not that in reading the bible, 
 and reconstructing the Christian Society in conformity 
 with its account, these principles had at once struck 
 the first Reformers, — it was not that they had seen them 
 to be enjoined by the word of God, else they would 
 have been as prominent in the First as in the Second 
 Book. It was that they were enjoined by the facts — 
 the melancholy facts — of the world's condition. . . . 
 The framers of the First Book were not impressed with 
 it from the bible; but the framers of the Second Book 
 had been deeply impressed with it from the world. 
 
KNOX AND MELVILLE AGREED. 33 
 
 The corruptions of a bad civil government — its es- 
 trangement from, and opposition to, the ecclesiastical 
 opinions of its people ; this had taught them the dis- 
 tinction/ * 
 
 These astounding paragraphs, containing more 
 transgressions against historical accuracy than we have 
 space or leisure to demonstrate, cannot be accounted 
 for on any otlier supposition than that the author is 
 so enamoured of the fanciful and impracticable theory 
 of Dr Arnold, that he imagines he sees that theory to 
 have been dimly perceived and anticipated by Knox 
 and his own ancestors; and is displeased at finding so 
 hopeful a beginning in 1560 counter- worked and de- 
 molished by the men of 1578. It is true that the 
 Second Book of Discipline is a more matured and 
 thoroughly digested composition than the First ; f and 
 it is no less true, that the difficulties with which the 
 Keformers of that age had to contend, especially on 
 the subject of discipline — first, with Queen Mary, and, 
 afterwards, with the counsellors of the young King 
 James — did forcibly suggest to them the necessity of 
 declaring more expressly in the Second Book of Dis- 
 cipline than they had done in the First, what they 
 regarded as the only sound principles on the subject 
 of the spiritual jurisdiction. But v»'e do most explicitly 
 dissent from the statement of the author of the Essay 
 
 * Essay, pp. 42, 3, 4, 1st Ed. ; pp. 41, 2, 3, 2d Ed. 
 t Calderwood informs us, that ' the penners wished tlie posteritie, if God 
 granted them occasion and hbertie, to estabhsh a more perfyte diseipUne.' — 
 Hktory, vol. ii., p. 50 ; Wodrow Ed. 
 
 b2 
 
34 CIVIL AND SPIKITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 — that only ' the elements' of these principles existed 
 in the minds of Knox and the first Eeformers — that 
 it was reserved for Melville and his coadjutors to refer 
 these to ' some basis of abstract princij)le ;' and that, 
 for the first time, they sought that basis in the bible. 
 We hold, on the contrary, that, on this important 
 point, the Reformers of 1560 and 1578 were entirely 
 agreed — that both rested their belief on scripture — 
 and that the opinions of the latter did not go, in the 
 least degree, beyond those of the former period. 
 
 Our readers do not need to be informed that the 
 supreme authority of scripture — which, as we shall 
 show in a subsequent chapter, is a principle almost 
 identical with the headship or supremacy of Christ — 
 was the ground on which WycMiffe, and Luther, and 
 other Reformers, overthrew the claims of the Papacy, 
 and the false doctrine and numberless superstitious 
 observances of the Church of Rome. The Continental 
 Reformers, in reconstructing and building up the true 
 apostolical church, applied that great principle with 
 more or less severity. Luther was contented with 
 striving to remove what was corrupt in the so-called 
 christian church. On the other hand, Zuingle, Calvin, 
 and others adopted the higher and purer principle of 
 setting aside the whole anti-christian system, and of 
 allowing nothing but what was expressly warranted 
 and enjoined by the word of God. The one class 
 amended, and, to do them justice, attempted thoroughly 
 to amend, the fabric of the church ; the other re-formed 
 it on what they conscientiously believed to be the true 
 
EFFECTS OF ERRONEOUS OPINIONS. 35 
 
 scripture model. Neither class, however, was suffi- 
 ciently careful to draw the line of demarcation between 
 the office of the civil magistrate, and the spiritual juris- 
 diction. The Reformers of the Continent were, indeed, 
 * enthusiastic and hopeful' companies. They hailed the 
 Protestant princes and magistrates as 'nursing fathers' 
 of the true church in the face of the most formidable 
 opposition which the world ever saw. From them they 
 apprehended no evil — they hoped for all that was fa- 
 vourable to the maintenance and progress of pure Chris- 
 tianity. Therefore, they did not guard so jealously as 
 they ought to have done against the assumption of 
 an authority to which the civil magistrate had no claim, 
 either on the ground of scripture, or sound reason, or 
 expediency. Soon they had reason to repent of their 
 remissness. Its iojurious consequences in Germany 
 are well known to the reader of ecclesiastical history. 
 In Geneva the senate absolved certain persons who had 
 been excluded from the Lord's Table by a sentence of 
 the church courts ; and Calvin, for refusing to submit 
 to the decree, was sentenced to banishment. In Eng- 
 land, Henry VIII. had deposed the Pope from his 
 supremacy in that country; aud, sitting down in his 
 room, exercised his usurped authority with a rigour, 
 the mischievous effects of which are felt at the present 
 hour. 
 
 It was after these events that Knox returned to his 
 native country, and witnessed the triumph of the Eefor- 
 mation. He returned with more than the 'elements' 
 of the spiritual jurisdiction-principle in his mind. 
 
36 CIVIL AND SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 He returned, as ^Ye shall show, with the most clear and 
 decided opinion, grounded on scripture, that Church 
 and State — the civil and the spiritual jurisdictions — 
 were separate and distinct; and that it was as incom- 
 petent for the sovereign to interfere with the liberty of 
 the subject in matters of faith and worship, and with 
 the exercise of discipline by the church, as it was for 
 the church courts to intermeddle with the jurisdiction 
 of the civil magistrate. 
 
 This fundamental principle appears so frequently 
 influencing and guiding the conduct of Knox during 
 the whole of his remarkable career, that we find it diffi- 
 cult to make a selection of our proofs. We give the 
 following, premising that we concur in the definition 
 of* the Church,' by the author of the Essay. We un- 
 derstand by that j^hrase — unless where it is otherwise 
 declared — the ministers and peojDle of Scotland pro- 
 fessing the Protestant rehgion. 
 
 We are informed by Dr M'Crie, that, as early as the 
 year 1547, Knox taught in his first sermons in St 
 Andrews, that no mortal man could be the head of the 
 church. . . . That in religion men are bound to 
 regulate themselves by divine laws, and that the sacra- 
 ments ought to be administered exactly according to 
 the institution and 'example of Christ.'* 
 
 After this, and before going to Geneva, he preached 
 with great acceptance in England, was appointed one 
 of the chaplains of Edward VI., and had the offer of 
 a benefice, vhich he refused, assigning as one of the 
 
 * M'Crie's Life of Knox, vol. i., p. 103, 2d Ed. 
 
CLEAR AND DECIDED VIEWS OF KNOX, 37 
 
 chief reasons of his refusal ' that many things at that 
 time were worthy of reformation in the ministers of 
 England, without the reformation whereof no minister 
 did, or could, discharge his conscience before God ; for 
 no ministers in England had authority to separate the 
 lepers from the heal — i.e., the whole and sound, says 
 Mr Strype, that is, they had not the full power of ex- 
 communication — which was, he said, a chief point of 
 his office.'* It cannot be doubted that this was one 
 of his chief reasons for refusing the offer of a bishopric 
 in England, which was afterwards made to him; of 
 Avhich the author of the Essay says, in language which 
 we shall not characterise, that his 'scruples, if needless, 
 were at least sincere/ The truth is, that Knox would 
 not have officiated in the Church of England at all, had 
 he not, at the period to which we refer, entertained the 
 expectation — an expectation warranted by the opinions 
 of some of the most eminent men then in that church — 
 that it might be reformed after the scripture model, 
 and delivered from the thraldom to the State, f and that 
 
 * D. Buchanan's Life of Knox, pp. 11, 12, prefixed to fol. ed. of Knox's 
 Historie. 
 
 t This we think a sufficient answer to the assertion in p. 146 of the 
 Essay, that ' until Prelacy became the fanatic enemy of Presbytery, the 
 latter bore towards it no hostility, no narrow prejudice— even no strong ob- 
 jection.' That the first Scottish Reformers maintained a friendly inter- 
 course—we may add, intercommunion — with their Protestant brethren in 
 England, is a most gratifying evidence of their freedom from 'hostility' 
 and 'narrow prejudice' towards Episcopalians— a most gratifying proof of 
 their christian charity. But it affords no evidence of their having ' no strong 
 objection' to Episcopacy. Because the great and good Oliver Cromwell, 
 while prosecuting the war against Scotland, wrote in the kindest terms of 
 the Scotch as ' the Lord's people,' are we entitled to infer that Cromwell 
 had no strong objections to Presbytery ? 
 
38 CIVIL AND SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 he might be helpful in the accomplishment of so im- 
 portant an object. So clear and decided, even at that 
 time, were his conscientious convictions that the Church, 
 in respect of faith, and worship, and government, must 
 be free from the interference of the State. 
 
 In perfect harmony with these facts is his language 
 in the first petition presented by the Protestants of 
 Scotland to the Queen-Eegent in 1558, to which he 
 refers in the following terms in 1566, when, wearied 
 almost to exhaustion by his contentions with Queen 
 Mary and her councillors on the question of the 
 spiritual jurisdiction: — 'For all others,' (other Pro- 
 testant churches) ' how sincere that ever the doctrine 
 be, quhilk by some is taucht, retein in their kirks, and 
 in the ministers thereof, sum fot^steppes of Antichryst 
 and dreggis of Papistry. Bot we (all praise to God 
 alone) have nothing within our kirks, that ever flowed 
 from that Man of Sinne. And this we acknowlege to 
 be the strenth given to us of God ; becaus we estemed 
 not ourselves wyse in our own eyes, bot understanding 
 our own wisdome to be bot mere foolischnes befoir the 
 Lord our God, layed it asyde, and followed onely that 
 which we fand approved by himself. In this point 
 culd never our enemies cans us to faynt. For our 
 First Petition was, That the revered face of the pri- 
 mitive and Apostolech Kirk sould he reduced (brought 
 back) agene to the eyis and knawlege of men. And in 
 that poynt we say, our God hath strenthened us till 
 that the work was finisched, and that the world may 
 sie.'* 
 
 * Knox's Historie, p. 282. 
 
CLEAR AND DECIDED VIEWS OF KNOX. 39 
 
 If it be alleged that the passage now quoted is irrele- 
 vant, because it may be a principle of the primitive 
 church that the church may be merged in, or may be 
 subject in some respects to the civil power, the same 
 objection cannot be made to the following from Knox's 
 Letter to the Queen-Eegent in 1558: — 
 
 ' As Satan by craft hath corrupted the most holy 
 ordinances of Goddes precepts, I meane, of the first 
 table; in the place of the spirituall honoring of God, 
 introducing mennes' dreams, inventions, and fantasies ; 
 so hath he, abusing the weakness of man, corrupted 
 this precept of the second table, touching the honour 
 which is due to parentes, under whom are compre- 
 hended princes and teachers. For now the devill hath 
 so blinded the senses of many, that they cannot, or at 
 least will not learne what appertaineth to God, and 
 what to Cesar. But, because the Spirite of God hath 
 said, honour the king, therefore, whatsoever they com- 
 mande, be it right or wrong, must be obeyed. But 
 hevie shall the judgment be which shall apprehend 
 such blasphemers of Goddes majestic, who dare be so 
 bold as to affirme that God hath commanded any crea- 
 ture to be obeyed against himselfe.'* 
 
 The well-known reply of Knox to Secretary Lething- 
 toun is alone sufficient to show that he understood, 
 and held most decidedly, the church's freedom from 
 the civil jurisdiction. Referring to the meetings of the 
 General Assemblies, Lethingtoun said: — 'The question 
 is. Whether the Queue allowes sick conventiouns ? It 
 
 * Knox's Historie, p. 418. 
 
40 CIVIL AND SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 was answered^ That if the libertie of the kirke stude, 
 or sould stand iipoun the Queue's allowance or dis- 
 allowance, -we are assured, not onely to lack Assemblies, 
 bot also to lack the libertie of the publick preiching of 
 the Evangel : that afl&rmative was mocked, and the 
 contrary affirmed. Weill, said the other, tyme will try 
 the treuth: But to my former words this I will add, 
 Tak from us the fredome of Assemblies, and takfrom 
 us the Evangell : for, without Assemblies, how sail 
 gude ordsour and unity in doctrine be kea/pit 1 ' * 
 
 We might quote many similar passages from the 
 writings of Knox. Again and again he speaks of 
 Christ as the head, the only head of the church. He 
 reasons in favour of the church's exclusive jurisdiction 
 in matters spiritual from the examples of Daniel and 
 bis companions in Babylon, and of the apostles ; 
 and never fails to kindle into the highest fervour of his 
 bold and manly eloquence when the Queen, or any of 
 her councillors, question the spiritual power and liberty 
 of the church. But, perhaps, we may make a stronger 
 impression on the author of the Essay, and its readers, 
 wlien we inform them that the sentiments of Knox on 
 this subject were those also of some of the most en- 
 liglitened and distinguished Protestant leaders of that 
 period. 
 
 Lord James Stuart, afterwards the Regent Murray, 
 was accused, in a threatening letter from the King of 
 France, husband of Mary, of being the head, and one 
 of the principal nourishers of tumults and seditions in 
 
 * Knox's Historie, p. 295. 
 
OPINIONS OF THE FROTESTANT LEADERS. 41 
 
 Scotland, to which accusation Lord James rephed in a 
 letter dated 12th Aug., 1559, in the following terms: — 
 'My conscience persuadis me in thir proceidings to 
 have done nothing against God, nor the dewtiefall ohe- 
 dience towards your Hienesse and the Queine's Grace, 
 my Souverane, utherwayis it sould have bein to repent, 
 and also amended, according to your Majestie's expec- 
 tatioun of me : But your Hienes being trewly informed, 
 and perswaded that the thing quhilk we have done 
 makis for the Advancement of Godis glorie (as it dois 
 indeed) without ony derogatioun to your Majestie's dew 
 obedience, we doubt not but your Majestic sail be weill 
 contented with our proceidings, quhilk being grounded 
 upon the commandifient of the Eternall God, we dar 
 not leif the sam unaccomplischt, oulie wisching and 
 desyring your Majestic did know the sam, and Truthe 
 thereof, as it is perswadit to our consciences, and all 
 them that ar trewle instructed in the Eternal word of 
 our God, upoun quhome we cast our cair for all dan- 
 geris that may follow the accomplischement of his eter- 
 nall will, and to quhome we commend your Hienes, 
 beseikand Him to illuminat your hairt with the Evan- 
 gell of his eternall truthe, to know your Majestie's 
 dewtie towards us, your poor subjectis, Godis chosen 
 pepell, and quhat ye aucht to crave justlie of thame 
 agane : for then we could have no occasioun to feir 
 your Majestie's wrathe and indignatioun, nor your 
 Hienes suspicioun in our inobedience. The same God 
 have your Majestic in his eternall saifgaird.'* 
 
 * Knox's Historie, p. 157. 
 
42 CIVIL AND SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 A similar sentiment was expressed by the Laird of 
 Londie, when, in the General Assembly, 1564, perhaps 
 with needless jealousy, he complained that some of the 
 Protestant noblemen, depending on the court, had with- 
 drawn with some of the ministers to conclude things 
 which were not previously proposed in the Assembly, 
 and remarked that that appeared to him * to be a thing 
 very prejudicial to the liberty of the church.' 
 
 Still more express is the language of Erskine of Dun 
 to the Regent Morton in 1571 : — 'There is a spirituall 
 jurisdictioun and power which God hath givin unto 
 his kirk and to those who beare office therein; and 
 there is a temporal power givin of God to kings and 
 civill magistrats. Both the pmvers are of God, and 
 most agreing to the fortifeing one of another, if they 
 be right used. But when the corruptioun of man en- 
 tereth in, confounding the offices, usurping to himself 
 what he pleaseth, nothing regarding the good order 
 appointed of God, then confusioun followeth in all 
 
 estats A greater offence or contempt of 
 
 God can no prince doe, than to sett up by his authoritie 
 men in spirituall offices, as to creat bishops and pas- 
 tors of the kirk; for so to doe is to conclude no kirk 
 of God to be; for the kirk cannot be, without it have 
 the owne proper jurisdictioun and libertie, with the 
 ministratioun of such offices as God hath appointed.' * 
 
 In what, then, consisted the difference between the 
 compilers of the First and Second Books of Disciphne, 
 on the subject of the spiritual jurisdiction? In the more 
 
 * Calderwood, vol. iii., pp. 158, 159; Wodrow Ed. 
 
KNOX AND HIS SUCCESSORS AGREED. 48 
 
 frequent mention of the subject by the latter, says the 
 Duke. Surely his Grace does not mean to say, that 
 there is anything like argument in this. If it can be 
 proved that the distinction between the civil and 
 spiritual powers was held by both — and we think that 
 cannot be denied — the more frequent mention of it at 
 a later period does not go to prove, as the author of 
 the Essay has affirmed, that ' a definite separation be- 
 tween civil and spiritual power had not yet acquired 
 shape or consistence' in the minds of the first Ke- 
 formers. But his Grace adds, that, in the Second 
 Book, the distinction is drawn between the * Power of 
 the Keys' and the 'Power of the Sword;' and that we 
 heaj of the former being a direct commission from 
 Christ himself ' to them unto whom the spiritual go- 
 vernment of the church, by lawful calling, is com- 
 mitted.' And what less than this did Knox's craving 
 the sanction of the Scottish ParHament to the First 
 Book imply ? For he craved that the church should 
 have the power of governing which the book described; 
 and he craved it on this ground, that he and his fellows 
 asked nothing more than ' they were able to prove by 
 God's plain scriptures.' Last and worst of all : his 
 Grace says : — ' We even hear' (in the Second Book) of 
 ' the spiritual government of the church being held by 
 them as the true successors of the apostles.' This he 
 mentions as the very acme of spiritual and priestly 
 presumption. What will the readers of the Essay 
 think when we have quoted to them the following pas- 
 sage from a letter written by John Knox in 1559 to 
 
44 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 certain of the nobility of Scotland, who appeared at 
 that time to be growing lukewarm in the cause of the 
 Reformation ? — 
 
 ' Ye may perhaps contemne and despyis the excom- 
 munication of the kirk (now by God's michtie power 
 erected among us) as a thing of na force ; but yet dout 
 we nothing bot that our kirk, and the trew ministers 
 of the same, have the sam j^ower quhilk our Maister, 
 Christ Jesus, granted to his apostles in these words: 
 QuJiose synes ye sail forgive, sail he forgiven ; and 
 quhose synes ye retein sail he reteined : and that 
 becaus they preiche, and we beleve, the sam 
 doctrine quhilk is conteined in his most blessit 
 word.'* 
 
 We have extended our observations on this subject 
 to what some of our readers may consider an undue 
 length. As Scottish Protestants, we felt that the author 
 of the Essay has done injustice to the fathers of the 
 Reformation on this head, and that his remarks lead 
 the reader to suppose that the claim of the Free Church 
 to the exclusive spiritual jurisdiction has not always 
 been made to rest on scripture grounds, but has been 
 the result of a gradual rise in the church's demands, 
 suggested by the circumstances in which she was 
 placed, and the attempts of the civil power to under- 
 mine or abridge her authority. As Free Churchmen, 
 we do not rest our belief of the exclusive spiritual 
 jurisdiction — for with us it is a matter of religious 
 belief — on the opinions of men, however eminent. 
 
 * Knox's Historic, p. 133. 
 
ERRONEOUS BELIEF OF THE REFORMERS. 45 
 
 But it is most gratifying to be able to show, as we 
 think we have done, that the views of the first Re- 
 formers and their immediate successors were precisely 
 the same. If it were necessary, it might with equal 
 clearness be proved that no change of sentiment had 
 taken place in the 17th century : And we appeal with 
 confidence to the statements and authorities in the 
 commencement of this chapter for the j^erfect agree- 
 ment of the belief of the Church of Scotland now with 
 that of our fathers of the first and second Reformation — 
 we mean of 1560 and 1638. 
 
 It is necessary, however, before closing this chapter, 
 to advert to one most important particular, in which 
 Scottish Protestants of later times, we rejoice to say, 
 differ from these great and good men. To this we 
 alluded in general terms in some of the preceding re- 
 marks. The difference of opinion does not affect the 
 essential distinction between the civil and sj)iritual 
 jurisdiction, but respects the duty of the civil magis- 
 trate. They held that it was the duty of the civil ma- 
 gistrate to punish with death idolatry, and certain other 
 transgressions of the moral law.* 
 
 * We do not know to whom the author of the Essay refers, when he says 
 at p. 22 that ' Presbyterian writers are not always incUned to mention this, 
 fact;' and, among other inaccuracies into which he has fallen — we doubt 
 not from the haste with which he has consulted his authorities — he says : 
 ' Even the learned and judicious biographer of Knox, Dr Thomas M'Crie, 
 omits the distinct mention of this fact, under the phrase " certain penalties." 
 But this is weakn<ess,' &c. We have not before us the first editiop of Dr 
 M*Crie's work, but in the second edition, p. 128, his Grace will find the 
 fact expressly mentioned — without any attempt at concealment, or inclina- 
 tion to reticence. 
 
46 ERRONEOUS BELIEF OF THE REFORMERS. 
 
 The author of the Essay ascribes this — which was 
 indeed a part of the rehgious hehef of the Keformers — 
 to the spirit of intolerance engendered by the cruel 
 persecutions of the Church of Rome; and he thinks it 
 a strange passage in the history of the human mind, 
 that the men who so boldly and unequivocally dis- 
 owned the binding authority of any interpretation of 
 scripture but the scripture itself, should conjure the 
 Parliament to persecute the adherents of the Romish 
 faith, and dare to withhold from others what they 
 claimed so stoutly for themselves — the right of private 
 judgment. 
 
 This is far from being a just view of the conduct of 
 the Reformers in this matter. They admitted to the 
 fullest extent the right of private judgment. They 
 declared themselves ready and willing to argue with 
 the Romanists, and all others, on the common ground 
 of scripture — the only ground on which questions 
 touching the doctrines, ordinances, and duties of re- 
 vealed religion can be argued conclusively. Again and 
 again they proclaimed their willingness to engage in 
 public disputation on these grounds. The Popish 
 bishops declined, unless they were permitted to appeal 
 to the authority of councils and tradition, which Knox 
 and his brethren consistently refused. But, under the 
 Mosaic economy, idolatry (and the mass was justly re- 
 garded as idolatry), adultery, and blasphemy, were 
 punished with death. In common with all the men of 
 that age, the Reformers believed these laws to be bind- 
 ing on the rulers of a christian state, and they required 
 
NOT ACTUATED BY A PERSECUTING SPIRIT. 47 
 
 the magistrate to carry them into execution.* They 
 did not perceive that what was obhgatory on the Jews, 
 under a theocracy, was not obhgatory under the New 
 Testament dispensation. This was their error. It was 
 an error in their behef; it did not proceed from a 
 wrathful and intolerant spirit. All that they demanded 
 was, that the particular crimes which were capitally 
 punished under the Old Testament dispensation should 
 be punished, in like manner, under the New. As 
 Knox said to the Queen-Kegent, they would not com- 
 pel any one to religion ; but they could not ' of con- 
 science . . . suffer that the right administration 
 of Christ's sacraments should give j)lace to manifest 
 idolatry.' t We admit that, when he spoke thus, he 
 
 * That the opinion or belief referred to was not peculiar to the Protestant 
 ministers of that period, is evident from the conference between the Protestant 
 lords and a committee of the General Assembly, 1564, in which we find the 
 following remarkable passage : — ' Our question,' said Maitland of Lething- 
 toun, ' is, Quhidder, That we may and aucht to suppress the Quenis Mess ? 
 Or, quhidder, That hir idolatry sail be laid to our charge ? Quhat ye may, 
 said John Knox, be force I dispute not ; but quhat ye may, and aucht to do 
 be God's expresse commandement, that I can telL Idolatry aucht not onely 
 to be suppressed, hot the idolater aucht to die the deith, unless we will 
 accuse God. I know, said Lethingtoun, the idolater is commanded to die 
 the deith ; hot be quhom ? Be the pepel of God, said the other. For the 
 
 commandement was made to Israel, as ye may reid But there 
 
 is no commandement gevin to the pepel to punisch their king, said the secre- 
 tary.' Knox's Historic, p. 357. Maitland admitted the correctness of 
 
 Knox's position as a general principle, but makes an exception in favour 
 of the sovereign. Ue seems, however, to have had some glimpses of the true 
 principle of toleration; for a little onward we find him saying : — ' Bot the 
 pepel may not execute God's judgement, bot man leave it unto himself, quho 
 will either punisch it be deith, be weir (war), be imprisonement, or be sum 
 other kynd of his plagues.' He makes this remark, however, only with 
 reference to the sovereign. 
 
 t Knox's Historic, p. 150. 
 
48 REFORMERS VINDICATED FROM THE CHARGE OF 
 
 contradicted himself: For, if the celebration of the 
 mass were prohibited on j^ain of deaths the Komanists 
 could not make full profession of their faith. Nay, 
 more : we are not so blinded by our admiration of the 
 fathers of the Reformation in Scotland, as to affirm 
 that they were altogether free from an intolerant spirit. 
 They would have been more than men, if they had not 
 felt in some measure an unholy resentment against thsir 
 persecutors. But the acknowledged fact, that no one 
 sntfered death from the Reformers on account of his 
 l^rofession of religion, with this in addition, that in 
 words, and by their conduct, they declared the preach- 
 ing of the gospel to be in their opinion the only 
 effectual means of eradicating and oj)posing Popery, 
 demonstrates that they did not look to persecution as 
 a mean of disseminating their faith ; and that the spirit 
 of christian love prevailed, as Dr M'Crie remarks, over 
 their erroneous belief. 'God,' says Knox, addressing 
 the Popish princes who persecuted the Protestants, 
 ' will not use his saintes and chosen children to punish 
 you. For with them is alwaies mercie, yea, even al- 
 though God have pronounced a curse and malediction; 
 as in the history of Josua is plaine. But as ye have 
 pronounced wrong and cruel judgment without mercie, 
 so will he punish you by such as in whom there is no 
 mercie.'* 
 
 We regret exceedingly that, in writing professedly for 
 the information of Englishmen, the author of the Essay 
 has occasionally made remarks calculated to strengthen 
 
 * M'Crie's Life of Knox, vol. ii., p. 129; 2d Ed. Note. 
 
BIGOTRY AND FANATICISM. 49 
 
 their groundless prejudices against the Scottish Re- 
 formers. In one passage he speaks of ' a bigoted Po- 
 pery, and a hardly less bigoted Protestantism:' in 
 another he charges them with 'fanaticism.' 
 
 Johnson defines 'bigotry' to be 'blind zeal — preju- 
 dice.' If the Duke meant to apply this term to those 
 whom Knox used to call 'the rascal multitude,' we are 
 ready to admit the justice of the charge, and that of 
 fanaticism also. But, if he meant it to be applicable 
 to the Protestants as a body, and to their leaders, we 
 aflSrm that it is altogether destitute of proof. The 
 Protestants, whether of the 16th or 17th centuries, 
 were not bigots. Their leaders were the most learned 
 men of their age and country. With the exception 
 which has been mentioned above, they held no opinion 
 — they pursued no line of conduct, which they were not 
 able to justify by an appeal to reason or scripture. No 
 men less deserve to be called bigots than they. 
 
 The charge of fanaticism deserves a somewhat larger 
 notice, involving, as it does, a principle which we deem 
 of the last importance in the religious profession of 
 churches and individuals. It occurs at p. 139 of the 
 Essay. ' The most prominent characteristic,' says the 
 author, ' of the time of the civil wars, and of that which 
 immediately preceded them, was its fanaticism. Yet 
 how difl&cult it is to define, or even to illustrate the 
 meaning of this word! That which would appear an 
 extreme instance of it to some, seems an example only 
 of devotion, or of noble witnessing in the cause of truth, 
 to others. The Episcopahan "Churchman" will see 
 
50 REFORMERS VINDICATED 
 
 fanaticism in the conduct of the Covenanters ; whilst 
 the Preshyterian will see it with equal readiness in the 
 daring pretensions of Prelatic priesthood; but neither 
 the one nor the other will probably be willing to admit 
 the charge against the party with which his own sym- 
 pathies are connected. In the sense in which we un- 
 derstand fanaticism, we see it in the conduct and in 
 the language of both. It may be well, therefore, to 
 define, as nearly as we can, what that sense is. When 
 we say, then, that fanaticism is a prominent charac- 
 teristic of the time of the civil wars, we mean that in 
 almost all the parties of that time, — in the prince, in 
 the priest, and in the people, — there was fatal intoxi- 
 cated indulgence in that passion which leads men to 
 claim presumptuously the direct sanction of God to 
 their own cause, principles, and conduct. This is 
 an attempt which frequently begins in a keen percep- 
 tion and defence of something really good and true. 
 Not unfrequently also, it arises from bad passions 
 seeking to hide by sanctifying themselves. Between 
 these two extremes there is every degree in which truth 
 may be mixed with error and passion. The fanaticism 
 of some parties rests on high and noble truths — laws 
 of natural justice, or some deep spiritual verity, which 
 oovers and embraces a multitude of these. That of 
 other parties may have no better foundation than some 
 mere semblance, or partial truth, wrested from its pro- 
 per place, and covered with a monstrous suj^erstructure 
 of ambition, arrogance, and pride.'* The author then 
 * Essay, pp. 139, UO, 1st Ed. ; pp. 134, 135, 2d Ed. 
 
FROM FANATICISM. 51 
 
 proceeds to illustrate these general observations, by re- 
 ferring to the Presbyterian Church of those times, not 
 omitting its successor, the Free Church of Scotland — 
 to its maintaining the distinction between spiritual and 
 civil power — to its opposition to Episcopacy — to the 
 Solemn League and Covenant, and to its resting its 
 various doctrines and actings in these matters on the 
 authority of the sacred scripture. 
 
 Now, in the Jirst place, we demur to his Grace's 
 definition of 'fanaticism.' It is new; it is unautho- 
 rised; it is incorrect; it is inapj^licable. One of the 
 definitions of it by our great lexicographer is, ' reli- 
 gious frenzy.' If the author use the word at all in 
 that sense, we shall quote the Duke of Argyll against 
 himself: For at p. 26, we find him speaking thus : — 
 *In the leaders by whom the Covenant was prepared, 
 it is certain there was united with a state of mind which 
 must appear to us due only to a fevered state of reli- 
 gious sentiment, a most remarkable amount of calm- 
 ness, of discernment, and of knowledge of mankind. 
 We must not suffer ourselves to be blinded to what 
 was sound and true, deserving our fullest sympathy, 
 in the men or in their measures, by the extravagance 
 of language which characterised the time, and much of 
 which is still, unfortunately, retained in many Presby- 
 terian histories of the Covenant. . . . And in 
 respect to Henderson — whom we select as the repre- 
 sentative of the many who supported him in his mea- 
 sures, and who probably sympathised with him in his 
 language — we find in his whole course at this time, as 
 
52 SCOTTISH REFORMERS 
 
 well as afterwards, in the practical conduct of affairs, 
 evidence of the coolest judgment, of an accurate 
 knowledge of the constitution which he was the chief 
 instrument of restoring to his country — of the most 
 intelligent apprehension of the principles of settled 
 liberty — of the most logical accuracy and distinctness 
 in the defence and statement of his principles — and 
 . of a wilUngness to exjoress them with cour- 
 tesy and moderation.' This language does honour to 
 the Duke, especially when conjoined with what he can- 
 didly says in defence of the Covenant itself Coming 
 from such a quarter, it forms a very strong vindication 
 of our Covenanting forefathers from the charge of 
 fanaticism. What his Grace calls a 'fevered state of 
 religious sentiment,' was neither more nor less than 
 ardent, but enlightened christian zeal for the Protestant 
 faith, which, with good reason, they believed to be in 
 danger from the insidious approaches of Popery in the 
 guise of English Episcopacy. A fevered state of mind, 
 in tl]e proper acceptation of these words, could not 
 exist along with 'calmness and discernment,' 'the 
 coolest judgment,' 'logical accuracy and distinctness,' 
 and 'courtesy and moderation.' If farther vindication 
 be thought necessary, the reader will find it in the un- 
 varnished statement of the facts belonging to the 
 history of that period by honest Stevenson. We do 
 not think it possible for any man, unless strongly pre- 
 judiced against Scottish Presbytery, to rise from the 
 reading of Stevenson's history without the highest ad- 
 miration of the calmness the intelhgence, the christian 
 
NOT FANATICS. 53 
 
 forbearance, and the fortitude and magnanimity of the 
 men who were the chief actors in the memorable strug- 
 gle of that remarkable period. 
 
 A fanatic, in the common acceptation of the word — 
 we do not refer to its use as a nickname for persons in 
 earnest about religion — is a man who believes himself 
 to be inspired, and acts under the influence of that 
 belief Such were Storch and Munzer in the 16th 
 century, and the Mormonites of America, and others 
 in our own country at the present hour. The author 
 of the Essay accounts it fanaticism, when men ' claim 
 presumptuously the direct sanction of God to their 
 own cause, principles, and conduct.' To this definition 
 we should not object, did he not explain it by including 
 under it those who do not claim the direct fianction of 
 God to their cause, but refer to scripture in justification 
 of their religious belief, and their conduct with reference 
 to religion. In this sense, he thinks that the Cove- 
 nanters were chargeable with fanaticism. 
 
 Without stronger evidence than the volume before 
 us affords, we will not believe that the Duke of Argvll 
 has embraced the semi-infidel sentiment, that we can- 
 not, with any degree of certainty, discover the will of 
 God in the Bible. We will not believe that he regards 
 that precious gift of God as uttering ' an uncertain 
 sound' on the essential doctrines and precepts of 
 Christianity — that he does not reverence it as a lamp 
 unto our feet, and a hght unto our path, and as setting 
 before us a way in which ' the waijfaring men, though 
 fools, shall not err,' If, however, he will consider 
 
54 SCOTTISH EEF0R3IERS 
 
 attentively what he has written, he can scarcely fail to 
 perceive that he has afforded some ground for so 
 serious a charge. Christ is 'the light of the world;' 
 and himself has told us,* that * if any man will do 
 his will' — that is, if a man sit down with the docility 
 of a little child at the feet of Jesus, really desirous of 
 knowing and doing his will — *he shall know of the 
 doctrine whether it he of God.' There is a clear 
 revelation of everything which it is essential for us to 
 know ; and nothing but the prejudices of men prevent 
 them from seeing it in all its brightness. When, 
 therefore, a body of men, are fully persuaded in their 
 own mind that certain doctrines are revealed, and ordi- 
 nances enjoined, and worship and discipline prescribed 
 in the word of God, it is their solemn, bounden duty, 
 to believe and embrace them. They believe, there- 
 fore they speak and act.f There is no frenzy, no 
 fanaticism in this, but plain manifest obedience to 
 plainly commanded duty. It is in this way that men 
 come to the 'assurance of the understanding' in the all- 
 important concern of their own salvation. It is by the 
 same process that the Protestant churches have arrived 
 at so remarkable a harmony in the great and essential 
 articles of their belief. In publishing their confessions, 
 they did not lay claim to infallibihty as interpreters of 
 scripture, but gave what, after mature consideration 
 and fervent prayer for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, 
 they believed to be the obvious meaning of a clear and 
 infallible revelation. The Protestant Eeformers— 
 
 ♦Johnvii. 17. f Psalm cxvi. 10. 
 
NOT FANATICS. 55 
 
 those of Scotland especially — may have claimed divine 
 authority for more than was warranted hy scripture, 
 and were dogmatical and intolerant in pressing such 
 things (subscription to the covenant, for examj^le) 
 on their fellow- christians. But neither was this 
 fanaticism. It was nothing more than obedience to 
 what they regarded — unwarrantably it may be — as 
 the revealed will of God declared to them in his word. 
 No body of men can with less justice be accused of 
 claiming the direct sanction of God to their cause, 
 principles, and conduct. •* 
 
 If fanaticism could with justice be imputed to the 
 Scottish Eeformers, there were no occasions on which 
 that spirit was more likely to be called forth than when 
 they were compelled, in self-defence, to arm against their 
 sovereign ; yet in no part of their history are they less 
 chargeable with fanaticism. Never was loyalty more 
 severely tried, and never did it more honourably stand 
 the test. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 
 Scotland had to deal with the most perfidious race of 
 sovereigns who ever occu^^ied a throne. Promises 
 were made by them to their Protestant subjects, and 
 were broken almost as soon and as often as they were 
 made. Yet we find the latter always reluctant to arm, 
 always ready to listen to terms of accommodation with 
 the same parties, who, by their past unfaithfulness, 
 had forfeited all claim to their respect and confidence. 
 
 Fanatics would not have acted thus. They would 
 have yielded to a just indignation against the rulers 
 by whom they had been so frequently deluded and 
 
56 SCOTTISH KEFOR.MERS 
 
 betrayed, and would have used the power, which occa- 
 sionally the Reformers possessed, of ridding them- 
 selves of their oppressors. So did not our enlightened, 
 our truly christian forefathers. ' We will keep our 
 ministers, the preachers of the word, from being mur- 
 dered,' said the Protestant nobihty of Scotland ; and 
 the people with one voice responded to the declara- 
 tion ; but they were equally ready to lay down their 
 arms, when the threatened aggression had ceased. 
 They had ' the Bible in one hand.' It taught them 
 loyalty, even to faithless and tyrannical princes. They 
 had ' the sword in the other,' when they were hunted 
 into the glens and mountains by the ruthless soldiers 
 of bigoted and despotic monarchs. We trust that the 
 Duke of Argyll does not think that there was any in- 
 consistency in this. He has said truly, referring, we 
 cannot doubt, to the principles held and professed by 
 the Free Church of Scotland, ' There are at this 
 moment very near us, and in no dormant state, 
 opinions which, under a slight change of outward 
 circumstance, might seek expression in another Cove- 
 nant.' * The signs of the times indicate that that 
 change is rapidly approaching, and that the hour is 
 not far distant when Popery, cherished and warmed 
 into new life by the British Government, and, uniting 
 with infidelity, may compel us and our children to 
 bind ourselves to one another by a solemn mutual 
 engagement, and to stand for our life against the com- 
 mon enemy. W^hen that day shall arrive, the Cove- 
 
 * Essay, p. 138, 1st Ed.; p. 133, 2d Ed. 
 
NOT FANATICS. 57 
 
 nanters of the niueteenth century may want the aid of 
 those whose ancestors perilled, yea, lost their life in 
 the same glorious cause ; but, without the help of the 
 noble and the mighty of the earth, let us hope and 
 pray that, faithful to their heavenly King, they mav 
 share with their distinguished forefathers the honour 
 of preserving, it may be, of restoring, the lost liberties 
 of their country. 
 
 c2 
 
CHAPTER 11. 
 
 THE DUKE OF AKGYLL's OPINIONS RESPECTING THE TRUE 
 
 theory of a christian church the sajtfe with dr 
 Arnold's — brief statement of dr Arnold's opinions on 
 this subject — the christian common^vealth theory 
 
 impracticable — DR A.'s LATER IMPRESSIONS REGARDING IT 
 
 THE PLAN PROPOSED ADMITTED BY THE ESSAYIST TO BE 
 
 IMPRACTICABLE IN THE PRESENT STATE OF RELIGIOUS OPI- 
 NIONS ^A PARTIAL COINCIDENCE OF CHURCH ANT) STATE 
 
 INADMISSIBLE ON DR A.'s PRINCIPLE — VIRTUAL ASSUMPTION 
 BY THE DUKE OF ANOTHER PRINCIPLE ESSENTIALLY DIFFE- 
 RENT HIS grace's views of THE RIGHT OF SELF-GOVERN- 
 MENT — HE CONCEDES AN UNDEFINED POWER OF LIMITATION 
 TO THE CIVIL ]MAGISTRATE — DENIES THAT THE CHURCH's 
 RIGHT IS FOUNDED IN SCRIPTURE — VINDICATION OF THE FIRST 
 SCOTTISH REFORMERS ON THIS HEAD. 
 
 In -vindicating the constitution of the Church of Scot- 
 land, and repelhng the attacks of the author of the 
 Essay on what, from the Reformation downwards, has 
 heen its fundamental and distinguishing principle, it 
 is not essentially necessary to ascertain and disprove 
 the views which he holds of the theory of a christian 
 church. Affirming as we do, that the government of 
 the church is by appointment of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 'in the hand of church-officers, distinct from the civil 
 magistrate/ and that this is the doctrine of scripture — 
 
THEORY OF A CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 59 
 
 it might be necessary for us to reclaim against a dif- 
 ferent and opposite opinion, if it also professed to have 
 the same divine authority: For both cannot be true ; 
 and the one, if true, necessarily destroys the other. 
 But the Duke of Argyll does not allege that his views 
 have the sanction of divine, that is, of scriptural 
 authority. It is one of his chief complaints against 
 the Church of Scotland, that she rests her belief on 
 the subject of the S2)iritual jurisdiction, on the scrip- 
 ture; and with perfect consistency, he does not claim 
 that highest of all warrants for his own. He may, 
 therefore, entertain a very different opinion from us 
 on that important subject, without touching one of the 
 arguments on which we rest our belief. If we are 
 able to iDi'ove that our doctrine on the spiritual juris- 
 diction is founded on scripture, our position is unas- 
 sailable by any theory which his Grace or any other 
 person may devise and promulgate. Before that 
 authority, every invention, every theory of man must 
 bow. 
 
 There are considerations, however, which render it, 
 if not necessary, at least desirable, that his Grace's 
 views on this subject should be shown to be untenable, 
 before we proceed to the statement of the scripture 
 argument. In the first place, in every case the truth 
 stands forth more impregnable when the principles op- 
 posed to it are shown to be incapable of being defended 
 by sohd argument; we may add, w^ith regard to the 
 present, when they cannot be applied without an en- 
 tire surrender of the church to the command of the 
 
60 THE DUKE OF ARGYLL's OPINIONS. 
 
 civil magistrate. And, seco?idli/, he claims in support 
 of his vie^YS the opinions of our first Eeformers : and it 
 would not be to the honour of the Church of Scotland, 
 if those who believe his views to be erroneous were to 
 allow the memory of Knox and his colleagues to lie 
 under the imputation of holding opinions which they 
 regard as at variance with the word of God. Eor 
 these reasons, and for these only, we shall devote a 
 portion of our space to the consideration of his Grace's 
 views on the constitution of a christian church. 
 
 These are not stated with the clearness which is one 
 of the strongest recommendations of the other parts of 
 the Essay. If we have succeeded in our endeavours to 
 comprehend them, they are the following: — 
 
 The author holds the doctrine proj)ounded by 
 Hooker, and more recently by Dr Arnold, that, in a 
 right constitution of a christian church, the State is 
 the church; in other words, that if Church and State 
 were rightly constituted, the Church would be so 
 merged in the State, that together they would form 
 a 'christian church, and a christian commonwealth' 
 — that the church, like every other society formed 
 for lawful purposes, has the right of self-govern- 
 ment, though not to the exclusion of the civil 
 magistrate, who is entitled to interfere, even in 
 its purely spiritual administration — that this right of 
 self-government is not derived from Jesus Christ as 
 its Head, and is not founded on scri^Dture, but is 
 natural and inherent, and is delegated by the christian 
 people, the members of the church, to ministers and 
 
DR ARNOLD S THEORY IMPRACTICABLE. Gl 
 
 elders, their representatives. He thinks that the views 
 of Knox aod his colleagues on this subject were dif- 
 ferent from those of their successors — that the former 
 realised the idea of a christian commonwealth, and 
 that the opinions of Melville, Henderson, and others, 
 and of the Free Church of Scotland, imply the 
 assumption of a clerical and priestly authority, re- 
 sembling, though perhaps imperfectly, the arrogant 
 claims of the Eomish hierarchy and the tractarians of 
 the Church of England. 
 
 One great objection — and it is a fatal objection — to 
 the theory of Dr Arnold, is, that it is impracticable, 
 even on the supposition that the rulers and other in- 
 habitants of a country may be actuated by a pure 
 faith, and imbued with the spirit of vital Christianity — 
 a supposition which will not be reaUsed till millennial 
 times. The things with which the Church and the State 
 have to deal are so dissimilar that they cannot, without 
 injury to both, become the subjects of one and the 
 same administration. The Church is occupied with 
 the conscience of men ; its business is to inculcate a 
 pure religious belief, and to promote and maintain 
 pure morality. The State legislates and administers 
 with reference to person and property, and the exter- 
 nal conduct of men. The former has reference to 
 eternity — the latter to time. The jDrovince of the one 
 is essentially distinct from that of the other: they 
 cannot be united without confusion and injury to both. 
 But if impracticable in millennial times, how much 
 more now, when the diversity of religious opinions is 
 
62 DR Arnold's theory impracticable. 
 
 so great, and when it will not be aflBrmed by any one 
 that enlightened piety generally prevails in any class 
 of society — certainly not in that class whence those 
 are drawn who take the management of public affairs ! 
 We do not know whether any one has attempted to 
 point out the practical apjolication of Dr Arnold's 
 principle. Chevalier Bunsen, in his Church of the 
 Future, cannot be said to have done this — differing, as 
 we think he does essentially, though not professedly, 
 from Dr Arnold. To us it appears inconceivable, that 
 under the idea of a christian commonwealth, the Church 
 can exist in any other form than as a department of 
 the State. It is assumed that there must be ministers 
 of one or more grades, whose office it shall be to teach 
 the people, to dispense the ordinances of religion, and 
 to maintain order and discipline — all who profess 
 Christianity being united with them as members, and 
 constituent joarts of the church, of which these are the 
 ministers or office-bearers. Either this body so con- 
 stituted, must be in the position of a distinct and 
 separate department of the State, under the charge of 
 a secretary or minister of state, expressly appointed for 
 that purpose; or it must be in the nobler position in 
 which the Church of Scotland stood before 1843, a 
 position as incompatible with the idea of a christian 
 commonwealth, as that of the loriesthood of a prelatical 
 church. On the other hand, standing in the first of 
 these positions, armed with all the power and authority 
 of the State, it may, like the government of the Canton 
 de Vaud at the present moment, exercise the most 
 
HIS LATER IMPRESSIONS. 63 
 
 intolerable spiritual tyranny over the conscience of 
 individuals; or, like the Church of Rome, when in the 
 l^lenitude of its ipower, it usurped both the civil and 
 ecclesiastical authority, it may crush, with over- 
 whelming force, the dearest rights and liberties of the 
 people. 
 
 It is to the honour of Dr Arnold, whose candour and 
 openness to conviction were as remarkable as the other 
 qualities of his great and amiable nature, that, along 
 with other opinions, which, in his sturdy independence, 
 he had hastily embraced, he saw reason before he died 
 to question the soundness of his views on the subject 
 of the Church. 'I am, myself.' he said, 'so much in- 
 chned to the idea of a strong social bond, that I ought 
 not to be suspected of any tendency to anarchy; i/et I 
 am heginning to think that the idea may he over- 
 strained, and that the attempt to merge the soul and 
 will of the individual man in the general body is, ichen 
 fully developed, contrary to the very essence of Chris- 
 tianity! Again, a few months before his death, he 
 writes thus: — 'As it is, I feel so deeply the danger and 
 evil of the false church system, that despairing of see- 
 ing the true church restored, I am disposed to chng, 
 not from choice but from necessity, to the Protestant 
 tendency of laying the whole stress on christian reh- 
 gion, and adjourning the notion of Church sine die.'^- 
 This is the language of a truly christian man, seeking 
 the truth; willing to embrace it — even when opposed 
 to his strongest prepossessions — and attaching, as 
 
 * Dr Arnold —quoted ia 'North British Eeview,' No. IV. p. 412. 
 
64 PARTIAL COINCIDENCE OF THE 
 
 every real christian does, the chief importance to 
 christian doctrine, putting therefore in the second 
 place only, the form of church-government under 
 which it is preserved. One can scarcely entertain a 
 doubt that, had Dr Arnold lived, he would have seen 
 the impossibility of applying his favourite theory to any 
 circumstances in which the church may be placed ; and 
 would have sought in that book which he reverenced 
 so ijrofoundly, for some scheme of church- government 
 better adapted to the present condition of the church, 
 and less likely to endanger the highest interests of 
 mankind. 
 
 The Duke of Argyll is not so far committed to Dr 
 Arnold's opinions on the subject of the Church, as to 
 preclude the hope of his pursuing a similar course : 
 For it is evident, that he too questions the possibility 
 of applying the Christian-Commonwealth princij^Ie to 
 the existing state of things. ' If,' he says, ^tbe boun- 
 daries of a nation coincided exactly with the boundaries 
 of any one religious system — that is to say, if all the 
 citizens of a state were members of the same religious 
 body, one and the same Assembly might rightfully and 
 naturally legislate on both these subjects. It is merely 
 the necessities of outward circumstance — the fact of 
 rehgious divisions, and other facts of a similar kind — 
 which prevent both these subjects being cognisable by 
 one and the same authority. No divine law would be 
 infringed by an entire coincidence of the two authori- 
 ties, were it practicable ; still less is any such law 
 infringed by a partial coincidence, where it very often 
 
TWO AL'TUORITIES INADMISSIBLE. 65 
 
 is both possible and Avise.' * His Grace suspends the 
 appHcation of the Arnoldian theory on a condition 
 which has not been reahsed, and, in all probability, 
 never will be realised in the history of the world — on 
 the perfect unanimity of a whole nation on the subject 
 of rehgion. Where, we ask respectfully, is the wisdom 
 of contending for an impossibility ? He admits that 
 the proposal of Dr Arnold is impracticable : why then 
 does he contend for it ? Why not deal with things as 
 they are ; and, if he be not satisfied with the Church 
 as at present constituted, apply himself to the devising 
 of some scheme capable of application to the actual 
 condition of the world and of the Church of Christ ? 
 
 But he informs us that, though an entire coincidence 
 of the two authorities is impracticable, a * partial coin- 
 cidence' is very often both possible and wise. With 
 all deference, we affirm that the Christian- Common- 
 wealth principle must be accepted as a whole, and in 
 its integrity, or not at all. It is of its very essence that 
 Church and State be merged in one body, and that 
 things civil and s]3iritual be, as the Duke has expressed 
 it, under 'one and the same authority/ The moment 
 they are placed, partly under the one, and partly under 
 the other, that moment the principle is deserted, and 
 a new and altogether different principle assumed. 
 There is no longer one body, and one jurisdiction, but 
 two. Accordingly we do not find in the Essay any 
 examples of a partial coincidence of the two authorities. 
 It requires more than even his Grace's ingenuity to 
 
 ♦ Essay, p. 294, 1st Ed.; p. 282, 2d Ed. 
 
66 THE QUARTERLY REVIEW. 
 
 imagine a case of that description which would not 
 involve a rejection of the principle.* 
 
 In the Appendix to the second edition of the Essay, 
 the author complains loudly of what he calls the mis- 
 representations of the 'Quarterly/ in charging him with 
 all the opinions consequent, or supposed to be conse- 
 quent, on Dr Arnold's principle, and in stating that his 
 views of 'the true principles of Scottish Presbytery 
 on the nature of the Church, including its essential 
 BELATION TO THE State, wcrc in fact those of Dr 
 Arnold.' His Grace affirms that all that he has 
 asserted is, that the views of the first Eeformers, and 
 of Dr A,, on the 'Nature of the Churchy were substan- 
 tially the same. He repels, with a warmth becoming 
 the representative of the house of Argyll, the charge 
 advanced by the reviewer, of holding what the re- 
 viewer calls 'the hyper-Erastian theories' of Dr Arnold; 
 and refers to various passages of the Essay in vindica- 
 tion of himself, still, however, avowing his attachment 
 to the Christian- Commonwealth principle, notwith- 
 standing his having acknowledged it to be — in its 
 integrity — imi3racticable. 
 
 It is here that we find the author impenetrably ob- 
 scure. Holding the jmncij^le that Church and State 
 
 * If his Grace regards the admission of ruling elders into the Courts of the 
 Church of Scotland as an example of a partial coincidence of the two autho- 
 rities, we would remind him, that these so-called laymen do not constitute 
 the State or the representatives of the State ; and, in the practice to which 
 he refers, there is no merging of the two mithorities. The Courts continue 
 Spiritual Courts, with a jurisdiction — before the Disruption at least — alto- 
 gether separate and distinct from that of the Courts of Law. 
 
DR ARNOLD S IDEA NOT ERASTIANISM. 67 
 
 ought to be one, and under the same authority, he 
 pleads at the same time with great earnestness for the 
 church's 'right of self-government' — for the inde- 
 pendence of its General Assemblies — expresses his 
 gratitude to Knox and his coadjutors, (Christian- Com- 
 monwealth men, if we may believe his Grace,) for 
 apprehending and asserting the right of self-govern- 
 ment, and declares his conviction of its great impor- 
 tance to civil society, as well as to the church, in the 
 present times. Now to us it appears self-evident, 
 that the princi23le of Dr Arnold, and the right of 
 self-government by the church, are irreconcilable. Dr 
 Arnold is perfectly consistent when he says, that his 
 idea 'was 7iot Erastianism;' and that 'the subjection of 
 the Church to the State . . . would be a most miser- 
 able and most unchristian condition :' and this he could 
 say consistently, because he held his favourite principle 
 in all its integrity : and his theory was one to which 
 neither Erastianism nor its opposite could be applied : 
 For, were Church and State one, and their affairs 
 under one and the same authority, there could be 
 no Erastian interference on the one hand, and no 
 ecclesiastical domination on the other. But his young 
 disciple is not equally consistent; for he holds the 
 principle — or, rather, he thinks that he holds it — and 
 he holds with equal earnestness and tenacity, the 
 church's right of self-government, affirming of it, that 
 it is ' a principle on which all sound ecclesiastical poli- 
 tics must rest.' The two things cannot be reconciled. 
 His Grace has not attempted to reconcile them. If 
 
68 THE duke's views of 
 
 he make the attempt, he will certainly fail in the exe- 
 cution. 
 
 The truth is, we believe that, in clinging to the idea 
 of a partial coincidence, he has, without perceiving it, 
 deserted the Arnoldian principle, and has begun to 
 discourse on one essentially different. He has come 
 down to the region of sober and tangible realities. 
 Despairing, like Dr Arnold, of seeing things as he 
 wishes them to be, he admits that there is, and must 
 be a distinction of one kind or another between civil 
 and spiritual; and, finding that they are separate in 
 point of fact, he would make the system as it now 
 exists as perfect as possible. Assuming, therefore, 
 that his Grace, in treating of the Church's right of 
 self-government, proceeds on the ground of the Church 
 being distinct from the State, let us inquire what his 
 views of that right are; and whether they be such as 
 to justify the glowing language in which he has ex- 
 pressed his opinion of its importance to society and to 
 tlie Church. 
 
 'The right of self-government,' says his Grace, 
 'which, as founded on true ideas of the nature of "The 
 Church," is a principle on which all sound ecclesiastical 
 politics must rest, is one which is nevertheless not 
 susceptible of just expression as a religious dogma, or 
 as an abstract truth. It is a right of too indefinite 
 meaning to be capable of assertion in such a shape. 
 It may exist in a thousand different forms, and is 
 compatible with a thousand different modifications and 
 restrictions.' This is hberal enough: His Grace pro- 
 
THE RIGHT OF SELF-GOVERNMENT. 69 
 
 ceeds — * A church would be self- governed in one sense 
 and in one degree, which elected a single representa- 
 tive, and agreed to abide by his decisions. A church 
 would be self- governed in another sense, and in another 
 degree, whose legislative and executive powers were 
 vested in an Episcopate originally appointed by elec- 
 tion.' We looked for bread: His Grace gives us a 
 stone : He proceeds — 'A church might be self-governed 
 in another degree, which had grown up under condi- 
 tions of civil society, hmiting to a certain extent its 
 powers of government, and beyond this Hmit leaving 
 it free.' We asked for a fish : He gives us a serpent. 
 He concludes in the following most accommodating 
 terms: — 'A church might be self-governed in other 
 degrees, under the infinite varieties of circumstance 
 and arrangement, which it is easy to conceive.' * 
 
 Truly this is to concede a power of limitation to the 
 civil government, with which the most zealous Erastian 
 must be perfectly satisfied, and for which the ministers 
 and elders of the Duke's own church, writhing under 
 the fetters of Lord Aberdeen's Act, ought to be, and, 
 we beheve, are truly grateful; whilst it leaves blind and 
 misguided Free Churchmen altogether without excuse 
 for dissolving their connection with the State. A right 
 of self-government so limited, and so incapable of ap- 
 plication to practical purposes, cannot be founded on 
 ' true ideas of the nature of the Church.' ' It is not 
 susceptible,' says his Grace, 'of just expression as a 
 religious dogma, or as an abstract truth.' It may be 
 
 * Essay, p. 169, 1st Ed. ; p. 163, 2d Ed. 
 
70 THE church's eight of self-government. 
 
 so; but most assuredly the phrase (it is the Duke's) 
 has not an indefinite meaning. We do not know one 
 whose meaning is more perfectly definite. The ' self- 
 government' of the church is just the government of 
 the church by itself ; and * the right' of self-govern- 
 ment means, that it does not govern itself by per- 
 mission, or at the arbitrary will of another, but that it 
 is invested with a right and title to do so — whence de- 
 rived we shall afterwards inquire. The phrase is more 
 than definite. It gives full and just expression to the 
 idea which it is intended to convey; it expresses the 
 Church's right and title, within its own province — 
 which is purely spiritual — to declare the laws, and 
 exercise the disciphne jDrescribed and ordained by the 
 word of God. If the State in any particular usurp 
 the power of the Church by legislating or administer- 
 ing in matters spiritual, it does so far infringe its 
 right and title ; if it have an indefinite power of en- 
 croachment, the Church's right of self-government is 
 a nullity: she rules entirely at the pleasure of the 
 State. 
 
 But, though the Duke of Argyll pleads for an unde- 
 fined limitation by the State of the Church's right of 
 self-government, we rejoice to add that he does not 
 argue in favour of its greatest possible modification or 
 restriction. On the contrary, we may infer, from the 
 strong terms of approbation in which he speaks of the 
 struggles of the first Scottish Reformers in defence of 
 that great principle, that, like the Chevalier Bunsen, 
 he would have the civil government to interfere as 
 
ALLEGED WANT OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITr. 71 
 
 little as possible with the spiritual administration. 
 Somewhere in the Essay he informs his readers, that 
 the ' husks' of Presbytery covered the kernel of sound 
 principle. We do not think ^husks' a very polite 
 word; and we believe that it is not so used. But 
 husks or shells, so long as they cover the kernel, are 
 more than useful : they are necessary for its protec- 
 tion. So were * the husks of Presbytery.' For cen- 
 turies they protected the church's autonomy from the 
 corroding worm of the civil power. Alas ! they have 
 been rudely torn off — the work of destruction has 
 commenced — and the kernel, which his Grace prizes 
 so highly, must soon have its place among things that 
 were. 
 
 Entertaining the views to which we have referred, 
 regarding the power of limitation by the civil magis- 
 trate, it is not at all surprising that the author of the 
 Essay denies that the right of self-government has 
 any foundation in scripture. With a vehemence and 
 intolerance, contrasting most painfully with other 
 portions of the work, he combats this opinion. He 
 declaims against the ' Formulae ' in which the Church 
 of Scotland has expressed itself on the subject of the 
 spiritual jurisdiction — asserts that the right of self- 
 government is a natural, not a divine right — a right 
 inherent in the christian people, and delegated by them 
 to certain persons, their representatives — and that to 
 affirm that the distinction between the civil and the 
 spiritual is absolute, and one implying a separation 
 admitting of no compromise and no exception, is to 
 
72 STRONG BUT UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS. 
 
 affirm what 'is utterly groundless and untenable, un- 
 supported by tbe shadow of proof from any relevant 
 part of scripture — unnatural, and at variance with the 
 spirit of the christian scheme.'* 
 
 This is strong language; but strong language is 
 not solid argument. The proof from scripture has 
 been given, and is not invalidated by the mere asser- 
 tions of the Essayist. It shall be presented once more 
 in a subsequent chapter of this Vindication. Mean- 
 while, we are entitled to demand from his Grace, what 
 he has not yet given us, some proof of the assertion, 
 that the doctrine of the church's exclusive jurisdic- 
 tion, in matters spiritual, is ' unnatural, and at variance 
 with the spirit of the christian scheme.' 
 
 We do not presume to account for the vehemence 
 of his Grace's language on this subject. If, however, 
 he feels that, by admitting the right of the civil go- 
 vernment to interfere with matters spiritual, he has 
 placed himself in a false position, and imagines that 
 he has rendered that position more tenable by affirm- 
 ing, that the church's right of self-government is 
 natural, and not derived from scripture, he has not 
 come nearer his object by the course which he has 
 pursued. Mr Gray of Perth has justly observed (and 
 in one passage the Duke nearly coincides with him) 
 that there are natural rights— the right of self-preser- 
 vation, for examj)le — as sacred and as strong as the 
 rights which we derive from the Bible. f The church's 
 
 • Essay, p. 317, 1st Ed.; p. 358, 2d Ed. 
 I Correspondence between the Duke of Argyll and the Rev. A. Gray; p. 38. 
 
THE SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION EXCLUSIVE. 73 
 
 right of self-government is one of those. It is, in 
 truth, the right of spiritual self-preservation — the 
 sacred right of liberty of conscience, with which no 
 earthly authority, whether civil or ecclesiastical, is 
 entitled to interfere. If so, his Grace would not be 
 relieved from the difficulty of his position, though he 
 were able to show that the Church's right of self-go- 
 vernment is a natural, and not a bible right. He has 
 still the arduous task of proving that this right — the 
 most valuable which human beings can enjoy — maybe 
 limited, modified, and restricted by the civil power. 
 Though the Westminster Confession had never existed, 
 there is, by his Grace's acknowledgment, a spiritual 
 jurisdiction — whether founded on natural or derived 
 right we do not at present inquire — a jurisdiction, we 
 affirm, excluding absolutely and entirely the interfer- 
 ence of the civil magistrate. If it have any limitation, 
 except that which its name indicates — namely, limita- 
 tion to its own peculiar province — it is for the Duke 
 of Argyll to show where that limitation exists — on 
 what particular point it is lawful for the civil power to 
 lord it over the conscience of men — when and in what 
 circumstances it is entitled to command, and, by 
 necessary consequence, to enforce on individuals, or 
 on the church collectively, anything which they believe 
 to be contrary to, or unauthorised by the word of God. 
 It is unnecessary, therefore, to dwell on this part of 
 the Essay. It has been proved, by those who have 
 written on the constitution of the Church of Scotland, 
 that the Church's right of self-government is founded 
 
 D 
 
74 NATURE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 on scripture: the author of the Essay is at liberty to 
 prove that it is also a natural right. If it be at once 
 natural and founded on scripture, as we firmly believe, 
 it rests on a doubly solid foundation ; and, on that 
 account, and because of its intrinsic importance, ought 
 to be held peculiarly sacred and inviolable, and be 
 guarded with the utmost jealousy by every friend of 
 truth and of religious liberty. 
 
 If we have succeeded in analysing what appear to 
 us the contradictory opinions of the Essayist on the 
 tlieory of a christian church, they are briefly these : 
 He holds what we have called the Christian-Common- 
 wealth principle; but, believing it to be incapable of 
 application in all its extent, he holds, or believes that 
 he holds it partially. Notwithstanding, he argues as 
 if Church and State were distinct — pleads for the right 
 of self-government — asserts that it is a natural, and 
 not a bible-derived right, and, in the most unqualified 
 terms, afifirms that it may be modified and restricted 
 by the civil power. 
 
 We have seen with what eagerness and with how 
 little success the author has attemj)ted to prove that 
 there was a diversity of oi^inion between the first 
 Scottish Reformers and their successors, on the sub- 
 ject of the spiritual jurisdiction. With equal anxiety, 
 and, we think, with equal want of success, he endea- 
 vours to show that there was a similar diversity of 
 opinion on the cognate subject of ' the nature of the 
 church! The diversity on these two points being 
 l)roved, and the views of the former being shown to be 
 
OPINIONS OF THE REFORSIERS. 75 
 
 those of Dr Arnold, he flatters himself that, in writing 
 an Essay on the Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, he 
 is entitled to claim for his countrymen at the com- 
 mencement of the Reformation, the honour of coin- 
 ciding in sentiment with one of the most distinguished 
 men of modern times ; and that the right theory of a 
 christian church was, in point of fact, that of the 
 fathers of the Keformation in Scotland. 
 
 The attempt is a bold one ; but there is no such 
 diversity as his Grace imagines ; and Knox and his 
 contemporaries were as far as possible from holding 
 the principle of Dr Arnold. 
 
 We assent to the author's statement, when he says 
 that they held that 'the church' — understanding by 
 that term, the church of any country, as distinguished 
 from the Church universal — consists ' of the whole 
 body of professing believers in the truth' in that 
 country — that they repudiated the notion of a priest- 
 hood or clergy, and the application of the term 
 'church' to a distinct body of men so called — that*^ 
 they maintained the right of electing ministers and 
 other office-bearers in the church, to be in ' the chris- 
 tian people' — that, from the beginning, ruling-elders 
 had a place along with ministers in the spiritual over- 
 sight and government of the church; and, finally, 
 that ministers and elders had no church-power singly 
 and as individuals, but only as the members of church 
 courts. But we entirely dissent from his Grace, when 
 he asserts that they regarded ministers and elders, in 
 their governing capacity, as having no authority, ex- 
 
76 NATURE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 cept as the representatives of ' the mass of the behev- 
 ing people.' We dissent no less strongly, when he 
 assumes that the elders of 1560-78, were nothing 
 more than laymen associated with the ministers in the 
 spiritual government, to prevent ' the priestly eleva- 
 tion of the clergy.' These are novel assertions. The 
 author of the Essay has not adduced one tittle of evi- 
 dence in support of them. We are not required to 
 prove a negative, though we might refer with confi- 
 dence to some of the quotations in the preceding 
 chapter, and to the recollection of every one who has 
 read without bias the annals of our church — to show 
 that, while the fathers of the Reformation claimed no 
 such reverence to the persons of ministers and elders, 
 as other churches claim for their bishops and priests, 
 they regarded the ministry and eldership as ordinances 
 of divine appointment. Both ministers and elders 
 were in their estimation spiritual men. Their office 
 was spiritual ; its end was spiritual ; its duties were 
 spiritual; and they were solemnly set apart to their 
 office respectively. In appointing them, and in con- 
 joining them in the spiritual oversight and govern- 
 ment of the church, the Reformers did not act on the 
 dictate of mere worldly wisdom, and, least of all, with 
 the intention of mingling laity with clergy, and thus 
 forming a Christian- Commonwealth — but, because they 
 w^ould have everything connected with the external frame- 
 work of the church to be according to the scripture-model, 
 and ' the reverend face of the primitive and Apostolick 
 Kirk reduced agane to the eyis and knowledge of men.' 
 
REFORMERS NOT MYSTICS. 77 
 
 The leading principles of the first Scottish Reformers,, 
 was to have everything so ordered respecting the 
 government of the church, that the Church of Scotland 
 should, as nearly as possible, resemble the primitive 
 and apostolical church. The author of the Essay 
 denies this. He affirms that this principle was first 
 laid hold of by their successors. The reviewer in the 
 'Quarterly,' in addition to the other alleged misrepre- 
 sentations to which we have referred, says of him, that 
 he ascribes to Knox the obliterating of the distinction 
 between spiritual and civil government, while he 
 (the Duke) affirms that he had only asserted that 
 Knox's idea of the nature of the church and Dr 
 Arnold's were the same, and that the fundamental 
 principle of both left 'no ground for any Mystic 
 distinction' between them. He acknowledges that 
 there must be a distinction — a distinction arising 
 from the difierent nature of the subjects of which 
 they treat; but he denies that there is any 'mystic' 
 distinction. 
 
 Again we protest against the liberty assumed by the 
 noble Duke of using Eughsh words in a sense totally 
 different from that which they ordinarily bear — espe- 
 cially when such terms are fitted to convey impressions 
 of great and good men, altogether erroneous, and 
 tending to lower them in the estimation of posterity. 
 When we look for the meaning attached to the word 
 'mystic,' by his Grace, we find it called 'false and 
 superstitious.' When we proceed farther, we find that 
 'mystic distinction' means a distinction founded, not 
 
78 NATURE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 on natural right only, but on scripture. A 'fanatic,' 
 according to his Grace, is one who believes that he is 
 acting in obedience to the revealed Tvill of God, recorded 
 in the bible: A 'mystic distinction,' is a distinction 
 ^vhich professes to be founded on the same diviue 
 authority. We deny the right of the Duke of Argyll, 
 or any other person, to put such an interpretation on 
 either of these phrases; and we affirm that, in the sense 
 in which they are commonly understood, they are not 
 applicable to the fathers of the Scottish Reformation, 
 whether of the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. 
 None of them believed in a certain mysterious influence 
 imparted by the hands of a bishop of apostolical descent 
 — in an indelehile officiutn, or in the emanation of any 
 similar influence from the hands of a presbytery. 
 Then indeed might they be justly accused of mysticism. 
 They did not believe that ordained ministers constituted 
 the church, as distinct from the rest of the christian 
 people ; nor did they demand for them any false or 
 superstitious reverence on that account. But they did 
 believe and own, that the christian ministry and elder- 
 ship were ordinances of God ; and that, as ambassadors 
 of Christ, and rulers of his church, ministers and elders 
 are entitled to the respect and enlightened submission 
 of the people of their charge. They believed and 
 averred this; and, in so doing, they did not lay them- 
 selves open to the charge of mysticism. Is there 
 mysticism in believing that civil government is an 
 institution of God — that in the words of inspiration, 
 civil rulers ' are God's ministers, attending continually 
 
FIRST AND SECOND REFORMERS AGREED. 79 
 
 upon this very thing;' * and that * whosoever resisteth 
 the power, resisteth the ordinance of God?' Civil 
 rulers, in their official capacity, are distinct from their 
 subjects; and the distinction is sanctioned by the 
 word of God. Is it therefore a mystic distinction ? 
 Assuredly not. 
 
 There is no evidence, we repeat, of the alleged 
 difference of opinion between the early Scottish Re- 
 formers and their successors on this head. The Duke 
 of Argyll affirms that, in the Second Book of Disci- 
 pline, the distinction between the rulers of the church 
 and its other members is more strongly marked than 
 it was in the First. Surely he does not mean to say, that 
 this proves that Knox and his contemporaries did not 
 hold the distinction at all. His Grace refers also to 
 the great preponderance of ruling- elders in the first 
 General Assemblies, when the preponderance in the 
 church of elders over ministers was naturally great, 
 and the principle of representation was not yet laid 
 down. We appeal to his Grace's candour whether all 
 this, taken together, and what he calls the * mere de- 
 mocratic spiritual tyranny' of the General Assemblies 
 of a later jDeriod, amount to anything like evidence 
 that Melville and Henderson differed in principle with 
 the first Reformers. If it could be shown that, as the 
 form of church government was matured, the prin- 
 ciple and rule of representation was changed, and there 
 ceased to be a fair proportion of ruling-elders in the 
 judicatories of the church, there might be some ground 
 
 * Rom. xiii. 6. 
 
80 NATURE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 for asserting that different views on this subject were 
 entertained by the Church of Scotland in the sixteenth 
 and seventeenth centuries. But no one knows better 
 than the Duke that this cannot be jjroved. On behalf 
 of Henderson, and the leading men of his time, it is 
 sufficient to state, that when Charles I. made it a con- 
 dition of his consenting to the meeting of the General 
 Assembly, 1638 — that it should be an assembly of 
 ministers, without mixture of ruling-elders — no persons 
 resisted this more strenuously than the ministers them- 
 selves. And coming down to the present times, and 
 referring to a church which his Grace more than sus- 
 pects of aiming at the exercise of a spiritual tyranny — 
 if he will look into the regulations laid down by the 
 Free Church of Scotland, since the Disruption, for the 
 election of members to its General Assembly, he will 
 find that we have anxiously and unanimously assigned 
 to the eldership the full share which they have had in 
 the government of the Church from the time of the 
 Reformation to the present day. 
 
CHAPTER III, 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION REGARDING THE EXCLUSIVE 
 
 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION THE STATE HAS NO RIGHT TO 
 
 INTERFERE WITH THE RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS OF INT)IVI- 
 DUALS — CHURCHES OUGHT TO BE EQUALLY FREE — SCRIP- 
 TURE ARGUMENT — NATURE AND ENT) OF CHRISTIANITY — 
 
 INEVITABLE INFERENCE PROOFS FROM SCRIPTURE OF THE 
 
 EXCLUSIVE SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION — OLD TESTAMENT — 
 PSAL. ii. AND Ixii. NEW TESTA3IENT — MATT. Xxii. 17, AND 
 
 JOHN xviii. 36, 37 — matt, xxviii. 18-20 — eph. iv. 8, etc. — 
 
 MATT. xvi. 13-19 — MATT. Xviii. 15, ILLUSTRATED BY JOHN 
 XX. 23 SUM OF THE ARGUMENT. 
 
 In proceeding to state the argument for what the 
 Duke of Argyll calls ' the right of self-government,' 
 but what we prefer calhng by the name of tJie exclu- 
 sive sjnritual jurisdiction, it is no small relief to the 
 writer of these pages to be able to announce at the 
 commencement, that he does not intend to treat this 
 part of the subject controversially. The author of the 
 Essay has scarcely touched on the theology of the 
 question. In so far as he has done this, he has been 
 so satisfactorily answered by Mr Gray, and by several 
 of the reviewers, that it were altogether superfluous to 
 add anything farther in reply. Our aim shall be, 
 with little or no reference to the Essay, to present, in 
 
 the most simple and luminous point of view, the 
 d2 
 
82 THE SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 grounds on which the Church of Scotland, from the 
 time of the Reformation downwards, has rested its 
 claim to the exercise of the spiritual jurisdiction over 
 the people of its own communion, and has, until the 
 year 1843, with one voice, repudiated the interference 
 of the civil power with its spiritual administration. 
 
 Before entering on this jDart of our work, it may 
 he proper to state what the question at issue really is. 
 It is not whether the government of a church should 
 be Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or Congregational, nor 
 whether it can be proved from scripture that Christ 
 has committed the sj^iritual administration to Pres- 
 byteries and General Assemblies. On these points 
 every well-informed member of the Church of Scot- 
 land has a clear and decided opinion ; but they are 
 not the questions at issue on the present occasion. 
 Nor is the question respecting the lawfulness of 
 Church Establishments, or whether, a Church being 
 established by law, the State is entitled to judge and 
 determine respecting the measure of support which it 
 shall give, or regarding anything connected with the 
 secular affairs of the Church. To the fullest extent, 
 we admit the right of interference in such matters. 
 But the question is, whether a church of Christ — be 
 its form of government what it may — exercising disci- 
 pline over its ministers and other members of the 
 flock, and, in general, regulating and directing its 
 spiritual affairs — is warranted in doing all this by the 
 express command and authority of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ — the question is, whether it be lawful for the 
 
STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION. 83 
 
 civil government to interfere with its spiritual jurisdic- 
 tion, and whether, in the event of its interference, it 
 be right or lawful for the Church to submit. The 
 Church of Scotland holds, as its gi*and, distinguishing 
 principle, that the spiritual jurisdiction is exclusive of 
 the civil power — that to submit to such interference is 
 sin, and cannot fail to be followed by consequences 
 most injurious to the interests of religion and the 
 cause of Christ in the world. 
 
 In addition to this, let it be borne in mind, that 
 what the State decrees it may and must enforce. Its 
 enactments are laws, not mere recommendations, 
 which may or may not be observed, according to the 
 will and pleasure of the subject. However unjust 
 these laws, however contrary to the declared will of 
 God, every secular government, which would maintain 
 its authority, must, by fine or imprisonment, or capital 
 punishment, or otherwise, carry its laws into effect at 
 its own instance, or that of parties interested, or 
 claiming to be interested, in their execution. 
 
 These things being premised, let us, first of all, 
 inquire, in illustration of the principle involved in this 
 discussion, whether the State is at liberty to interfere 
 with the religious convictions and profession of indi- 
 viduals. 
 
 A man beheves the scriptures to be the word of 
 God — he accepts them as the only rule of his faith 
 and manners — embraces the doctrines which they 
 reveal — willingly submits to the precepts and ordi- 
 nances which they enjoin — and, in obedience to the 
 
84 THE SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 command of Christ, openly confesses Him before men, 
 and endeavours to persuade others to become the disci- 
 ples and followers of the same divine Master. With his 
 belief and his practice other men are not entitled to 
 interfere. God, and God alone, is the lord of his 
 conscience. To Him, and not to man, he is account- 
 able. His fellow-men cannot, if they would, compel 
 him to believe what he knows to be false. No ruler, 
 whether civil or ecclesiastical, has any right to com- 
 ]Del him to do what he believes to be morally wrong. 
 
 On these plain and self-evident propositions rests 
 the great principle or law of toleration — a principle 
 only recently understood, and far from being univer- 
 sally recognised, even in our own enlightened and 
 free country. Nevertheless, under the broad shield of 
 its protection, even error is permitted to present its 
 claims to the notice and reception of men, save when 
 its manifest tendency is to subvert the first principles 
 of morahty, or to stir up the worst passions, and 
 to disturb domestic peace and public tranquillity. 
 Truth is left to achieve its conquests, not by the might 
 and power of the civil ruler — by the sword, the halter, 
 or the fiigot — but by its own intrinsic force, and the 
 mighty influence of the Spirit of God; and, using its 
 own weapons, we are assured that it will ultimately 
 prevail. 
 
 We cannot comprehend how those who, like the 
 Duke of Argyll, concede, nay, contend for this liberty 
 on behalf of individuals, would deny it to churches, 
 or, at least, plead for its limitation with respect to 
 
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 85 
 
 them. The principle is obviously the same, whether 
 men, or associations of men, are concerned. If men 
 be agreed, not only in having and professing the same 
 religious belief, but in being united under a particular 
 form of church government, which they beheve to be 
 founded on the word of God — if they conscientiously 
 regard it as a part of their duty to maintain, as far as 
 in them lies, purity of doctrine and life in their minis- 
 ters, and in the private members of their communion 
 — with what show of reason can the liberty which is 
 conceded to individuals of professing their religious 
 belief, be denied to churches in the conducting of their 
 spiritual government? We assume that the union 
 or association is a lawful association — an association 
 for lawful purposes, and that its laws and regulations 
 affect those only who are voluntarily united with it ; 
 and we ask again, with what consistency can those 
 who concede the principle of perfect toleration in the 
 one case propose to limit the operation of that prin- 
 cip)le in the other ? 
 
 We can understand how, in the case of the Church 
 of England, and most other established churches, 
 where the right of interference by the civil govern- 
 ment has been formally conceded, or where that right, 
 existing previously, is tacitly acquiesced in — the 
 strong hand of the civil power may with some plausi- 
 bihty be put forth, in opposition to the wishes and 
 conscientious feelings of the church, and, we may add, 
 as recent occurrences have shown, in opposition to the 
 common sense and feelings of mankind. But we can- 
 
86 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION 
 
 not comprebeDd on what ground the Duke of Argyll, 
 or any one else, can assert the right of interference as 
 an abstract principle, and affirm that the exclusive 
 spiritual jurisdiction is * unnatural, and at variance 
 Avith the spirit of the christian scheme, and repugnant 
 to the true interests of all men.' Applied to the prin- 
 cijDle of Erastus, this language is inteUigible; applied 
 to the principle for -which the Free Church and other 
 churches contend, it is not. 
 
 If it be said that private rights must occasionally 
 yield to public convenience, we think it will be found 
 difficult to imagine a case where public expediency 
 demands the sacrifice of the rights of any association 
 for lawful purposes without adequate compensation; 
 and it is more than difficult to show what advantages 
 of a temporal kind can compensate the sacrifice of our 
 spiritual independence, our religious liberty, our con- 
 scientious convictions. If it be essential to a Church 
 Estabhshment — which we do most distinctly deny — 
 that the Church should declare its willingness to 
 submit to the authoritative interference of the State 
 with its spiritual administration, it were better far to 
 reject the countenance and encouragement of the civil 
 government than to purchase them at such a price. 
 
 On grounds, therefore, which even infidels admit, 
 we hold that a jurisdiction in matters spiritual, 'exclu- 
 sive of the civil power, is the sacred privilege of every 
 church of Christ — that for the civil power to claim the 
 liberty of interfering with that jurisdiction, and of co- 
 ercing the consciences of men, is the sacrilegious in- 
 
PKOVED FROM SCRIPTURE. 87 
 
 vasion of a province belonging to God only ; and that, 
 as no unestablished church would willingly submit to 
 such interference, so no established church can be 
 regarded as rightly constituted which, in matters spi- 
 ritual, is not entirely free from the jurisdiction of the 
 State. 
 
 If these conclusions be just, the doctrine of the 
 Church of Scotland, Avith regard to the spiritual juris- 
 diction, is incontrovertible. But let us hear the word 
 of God. It speaks precisely the same language ; it 
 confirms the deductions of reason ; it makes that a 
 solemnly commanded duty, which, without its express 
 authority, might be regarded as optional — a duty to 
 God, a duty to ourselves and our fellow-men, which 
 we cannot oppose or neglect without infringing the 
 great first principle of all religion, and incurring the 
 displeasure of the Almighty. 
 
 We shall, first of all, inquire what is the view which 
 the scriptures give of Christianity and the Church. 
 
 Christianity is represented to us as the last of the 
 religious economies or dispensations of God to man — 
 the clearest and brightest revelation of his will — the 
 divinely-inspired interpretation of Old Testament 
 scriptures — the narrative of events which prophets 
 foretold — the history of a Saviour, whom it was the 
 province of types and ceremonies less clearly to reveal 
 — the unfolding of consolations and hopes necessary 
 to the peace and joy of the guilty sinner — and the 
 authoritative declaration of the path of duty and ac- 
 ceptable obedience. 
 
0« SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION 
 
 Id perfect harmony with this view of Christianity, 
 the church is represented as consisting of those ' who 
 beUeve ' — of the ^ called and faithful ' disciples of 
 Christ — of 'all in every place who call upon the name 
 of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours'* — of 
 those who are separated from the world, and distin- 
 guished from it by their faith and practice, and v^hose 
 duty and privilege it is to profess their faith in Christ, 
 and their adherence to him. The Church is a city set 
 on a hill. Individually and collectively, its members 
 are the lights of the world, and are required to cause 
 their hght so to shine before men, that others, seeing 
 their good works, may glorify their Father who is in 
 heaven. They are 'the salt of the earth' — the 'leaven' 
 which shall leaven the whole lumj) — ' the grain of 
 mustard-seed,' which is to become a great tree — the 
 chosen and sanctified ones, in whom it is the will of 
 God that Christianity should be manifested in its 
 blissful, renovating and purifying influence. The true 
 spiritual church consists of all of every denomination 
 and of every tribe who sincerely believe in Christ, and 
 bring forth the fruits of a living faith, and are recog- 
 nised by the Discerner of hearts as the saints and 
 faithful in Christ Jesus. The church, as recognised 
 by men, consists of all who make profession of their 
 faith in Christ, and are acknowledged as members of 
 the particular section of the church to which they 
 belong. 
 
 So far all intelhgent christians agree with Dr Arnold. 
 * 1 Cor. i. 2. 
 
PROVED FROM SCRIPTCRE. 89 
 
 They do not regard a priesthood as constituting the 
 Church ; for in the ritual and sacrificial sense of that 
 term, they believe with Archbishop Whately, and vrith 
 all sound theologians, the priesthood to be abolished. 
 Even under the Old Testament, the priests and Levites 
 did not constitute the church. The visible church 
 consisted then of all, whether Jews or proselytes, who 
 professed adherence to the institutions and the laws of 
 Moses. In like manner, it consists now of all who 
 profess adherence to the law of Christ. And intelli- 
 gent christians agree with Dr Arnold, also, in the 
 firm expectation of the predicted era when the influ- 
 ence and profession of Christianity shall be universal 
 — when, in all nations, and in men of all ranks and 
 conditions, it shall be felt in its power and exhibited 
 in its efiects — when rulers and subjects shall be one 
 in faith and practice, and pure Christianity shall have 
 the ascendancy over error and wickedness — and when, 
 in the language of the prophet, ^ the Lord shall be 
 King over all the earth,* and there ' shall be one 
 Lord, and his name one.'* 
 
 Meanwhile, and until that blissful era, the condition 
 of the true church is represented as that of a ' little 
 flock' in the midst of wolves — the object of the world's 
 hatred and the world's persecution. Christians are 
 forewarned of these ; they are foretold again and again 
 by our Saviour, that when they should arise, his fol- 
 lowers should not be ' offended ' or made to stumble. 
 •' And now I come to thee,' says Jesus in his inter- 
 
 * Zech. siv. 9. 
 
90 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION 
 
 cessory prayer, 'and these things I speak in the 
 world, that they (his disciples) might have my joy 
 fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word, 
 and the world hath hated them, because they are not 
 of the world, even as I am not of the world.'* ' Ye 
 have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and or- 
 dained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, 
 and that your fruit should remain ; that whatsoever 
 ye shall ask the Father in my name, he may give it 
 you. These things I command you, that ye love one 
 another. If the world hate you, ye know that it hated 
 me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the 
 world would love its own ; but because ye are not of 
 the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, 
 therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word 
 that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his 
 lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also per- 
 secute you ; if they have kept my sayings, they will 
 keep yours also.'f And, that we may know that these 
 and similar annunciations or predictions were not 
 given with reference to the primitive church only, the 
 apostle Paul has declared, in the most comprehensive 
 and unlimited terms, that * all who will (to) live 
 godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution.' J 
 
 Looking, then, to the nature and end of Christianity, 
 and to the militant condition of the church, as thus 
 described in the word of God, it seems to us an ine- 
 vitable inference, that the church cannot acknowledge 
 any other head, as the head of authority, than the 
 
 ♦ John xvii. 13, 14. f John xv. 16-20. t 2 Tim. iii. 12. 
 
PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE. 91 
 
 Lord Jesus Christ, or, to exjDress the same idea in 
 different words, cannot acknoAvledge any rule of faith 
 and duty but that which He has presented to them, 
 and laid upon them in the sacred scriptures. It is 
 the end of Christianity to convert, to console, to purify, 
 and to elevate mankind — to promote the happiness of 
 individuals, of families, of society. The church, in its 
 collective caj^acity, has the same objects in view. 
 Confining itself to these, on what ground, we are well 
 entitled to ask, does the civil power claim the right of 
 interference with its sj^iritual concerns ? The civil 
 and the spiritual provinces are essentially as distinct as 
 if they belonged, as in truth they do, to two different 
 worlds. In the one, God, and conscience as his vice- 
 gerent, are supreme ; in the other, the civil magis- 
 trate, as the minister of God for good, exercises in 
 matters civil his supremacy. The civil and the spi- 
 ritual government ought not, and do not, necessarily 
 or naturally come into collision with one another. 
 Christianity does not obstruct or impede the execution 
 of just and equal enactments. On the contrary, it 
 strengthens the hands of the civil ruler, by enjoining 
 submission as a duty to God in everything not in op- 
 position to the divine will. Ah ! but it breathes the 
 spirit of rational and enhghtened liberty; it frowns on 
 tyrants; it condemns opjoression in every form. A 
 corrupt Christianity is a convenient engine of State; it 
 adds to the majesty of human laws the terrors of 
 superstition. A pure Christianity is dangerous in the 
 eyes of ignorant rulers ; it cannot wdth safety be left 
 
92 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION 
 
 to itself; it must be more or less under the restraints 
 of the civil government. This is the only explanation 
 which can be given of the eagerness which the great 
 ones of the earth have at all times discovered to hold 
 the supremacy in spiritual as in civil affairs. It is, 
 however, no more than the explanation of a fact; it is 
 not the establishment of a right; but it is all which, in 
 the present times, and especially in the recent history 
 of the Church of Scotland, has been offered in justifi- 
 cation of the invasion by the State of our religious 
 liberties. In the seventeenth century, the Stuarts 
 claimed the spiritual supremacy as a part of the divine 
 right of kings ; in the nineteenth, the responsible ad- 
 visers of a limited monarchy have deprived a once 
 free church of its liberties, avowedly on the ground of 
 an unwise and unhallowed expediency. 
 
 The arguments which have been drawn for the ex- 
 clusive spiritual jurisdiction, from the nature and end 
 of Christianity, and the relative condition of the 
 church, receive the most ample confirmation from the 
 descriptions and express declarations of scripture on 
 this subject. 
 
 No person can have read the Bible with any mea- 
 sure of seriousness and attention, without perceiving 
 that, both in the Old Testament and in the New, the 
 ascendancy of true religion is represented to us under 
 the figure or emblem of a kingdom ; or, as Dr Camp- 
 bell has rendered the word (ScKjiXeia — a reign — distinct 
 from the reign or government of the kings and queens 
 of the earth, but of which it is their glory to be 
 
PROVED FROM SCEIPTURF. 93 
 
 'nursing-fathers' and ' nursing- mothers' — a reign or 
 government distinct also from that universal moral 
 government which Jehovah exercises over the nations 
 of the earth — a kingdom in which Messiah rules over 
 those who are peculiarly his own subjects, with supreme 
 and exclusive authority. 
 
 Take, for example, the second Psalm, applied to Christ 
 in the New Testament, and admitted on all hands to 
 be prophetic of his sufferings and triumphant exalta- 
 tion to the right hand of power: 'Why do the heathen 
 rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings 
 of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel 
 together, against the Lord, and against his Anointed, 
 saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast 
 away their cords from us. . . . Yet have I set my 
 King upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the 
 decree : the Lord hath said unto me. Thou art my 
 Son ; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and 
 I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and 
 the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession/ 
 The reign which is here -pvedicted is beyond all ques- 
 tion a spiritual reign — the inheritance of the heathen, 
 and of the uttermost parts of the earth — a spiritual in- 
 heritance. The power and authority to be exercised 
 by Christ is an authority to which the kings and 
 j udges of the earth are exhorted meekly and reverently 
 to submit. 'Be wise now, therefore, ye kings; be 
 instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord 
 with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, 
 lest he be angi}^, and ye perish from the way, when his 
 
94 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION 
 
 wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that 
 put their trust in him.' 
 
 Or, take the seventy- second Psalra, also admitted to 
 be prophetic of the power and coming of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. There also the prevalence of pure and unde- 
 filed religion is represented under the emblem of a 
 kingdom whose king shall reign in righteousness, and 
 shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the 
 river to the ends of the earth. It is predicted of Him 
 — and we know that the prediction shall one day be 
 fulfilled in the universal triumph of Christianity — that 
 ' all kings shall fall down before him — that all nations 
 shall serve him.' And the blessed effects of his reign 
 are described in language apphcable only to a spiritual 
 kingdom — a kingdom of righteousness — in which the 
 greatest earthly monarchs are not rulers or sharers in 
 the government, but subjects : 'He shall deliver the 
 needy when he crieth, the poor also, and him that 
 hath no helj^er. He shall spare the j^oor and needy, 
 and shall save the souls of the needy. He shall re- 
 deem their soul from deceit and violence, and precious 
 shall their blood be in his sight. . . . His name 
 shall endure for ever ; his name shall be continued as 
 long as the sun, and men shall be blessed in him ; all 
 nations shall call him blessed.' 
 
 "We might add to these and similar passages in the 
 prophetic Psalms, the sublime descriptions of 'the 
 power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,' by the 
 evangelical prophet Isaiah, and other Old Testament 
 projDhets, in which the reader will search in vain for a 
 
PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE. 95 
 
 single expression "which, on any fair principle of inter- 
 pretation, can be regarded as affording the least coun- 
 tenance to the interference of the civil with the spi- 
 ritual jurisdiction. But let us turn to the New Testa- 
 ment, and hear its utterances on this important 
 subject. 
 
 We begin with that oft- quoted 2)assage, in which our 
 Lord answers the insidious question of the Pharisees, 
 ' Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not ?'* and 
 we refer to it, just because it has been so often un- 
 answerably adduced as decisive of the question in dis- 
 pute. 
 
 The evangelist Luke informs us that the question 
 was put by the Pharisees or their emissaries, 'that 
 they might take hold of Christ's words, that so they 
 might deliver him unto the power and authority of the 
 governor.' The Komans held the government of 
 Palestine by the right of conquest — certainly no valid 
 title, especially in the eyes of a Galilean and a Jew. 
 The Pharisees wished to draw from our Lord the ex- 
 pression of his opinion on its validity. The deciding 
 of questions of this description was no j^art of the 
 object of his mission. When one came to him and 
 said, ' Master, speak to my brother, that he divide 
 the inheritance with me,' he answered, *Man, who 
 made me a judge or a divider over you ?' By abstain- 
 ing from the expression of opinion regarding the title 
 of the Eoman emperor, he virtually answered the 
 Pharisees, 'Who made me a judge between you and 
 
 * Matt. xsii. 17, etc. ; Mark xii, l-i : Luke xs. 21. 
 
90 SriRITCAL JURISDICTION 
 
 him T at the same time, he announced to them that 
 it was not only lawful, but their bounden duty to pay 
 tribute to him : ' Jesus perceived their wickedness, and 
 said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites ? Show me the 
 tribute-money; and they brought unto him a penny. 
 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and 
 superscription ? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then 
 saith he unto them, Eender therefore unto Csesar the 
 things which are Caesar's.' The coin current among 
 them, with the head and superscription of the Roman 
 emperor, showed that the government of Rome was 
 the existing government, whether its title were valid 
 or not. This being the fact, it was their duty to pay 
 the tribute-money. 
 
 The question which the emissaries of the Pharisees 
 had asked was answered. He needed not to say more 
 in reply. But there w^as another King, to whom, in a 
 higher relation than that of any earthly monarch, 
 they owed an undivided allegiance — a King whose reign 
 over their fathers in former generations was their 
 pride and their glory, and whose reign, they hoped, 
 was about to be restored in the person of the promised 
 Messiah. It was this remembrance, this expectation, 
 which suggested the question to which he had replied. 
 While, therefore, he tells them of their duty to one 
 sovereign, he embraces the opportunity of reminding 
 them of their duty to another: 'Render, therefore, 
 unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto 
 God the things which are God's.' 
 
 The radical and essential distinction between the 
 
CONFESSION OF JESUS BEFORE PILATE. 97 
 
 civil and the spiritual cannot be more clearly and dis- 
 tinctly marked than in these words. There is a king- 
 dom in which Csesar — that is, the earthly sovereign 
 under God, and as the minister of God — has his 
 rights, his power, and his authority, to which it is the 
 duty of his subjects to bow. There is another king- 
 dom in which God has the supreme and the sole 
 authority, to which all men, as his subjects, ought to 
 bow with still deeper reverence. There are duties 
 owing to the former which must not be neglected ; 
 there are duties of a different, but not opposite kind, 
 owing to the latter, which, whether Cfesar wills it or 
 no, we must faithfully perform. To the Jews the day 
 of trial was approaching when Jesus uttered these 
 words — yea, it had already come. The Prince of Life, 
 the King of Zion, was addressing them. It was for 
 them to determine whether they would *kiss the Son,' 
 and believe in him, or say, in the blindness and in- 
 fatuation of their souls, 'We will not have this man to 
 reign over us.' Alas ! they chose the latter side of the 
 alternative: the chief priests answered, in the presence 
 of Pilate, 'We have no king but Csesar.' They cruci- 
 fied their King. 
 
 The connection between the occurrence in our 
 Lord's history, on which we have now been comment- 
 ing, and the false accusation of the Jews when he was 
 brought before Pilate, is interesting and instructive, 
 and directs our attention to a saying of Christ not less 
 clearly declarative of the distinction between the civil 
 and spiritual jurisdictions. 
 
 E 
 
98 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 After the high priests and rulers had condemned 
 Christ before the SaDhedrim, because he had declared 
 that he was the Son of God, they arose and led him 
 bound to Pilate, the governor of Judea, and, regard- 
 less of truth, began to accuse him of stirring up the 
 peojDle against the Eoman government, and particu- 
 larly of * forbidding to give tribute to Csesar, sayiug 
 that he himself is Christ a king.' On hearing this 
 accusation, Pilate asked him whether he were the 
 king of the Jews ; Jesus answered in the affirmative, 
 ' Thou sayest it.' The fulfilment of prophecy, in his 
 appearance at the tribunal of Pilate, proclaimed him 
 to be the promised Messiah, the King of the Jews. 
 But in order that Pilate, as the constituted guardian 
 of the interests of the Roman empire in Judea, might 
 be assured that these were not endangered by the 
 claim which Jesus put forth, Jesus said, ' My king- 
 dom is not of this world.' Pilate repeated the ques- 
 tion, ' Art thou a king, then ?' Again Jesus answered 
 in the affirmative, *Thou sayest that I am a king;' 
 and, in explanation of this and of the assertion, that 
 his kingdom was not of this world, he added, ' To this 
 end was I born, and for this cause came I into the 
 world, that I should bear witness unto the truth ; 
 every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.'* 
 
 Again, therefore, we read of a kingdom — a kingdom 
 of which Christ is the King and Head — a kingdom 
 not proceeding from this world,t nor partaking of the 
 character of the men of this world, but essentially 
 
 * John xviii. 36, 37. t sx, rou xoff/MOV rovrov. 
 
CONFESSION OF JESUS BEFORE PILATE. 99 
 
 distinct from it — a kingdom proceeding, like the New 
 Jerusalem, out of heaven, having for its subjects not 
 the world at large, but those who, having received the 
 love of the truth, to which Christ came to bear wit- 
 ness, hear the voice of Christ, and willingly submit to 
 his authority. Christianity is not presented to us as 
 an appendage of the secular government, a part and 
 parcel of the State, nor as a mere system of theology 
 and code of morals, like the systems of philosophers; 
 but as a spiritual kingdom, having its place in the 
 heart and conscience of men, and manifested in the 
 belief and profession of the truth as it is in Jesus. It 
 is not presented to us as a kingdom, the subjects of 
 which stand isolated from one another, and without 
 any principle or bond of union ; but as a kingdom, the 
 subjects of which, coming to Christ, meet with one 
 another in Him, are together subject to his laws, and 
 enjoy together the unspeakable blessings of his wise 
 and paternal government. 
 
 It is obviously the intention of Christ, in his answer 
 to Pilate, to declare that the regal authority over his 
 church is in his hands, and in his exclusively, because 
 his church, or kingdom, is not of this world. 'I am a 
 king; I avow that I am a king; I claim this as my 
 exclusive prerogative. If you ask, on what ground ? 
 I answer, on grounds which ought to cause no alarm 
 to the Koman emperor. My kingdom — my church — 
 is not of this world.' If it were otherwise — if the 
 church of Christ were a thing of this world's creation 
 — if it were the product of the boasted wisdom of 
 
100 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 philosophers, or of the might and power and pohcy of 
 the kings of the earth, there would he a show of reason 
 in their holding it under their sway. Bat these do 
 not create — they cannot create this spiritual common- 
 wealth; they have no power to persuade a single 
 human being to hear, that is, to obey the voice of 
 Christ ; they cannot make, or put into its place, one 
 stone of the spiritual temple; they cannot gather one 
 lost sheep into the fold of the heavenly Shepherd. 
 All is of God. Christ, and Christ alone, builds the 
 temple of the Lord. Therefore, ' he shall bear the 
 glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne. . . . 
 a priest upon his throne.'* The house is 'his own 
 house ;'t the family consists of his own children. 
 Who shall dare to dispute his right — his exclusive 
 right — over them ? 
 
 Has Christ used this right ? has he exercised his 
 regal authority ? He has revealed his will to man- 
 kind ; and that revelation comes to us in the form of 
 a command to believe and obey. But has he, in addi- 
 tion to this, recognised his church as a collective body, 
 and given any instructions or commandments for the 
 regulation of its affairs ? If he had not, w^e should 
 have no small difficulty in understanding on what 
 ground he calls his church a kingdom — a flock — a 
 family. Let us inquire. 
 
 During the public ministry of our Lord, no churches 
 were organised of those who believed in Christ and 
 follow-ed him. Till his work was finished by his death, 
 
 * Zech. vi. 12, 13. f Heb. iii. 6. 
 
COMMISSION TO THE ELEVEN. iOl 
 
 the church was that of the Old Testament dispensa- 
 tion ; its worship and ordinances were those of the 
 law of Moses ; the preaching of John Baptist and 
 of Christ was the preaching of repentance, because 
 ' the kingdom of heaven was at hand! But after his 
 resurrection, and a short time before his ascension to 
 the right hand of God, Christ addressed the eleven 
 apostles in these memorable words : ' All power is 
 given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye there- 
 fore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; 
 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
 commanded you : and, lo, I am with you alway, even 
 unto the end of the world. Amen.'* The kingdom 
 of God had come. 
 
 The principal part of the commission thus given to 
 the apostles undoubtedly has reference to preaching 
 and making disciples ;t for there must be converts ere 
 there can be churches. Notwithstanding, even here 
 we have the plain indications of the will of Christ 
 respecting the social and governmental state of his 
 church. We have, first of all, the assertion of his 
 mediatorial supremacy — the universal and unhmited 
 power belonging to him in heaven and on earth — 
 then the authority given by him to the apostles, and 
 to his ministering servants 'unto the end of the 
 world,' to baptise those whom they should be the 
 means of converting — not certainly without receiving 
 from them a solemn profession of their faith ; and, 
 
 * Matt, xxviii. 18-20. f nocgy^si/rgg oyy /xat^^jreiKTarf. 
 
102 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 last of all, there is the injunction to teach them to 
 observe or keep all things which he had commanded 
 them, including, doubtless, in these comprehensive 
 words, the doctrines which he had taught, the ordi- 
 nances and moral precepts which he had delivered, 
 and the discipline which he had prescribed — to which 
 we shall afterwards refer more particularly. 
 
 There is a majesty and sublimity in the matter and 
 language of this commission which cannot fail to strike 
 the attentive reader, and which, we think, ought to 
 lead almost irresistibly to the contemplation of Christ 
 as the supreme and exclusive ruler of the church 
 which he was about to establish on the earth. We 
 see the risen Lord and Kedeemer of his people 
 attended by his faithful disciples, the fishermen of 
 Galilee. He looks on an unbelieving world — on the 
 Jews — ' his own' — who had a little while before des- 
 pised, rejected, and crucified him — on the Gentiles 
 sunk universally in the lowest depths of idolatry and 
 pollution — on the opposition which his serv^ants w^ere 
 certainly to experience from Jews and Gentiles, from 
 the kings and rulers of the earth, and from the 
 prince of darkness — on a contest in which the wea- 
 pons to be employed were the weak and foolish things 
 of the world:' and — with the majesty of one to whom 
 not men only, but angels and principalities and powers 
 are subject — he says, 'Go, teach all nations, baptising 
 them . . . teaching them to observe all things what- 
 soever I have commanded you.' The contest cannot be 
 doubtful ; the work is his own — his own in every age. 
 
ATTEMPT TO EVADE THE ARGUMENT. 103 
 
 even to the end of the world. Is there anything in 
 these words giving to the church of Christ the shghtest 
 tinge or colouring of secularity — anything to warrant 
 the notion to which many cling so fondly, that the 
 spiritual warfare ought to he under the guidance 
 and control of the rulers of this world ? On the con- 
 trary, do we not hear in these words the signal which 
 the Caj^tain of Salvation gives to his faithful followers 
 to buckle on their armour, and join battle with en^or 
 and wickedness everywhere, and in every age, until 
 truth and righteousness shall have the ascendancy in 
 the earth ? 
 
 It has been gravely objected to the claims of Scot- 
 tish Presbytery, that, admitting, as all professing 
 christians do in terms, the headship or spiritual 
 supremacy of Jesus Christ, we can produce no evidence 
 that the ministers and elders of our church are in- 
 vested with the right of administering its spiritual 
 affairs. The Pope, we are told tauntingly, claims this 
 as his prerogative; and the Church of Rome acquiesces 
 in the claim. He acknowledges Christ to be the Head 
 of his church ; he calls himself his vicar upon earth ; 
 he professes to act by his authority. 
 
 This is worse than trifling. There is not, we need 
 hardly say, the most distant analogy between the 
 Pope's claim of infallibility and his demanding uni- 
 versal submission to his decrees, and the claim of the 
 ministers of a Protestant church fulfilling, with con- 
 currence of the people under their pastoral care, the 
 charge committed to them by their divine Master 
 
104 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 before his ascension into heaven. We ^\ill not be 
 tempted by the objectors to enter on the discussion of 
 the claims of Presbytery as opposed to Episcopacy or 
 Congregationahsm ; nor do we think it necessary to 
 guard ourselves against being supposed to hold the 
 presumptuous and untenable dogma of the apostolical 
 succession. But this we affirm, that when Christ said 
 to the eleven, ' Go teach all nations,' etc., he ad- 
 dressed the apostles as the representatives of his faith- 
 ful ministers in every age, and in that capacity invested 
 them with the oflfice of teaching men 'always unto the 
 end of the world' whatsoever he had commanded them. 
 The duty of instructing, of baptising, and of teaching 
 men to keep the commandments of Christ, is laid on 
 his faithful ministers in words so express and so in- 
 telligible, that the hardiest critic dare not put upon 
 them any other interpretation. 
 
 We address these j^ages to those who believe in the 
 inspiration of the canonical scriptures, and regard the 
 writings of the apostles as expressing the mind of 
 Christ no less authoritatively than if their words pro- 
 ceeded from his own lips. When we look into these, 
 we find that they contain the most ample confirmation 
 of the distinguishing principle of the Church of Scot- 
 land. In the fourth chapter of the epistle to the Ephe- 
 sians, the apostle Paul, after representing the church 
 as 'one body,' having 'one Lord, one faith, one bap- 
 tism, one God and Father of all,' refers to the spiritual 
 gifts bestowed on the church by its risen and ascended 
 Saviour and bead. Quoting the sixty-eighth psalm, pro- 
 
PROOF fro:m EPn. iv. 12. 105 
 
 phetic of bis ascension, the apostle says, ' When he as- 
 cended up on high he led captivity captive, and gave gifts 
 unto men.' And the gifts -^iiich Paul mentions are not, 
 with the exception of the inspiration of ' apostles' and 
 'prophets,' the supernatural and miraculous gifts which 
 are elsewhere enumerated, but gifts (v. 12) 'for the 
 perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for 
 the edifying of the body of Christ,' in other words, gifts 
 necessary to the church's existence, and the church's 
 prosperity in every age — ' apostles, . . prophets, . . 
 evangelists, . . pastors and teachers.' Christ, the ' one 
 Lord,' the alone king and head of his church, 'gave 
 these gifts unto men.* It was his right — his sole pre- 
 rogative to give them : it was from him apostles, pro- 
 phets, pastors, and teachers received their authority, 
 and on them only was that power and authority con- 
 ferred. The commission which Christ, before his as- 
 cension, gave to his apostles, the representatives of his 
 ministers in every succeeding age, he gave after his 
 ascension to pastors and teachers, their fellow-labourers 
 and followers in Uhe work of the ministry — for the 
 edifying of the body of Christ.' On them, as on the 
 eleven apostles, was laid the honourable and arduous 
 duty of teaching men to observe the commandments 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Is there any man so wedded to his opinions as to 
 resist the inference obviously deducible from this pas- 
 sage ? Christ continues to sit at the right hand of 
 God. His church continues, and shall continue till 
 the end of time. From generation to generation men 
 
106 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 need to be instructed in the oracles of God, and to be 
 taught the ordinances and commandments of Christ. 
 At all times, therefore, there must be fishers of men — 
 there must be pastors and teachers to gather the lost 
 sheep into the flock of Christ. We ask. Has Christ 
 ceased to act as the head of his church ? Are pastors 
 and teachers less his gift now than were uninspired 
 pastors and teachers in the primitive age ? Is their 
 authority less ? Is their province in any respect 
 abridged ? Does not everything fall within that pro- 
 vince which concerns the edifying of the body of Christ ? 
 The inference from the words of the apostle seems to 
 us irresistible, namely, that the christian ministry is in 
 every age the gift of Christ to his church — that the 
 administration of the spiritual affairs of the church is 
 committed to them and the other officers of the church 
 — and that, in so far as they speak and act agreeably 
 to the mind of Christ, they are to be reverenced and 
 obeyed as speaking in his name, and by his authority. 
 In conformity with the will of Christ, thus clearly 
 expressed, we find the apostle Paul enjoining the 
 Hebrews to ' obey them who had the rule over them, 
 and to submit themselves;'* and the Thessalonians, to 
 ' know them who were over them in the Lord, and ad- 
 monished them; and to esteem them very highly in love 
 for th eir work's sake.'t Wefind him reproving the church 
 at Corinth for neglecting to maintain a wholesome dis- 
 cipline ; in other epistles giving particular injunctions 
 regarding the government of the church, all proceed- 
 
 * Ileb. xiii. 17. t 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. 
 
APOSTOLICAL EXHORTATIONS. 107 
 
 ing on the supposition that it is in the hand of the 
 church itself, and its constituted office-bearers. With 
 a view to its continuance, we find him charging Ti- 
 mothy to commit the things which he had heard among 
 many witnesses to faithful men, who should be able 
 to teach others also,* and Titus to ordain presbyters, 
 bishops, (spiritual overseers,) in every city: these being 
 manifestly understood to be clothed with the same 
 authority as the inspired ministers who preceded 
 them. We find him commanding every soul to be sub- 
 ject to the higher powers; because rulers are not a 
 terror to good works, but to the evil;t and the apostle 
 Peter in the same spirit, teaching men to 'submit 
 themselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord s 
 sake, whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto 
 governors, as uoto them that are sent by him for the 
 punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them 
 that do well.'J: But nowhere do we find either Christ 
 or his apostles enjoining submission to civil rulers 
 in matters spiritual. Many warnings are given of the 
 opposition which his faithful followers might expect to 
 receive from them ; many exhortations to bear a true 
 and undaunted testimony to Him, when they should 
 be accused before them. But no one passage can be 
 found investing the civil ruler with authority over his 
 church, or enjoining submission on the part of chris- 
 tians, when he presumes to exercise such authority. 
 Peter himself was one of the first under the New Tes- 
 tament to exemplify the grand maxim of the true ser- 
 
 * 2 Tim. ii. 2. t Rom. xiii. 1,3. j 1 Pet. ii. 13, U. 
 
108 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 vants of God in every age — 'We must obey God rather 
 than men.' 
 
 We do not think that the Duke of Argyll can say 
 with justice, or will say, that the quotations which 
 have been made are 'irrelevant.' Not only have 
 they no exclusive reference to the age of the 
 apostles, but they are either general declarations 
 applicable to the state of the church in every age, or 
 they have reference to times posterior to the apostles. 
 They do not refer to supernatural gifts — to the exer- 
 cise of judicial acts under the unerring guidance of the 
 Holy Sj^irit, or to anything whatsoever peculiar to the 
 primitive age of the church — but they establish the 
 following most important conclusions: First, that 
 there is an inherent and essential distinction between 
 the civil and spiritual jurisdictions. Second, that the 
 Lord Jesus Christ is the king and head of his church, 
 and that the church must be governed by his word. 
 Third, that the ofl&ce-bearers of the church, with con- 
 currence of the other members thereof, have been con- 
 stituted and appointed by Christ to administer the 
 spiritual affairs of his kingdom; and that, in so far as 
 they act agreeably to his will, they ought to be rever- 
 enced and obeyed. 
 
 On the passages which have been quoted we are 
 willing to rest the whole of our argument in favour of 
 the exclusive spiritual jurisdiction. We can afford to 
 give up to our opponents not only the formulEe in which 
 our principles have been declared, but other passages 
 of scripture which some regard as of more ' pri- 
 
PROOF FROM MATT. XVI. 13-19. 109 
 
 vate interpretation.' These, however, are of consider- 
 able ^yeight, and ought not to he altogether overlooked 
 in a vindication of the Church of Scotland. 
 
 The perversion by the Church ofEome of our Lord's 
 words to Peter (Matt. xvi. 13-19), and the charge 
 brought against the Free Church, of claiming a spiri- 
 tual authority similar to that of the Papal Antichrist, 
 shall not deter us from quoting them in proof of the 
 exclusive spiritual jurisdiction. 
 
 Let us first of all inquire what these words mean, 
 and then whether the power with which the apostle 
 was invested was confined to himself, o^ was conferred 
 on him and the other apostles, and the ministers and 
 other rulers of the church in every age. 
 
 The instruction of his disciples in the design of his 
 coming, and the nature and government of his king- 
 dom, was evidently one of the chief objects of Christ's 
 ministry, and of his associating his apostles with him 
 in the work in which he was engaged. That there 
 might be no misapprehension on these subjects, in the 
 minds of those who were afterwards to be witnesses to 
 the world of his miracles and doctrine, he took occasion, 
 some time before his crucifixion, to ask them: 'Whom 
 do men say that I, the Son of Man, am ? And they 
 said. Some say that thou art John the Baptist ; some 
 Elias ; and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 
 He saith unto them. But whom say ye that I am ? 
 And Simon Peter answered and said. Thou art the 
 Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered 
 and said unto him. Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; 
 
110 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but 
 my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto 
 thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will 
 build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind 
 on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever 
 thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' 
 
 No intelligent christian needs to be informed what 
 Christ means by building his church. He certainly 
 does not mean the erection of a great spiritual power 
 or government on the earth in the hands of the apostle 
 Peter, or any other man or body of men ; but the 
 gathering together of all true believers in one body in 
 Christ, ' to whom coming,' as Peter himself has ex- 
 pressed it, ' as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed 
 of men, but chosen of God and precious, they also, as 
 living stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy 
 priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to 
 God by Jesus Christ.'* And the church thus defined 
 does not consist only of believers in Judeaand in hea- 
 then countries in the apostohc age, but of all true 
 believers to the end of the world. The building of the 
 spiritual temple is not complete till the cojoe- stone be 
 laid upon it with shoutings of ' Grace, Grace' unto it — 
 till the last of God's chosen ones be brought to Christ, 
 and have his place as a living stone in that spiritual 
 house of which Christ is at once the corner-stone and 
 the head. 
 
 * 1 Peter ii. 4, 5. 
 
PROOF FROM MATT. XVI. 12, ETC. Ill 
 
 But who or what is the 'rock' on which Christ, ad- 
 dressing Peter, declared that He would build his 
 church ? 
 
 When Paul says of believers in the church at Ephe- 
 sus, * Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and 
 foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of 
 the household of God; and are built ujDon the founda- 
 tion of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself 
 being the chief corner-stone,'* it cannot be doubted 
 that his meaning is that they were built on the doc- 
 trine of the apostles and prophets — that they had 
 become stones in the living temple, and were 'builded 
 together for a habitation of God through the Spirit,' 
 in consequence of their reception and belief of the 
 truth proclaimed by Christ and his apostles after him. 
 If this be admitted, no candid person will refuse to put 
 a similar interpretation on our Lord's prediction to 
 Peter, whether we consider the words 'this rock' as 
 applicable to him personally as one of the twelve, or to 
 the gospel preached by him. It was in his character 
 as an apostle Christ addressed him. It is in this cha- 
 racter alone that the church is, in any sense of the 
 words, built on him. Apart from his miracles and 
 doctrine, Peter had no influence, no j)Ower, no autho- 
 rity. These constituted him not the founder or builder, 
 for that honourable title Christ claims for himself in 
 the words on which we are commenting, but the foun- 
 dation, or a chief part of the foundation of the church 
 of Christ. And the reason why he is mentioned singly, 
 * EpL. ii. 19, 20. 
 
112 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 and without the addition of the other apostles, is either, 
 that, having declared what was the belief of all the 
 apostles as well as his own, he is addressed as repre- 
 senting the twelve: or that he had shown by his con- 
 fession of the Messiahship and divinity of our Lord, 
 that he had profited more than they by the instructions 
 of his divine Master, and had obtained from the Father 
 a clearer revelation of the truth concerning him. Peter 
 was signally honoured on the day of Pentecost, and 
 during the whole of his apostleship, as the instrument 
 of adding to the church of those who should be saved; 
 in other w^ords, as one of those on whose doctrine 
 Christ has built his church. But he was not alone in 
 the enjoyment of this distinguished j^rivilege. It was 
 largely shared by the other apostles, and by none more 
 than by him who says of himself that he was 'as one 
 born out of due time,' but, notwithstanding, was ' in 
 nothing behind the very chiefest apostles, though he 
 was nothing.' 
 
 The spiritual house being built — the church being 
 gathered into one by the instrumentality of Christ's 
 ministers — it was his will, as head over his own house, 
 that its government should be committed to them. 
 To the prediction, therefore, that on Peter he should 
 build his church, he adds the promise or declaration, 
 * And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of 
 heaven,' etc. 
 
 In ancient times the key was the badge or symbol 
 of authority. The possession, therefore, of the keys 
 of the kingdom of heaven signifies the possession of 
 
PROOF FROM MATT. XVI. 12^ ETC. 113 
 
 the jDOwer of ruling in that kingdom, which, in 
 contrast with the kingdoms of the earth, is called 
 so frequently in scripture * the kingdom of hea- 
 ven." Still addressing Peter, our Lord announces 
 to him that this power should be given to him — 
 that this charge should be committed to him — so 
 that whatsoever he bound on earth should be bound 
 in heaven, and whatsoever he loosed on earth should 
 be loosed in heaven. The charge thus given stands in 
 inseparable connection with the announcement that on 
 him he would build his church. If, therefore, we have 
 interpreted that announcement correctly as including 
 in it the other apostles, we are equally well founded in 
 explaining the promise as applicable to them also. 
 This is demonstrated by fact. History is the best, and 
 in most instances the only sure interpreter of prophecy. 
 There is no evidence from history that Peter, at any 
 period, took into his own hands the government of the 
 church, or laid claim to any superiority over his bre- 
 thren ; but the contrary. The kingdom of God was 
 ruled — a government was exercised over the primitive 
 church, not by Peter alone, or by any one of its 
 ministers, but by teaching and ruling presbyters in its 
 different sections, and by the apostles, elders, and 
 brethren at Jerusalem, for the whole church. It was 
 from the latter that the decrees went forth which the 
 churches in other countries were required to keep. To 
 these were committed, without objection or remon- 
 strance on the part of Peter and the other apostles — we 
 ought rather to say with their full concurrence — the 
 
114 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven; and thus did they 
 obey the command and fulfil the duty which their 
 divine Master had committed to them. 
 
 We submit, therefore, that the words of Christ to 
 Peter prove incontestably : first, that it was his will 
 that, besides the preaching of the gospel, there should 
 be a spiritual government in the primitive church ; and 
 secondly^ that this government should be in the hands 
 of the apostles and other ministers of the church, with 
 concurrence of the brethren. The question still re- 
 mains : Did this commission extend beyond that re- 
 markable period ? Did it reach to times when inspira- 
 tion has ceased, and the judgments of men are no 
 longer infallible? Without hesitation, we answer both 
 these questions in the aflSrmative. 
 
 It must, we think, be admitted as a general principle 
 or rule of interpretation, that every declaration of our 
 Lord and of the inspired writers, which cannot be proved 
 to be applicable only to the church at one particular 
 period — whether it was in general terms, or addressed 
 in the first instance to particular churches or indivi- 
 duals — is applicable to the church in every age. For 
 example, the command, ' Go into all the world, and 
 preach the gospel to every creature,' was addressed in 
 the first instance to the apostles, and to them only ; 
 but no one thinks of confining it to them. Why? 
 Because there is nothing in the command indicating 
 its ai3phcation to that period only. On the contrary, 
 it is evidently imj^lied in the command that it is obli- 
 gatory on the church till the end of the world. 
 
PROOF FROM MATT. XVI. 12, ETC. 115 
 
 On the same principle, we hold that there is nothing 
 in the words of our Lord to Peter Hmiting their appli- 
 cation. On the contrary, the building of the church 
 is not the work of one age more than of another; nor 
 is the government of the church peculiar to the times 
 of the apostles. Peter was not the only person who 
 was to preach the gospel, and on whom the church 
 was to be built ; he was not the only person to whom 
 ' the keys of the kingdom of heaven' were to be com- 
 mitted. There was nothing in either of these duties 
 peculiar to the primitive age. The declaration of our 
 Lord must therefore be considered as applicable to all 
 ages, and the duty of governing the church is laid by 
 authority of Christ, not on his apostles only, but on 
 those who, in later times, even to the end of the world, 
 should be the teachers and spiritual overseers of the 
 people of God. 
 
 The consequence of admitting an opposite principle 
 of interpretation must at once be obvious. Let it be 
 conceded that commands given, or duties committed 
 to the apostles,, were limited to them only, when no 
 such limitation is indicated by the nature of the com- 
 mand, or by our Lord himself; and there are ordin- 
 ances and moral precepts recorded in scripture, the 
 obhgation of which has ceased with the life and minis- 
 try of the aj^ostles. We have referred to the preaching 
 of the gospel and baptism. We might in like manner 
 refer to the Lord's Supper. Let us suppose that Paul 
 had not 'received of the Lord' the facts which he com- 
 municated to the church at Corinth relative to the in- 
 
116 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 stitution of the Lord's Supper, and bad not added, 
 ' For as often as ye do eat this bread and drink this 
 cup, ye do show the Lord's death till be come;'* and 
 on the principle against which we are contending, it 
 might be argued that the observance of the Lord's 
 Supper was peculiar to the primitive age, and is not 
 binding on christians in the present day. It is impos- 
 sible to say how far this princijjle of interpretation 
 might be extended, or how many of the most sacred 
 and revered commandments of Christ might by means 
 of it be expunged from the word of God. 
 
 It is not necessary, however, to fortify our argument 
 for the application of the passage which we have now 
 been considering, by indicating the consequences of 
 adopting an opposite principle of interpretation. An- 
 other passage from the same evangelist may be regarded 
 as setting that question at rest. In the eighteenth 
 chapter of Matthew, at the fifteenth verse, our Lord 
 supposes the case of one christian trespassing against 
 another, and gives express instructions regarding the 
 way by which the person offended should aim at a re- 
 conciliation. He commands him to seek this first 
 by private conference between himself and his offending 
 brother. If that should fail, he is enjoined to take 
 w^iLh him ^one or two more, that in the mouth of two 
 or three witnesses every word may be established.' 
 Our Lord adds, in the seventeenth verse, * And if he 
 shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church ; 
 but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto 
 
 * 1 Cor. xi. 2G. 
 
PROOF FROM MATT. XVIII. 15, ETC. 117 
 
 thee as a heathen man and a pubhcan.' Then follow 
 the words employed by our Lord in describing the 
 actual government of his church, when, on the occa- 
 sion formerly alluded to, he gave to Peter the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven, the symbol or emblem of the 
 spiritual government, 'Verily I say unto you. Whatso- 
 ever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, 
 and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed 
 in heaven.' 
 
 On this passage we hoNQjirst of all to remark that 
 the words which on the former occasion were addressed 
 to Peter singly are here addressed to all the apostles, 
 whence the inference seems to be unavoidable, that the 
 authority with which he was invested was conferred 
 equally upon them all, and that in the first instance he 
 was addressed as re^^resenting them all, or, to speak 
 more correctly, as representing the spiritual rulers of 
 the church to the end of the world. 'Whatsoever ye 
 shall bind,' etc. ; ' Where two or three are gathered 
 together in my name, there am I in the midst of theni.' 
 
 In the next place, our Lord speaks of ' the church' — 
 the church which was about to be 'built ujDon the 
 apostles and prophets,' against which he had declared 
 the gates of hell should not prevail. He speaks of it 
 as a governing church, a church having the power of 
 judging between contending brethren. But, at the 
 time when Jesus spoke, it had no existence as such. 
 He speaks therefore of a future church — a church of 
 which the apostles were the representatives, and of 
 which they, and not they only, were to be the first 
 
118 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 spiritual rulers; and to it he gives ide very same 
 power which he had previously given to his fer^^ent 
 and zealous apostle in the same words, ' Whatsoever ye 
 shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and 
 whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in 
 heaven.' On what ground can any man affirm that the 
 power thus conferred in such general terms upon 'the 
 church/ extended no farther than the apostles, or the 
 church of the times in which they lived ? Who shall 
 dare to assert that the care of the Chief Shepherd for 
 his flock reached only to the eleven, and their imme- 
 diate followers in the faith and obedience of Jesus 
 Christ ? 
 
 The exercise of the power thus conferred is described 
 by the words 'bind' and 'loose/ which, it is well 
 known, were employed in the days of our Saviour to 
 signify authoritative disapprobation and approbation — 
 punishment, and liberation from punishment. Aj)plied 
 to spiritual government, they signify the actual exer- 
 cise of that authority of which 'the keys' were in figura- 
 tive language the recognised badge or emblem, in the 
 infliction of sj)iritual censures, and releasing from these 
 on the acknowledgment of sin, and the profession of 
 repentance. The ratification of these acts is promised 
 in the emphatic language of our Lord, 'Whatsoever ye 
 shall bind on earth shall he hound in heaven; and 
 whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed m 
 heaven! Spiritual rulers have their authority from 
 heaven — from the Son of Man who is in heaven. 
 Therefore, acting in obedience to his will, and execut- 
 
PROOF FROM MATT. XVIII. 15, ETC. 1 19 
 
 ing his commands, their decrees are ratified in heaven. 
 Whether they consist in the infliction of censures, or 
 in releasing from them, they have the sanction of his 
 authority, and are to be reverenced accordingly. 
 
 Let no one say. These are high and extravagant 
 pretensions. If disci]3line and government be part of 
 the ordinance of Christ no less than the preaching of 
 the word, and we are reasoning with those who admit 
 this to be the fact, is it too much to affirm that he who 
 has promised to give his blessing to the latter will give 
 it to the former also — that he who said to his disciples, 
 when he commanded them to preach the gospel, ' Lo 
 I am with you alway,' will, in the government of his 
 church, ratify in heaven the execution of his own laws ? 
 The man who despises the minister of Christ in the 
 preaching of the gospel, is declared to be a despiser of 
 Christ, and of him who sent him ; must not similar 
 condemnation rest on those who set at nought the 
 authority of the spiritual rulers carrying into execution 
 the laws of Christ's kingdom ? The apostles, to whom 
 this authority was first committed, were endued with 
 miraculous gifts, eminently qualifying them for the 
 right and infallible government of the church. For 
 the spiritual rulers of later times to lay claim to such 
 gifts were nothing short of fanaticism. They have 
 erred; and they ever will be liable to err. But as the 
 Lord Jesus bound and loosed in heaven what his in- 
 spired servants bound and loosed on earth — not because 
 of their inspiration, but because the commands which 
 they executed were his commands — in like manner he 
 
120 srmiTUAL jurisdiction. 
 
 now ratifies in heaven what the spiritual rulers do in 
 execution of his w^ill. It is the duty of all, and more 
 especially the christian people willingly under their 
 charge, to tr}^ their every act of government by ^the 
 law and the testimony;* and if they submit to their 
 rule, to submit to it only because it is agreeable to that 
 unerring standard. It is when * two or three are ga- 
 thered together in Christ's name,' that he is ' in the 
 midst of them.' It is when spiritual rulers bear in 
 mind their responsibility to Christ, as the alone king 
 and head of the church — when they act as his servants, 
 not as 'lords over God's heritage' — and when, con- 
 scious of their liability to err, they look to his word for 
 direction, and implore the guidance of his good Spirit — 
 it is then, and then only, that he will ratify in heaven 
 what is done agreeably to his mind and will upon 
 earth. 
 
 Considerable light is thrown on the passage of which 
 we have now given an exposition by John xx. 23. 
 
 On the evening of the day of our Lord's resurrec- 
 tion he appeared to the eleven, and, addressing them 
 with the well-known salutation, 'Peace be unto you,' 
 he renewed the commission which he had previously 
 given to them, saying, 'As my Father hath sent me, 
 even so send I you. And when he had said this, he 
 breathed on them, and saith unto them. Receive ye the 
 Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are re- 
 mitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, 
 they are retained.' 
 
 It can scarcely be doubted that the power thus com- 
 
ILLUSTRATED BY JOHN XX. 23. 121 
 
 mitted to the eleven was in substance the same -with 
 that to which our Lord referred when he gave them 
 authority to hind and loose. What that power was we 
 have already explained. It was the power of approving 
 and condemning — of admitting to and excluding from 
 the privileges of the church. More than this was not 
 communicated — could not he communicated in the 
 words addressed to the apostles on the day of the re- 
 surrection. Assuredly it was not the intention of our 
 Lord to grant to them the power of remitting and re- 
 taining sins at their own pleasure. The supposition 
 is monstrous. Nay, it is not even the power of grant- 
 ing forgiveness to those whom, on good grounds, they 
 might regard as truly penitent. There was no such 
 delegation of authority to these eminent servants 
 of Christ. When Jesus addressed the man sick of the 
 palsy, and said, ' Son, thy sins be forgiven thee,' the 
 Jews remarked with truth, 'Who can forgive sins, but 
 God only ? ' All the power which the apostles could 
 receive was the power to declare those sins to be re- 
 mitted which their divine Master had remitted, and 
 those sins to be retained which he had retained. The 
 ' discerning of spirits' was one of the gifts bestowed 
 upon them, and they might know supernaturally and 
 with certainty who were, and who were not true believers 
 in Christ, so that the judgment pronounced by them 
 was true and infallible. Still it was nothing more 
 than the declaration of the judgment of Him who 
 alone has the power of remitting and retaining the 
 
 sins of men. 
 
 p 
 
122 SPIRITUAL JUKISDICTIOX. 
 
 We appeal to the candid reader, whether the exer- 
 cise of disciphne hy a spiritual court now amounts to 
 anything less or more than this — whether, for example, 
 admission to privileges, and exclusion from them, be 
 not virtually a declaration that the sins of the one class 
 are remitted, and the sins of the other retained. On 
 the supposition that the members of the court have 
 sincerely and earnestly endeavoured to ascertain the 
 mind of Christ with reference to both — that they have 
 made his word their rule, and looking up for the divine 
 direction, have put on it a sound and true interpreta- 
 tion, and pronounced a righteous judgment, they have 
 done precisely what the apostles were authorised and 
 enabled to do — they have declared the will of Christ. 
 Let us suppose, on the other hand, that their judg- 
 ment, in both cases, has been eiToneous, and that they 
 have not expressed the mind of their divine Master ; 
 for no man, and no body of men, is infallible. On 
 that supposition, no benefit is received in the one case 
 — the privilege conferred is nominal and external, not 
 real. In the other, exclusion from external privileges 
 does not imply exclusion from the true church and 
 body of Christ. Spiritual rulers have no power but to 
 declare what they conscientiously believe to be the will 
 of Christ, and to maintain order and discipline in his 
 church. Acting otherwise than ministerially, pre- 
 suming to infallibility, arrogating to themselves the 
 power of forgiving sins, or of withholding forgive- 
 ness, and as ' lords over God's heritage,' attempting 
 by the terrors of spiritual fulminations to coerce men's 
 
SUM OF THE AKGUMENT. 123 
 
 consciences, they are more guilty of offending against 
 the supreme authority of the alone King and Head 
 of his church than Henry VIII. of England, or 
 any one of the sovereigns who, since the Reformation, 
 has swayed the sceptre of these realms. As it 
 is the duty of a private christian, in striving after 
 holiness, to be guided implicitly and exclusively 
 by the will of God revealed in the scriptures, so 
 the perfection of the spiritual government consists 
 in seeking to know the laws and ordinances of 
 Christ, and faithfully and tenderly carrying them 
 into execution. 
 
 On these grounds, we think ourselves warranted in 
 affirming, that the power given to the eleven on the 
 day of Christ's resurrection extends to his faithful ser- 
 vants, in the government of the church, in every age ; 
 and that the language of Knox, quoted in a former 
 chapter, is not extravagant or presumptuous, especially 
 when we keep in view the ground on which he rested 
 his claim, and that of the other ministers and rulers of 
 the church, namely, their preaching and believing the 
 doctrine of Christ's word : — ' Ye may perchance con- 
 temn and despise the excommunication of the Kirk 
 (now by God's mighty power erected among us) as a 
 thing of no force : but yet doubt we nothing but that 
 our Kirk, and the true ministers of the same, have the 
 same power which our Master, Christ Jesus, granted 
 to his ajDOstles in these words, "Whose sins ye shall 
 forgive, shall be forgiven ; and whose sins ye retain, 
 shall be retained ;" and that because they preach and 
 
124 SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION. 
 
 ^ve believe the same doctrine which is contained in his 
 most blessed word.' 
 
 We assert this with the greater confidence that the 
 miraculous or extraordinary influences of the Holy 
 Ghost do not appear to have been granted tothediscij)les 
 till the day of Pentecost, when Christ fulfilled the pro- 
 mise made to them immediately before his ascension : 
 'And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you : 
 but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued 
 with power from on high.'* ' Ye shall receive power, 
 after the Holy Ghost is come upon you.' t Before his 
 ascension the Holy Spirit was given to the apostles, 
 as to all true believers, to guide them into all truth. 
 He ' opened their understandings to understand the 
 scriptures:' he corrected their erroneous conceptions 
 regarding the character and work of Messiah, and the 
 nature and end of his kingdom — imparted to them a 
 more enlightened faith, and more just apprehensions 
 of the path of duty ; and, in the knowledge and experi- 
 ence of vital religion, gave them the essential qualifica- 
 tions for the ministry of the word and the government 
 of the church. More than this the apostles do not 
 appear to have received till the day of Pentecost. 
 When, therefore, on the evening of the resurrection- 
 day he breathed on them and said, ' Keceive ye the 
 Holy Ghost,' are we not warranted to conclude that in 
 these words, and the significant action with which he 
 accompanied them, he renewed the commission which 
 
 * Luke sxiv. 49. f Acts i. 8. 
 
SL'M OF THE ARGUMENT. 125 
 
 he had formerly given, and encouraged them, and his 
 faithful servants in every generation, in the discharge 
 of their arduous duties, by the promise and gift of the 
 Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in 
 the knowledge aud application of his word ? 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE DOCTr.INE OF CDRIST S EEAE-SHIP NOT A MERE QUESTION 
 OF CHUKCH GOVERNMENT — IT IS OF NO SECONDARY IM- 
 PORTANCE EVEN TO PRIVATE CHRISTIANS THERE IS NO 
 
 PORTION OF THE REVEALED WILL OF GOD UNIMPORTANT — 
 THE DOCTRINE IN QUESTION IS NO HIDDEN MYSTERY — THE 
 SPIHITUAL JURISDICTION PRINCIPLE IS FUNDAMENTAL — 
 CHRISTIANITY OBTAINED AN ASCENDANCY IN THE WORLD 
 UNDER THE SHADE OF THIS PRINCIPLE. 
 
 In the immediately preceding chapter, there has been 
 presented to the reader a brief and concise statement 
 of the doctrine of the Church of Scotland, from the 
 Reformation downwards, on the subject of what the 
 authoi', following some of the fathers of his church, 
 has called ' the exclusive spiritual j urisdiction.' It 
 has been his endeavour to show that, from the very- 
 nature of the thing, the state has no right or title to 
 intermeddle with the opinions and i:>rofessions of men 
 in matters spiritual, except in the way of encouraging 
 the preaching and dissemination of the truth — that 
 men are responsible to God, and to God only, for their 
 religious belief; so that the distinguishing principle 
 of the Church of Scotland is, in substance, the great 
 principle of toleration. He has selected from the Old 
 and New Testaments a variety of j^assages in which 
 
CITRTSTS nE.VDSUIP, ETC. 127 
 
 the church, or ' kingdom of God,' is represented as a 
 spiritual kingdom, truly and essentially distinct from 
 the kingdoms of the earth, in which the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, as its alone King and Head, has consigned to 
 his ministering servants the important and responsihle 
 duty of ruling in his name, and according to his laws; 
 and in which apostles, evangelists, and others, acting 
 ministerially, consulted and determined for the glory 
 of God and the good of his church, in the face of almost 
 unceasing opposition from the princes of this v/orld. 
 ' My kingdom,' said Christ, ' is not of this world.' 
 He is, indeed, ' the Prince of the kings of the earth,' 
 — all human beings are under his control ; but ' the 
 kingdom of heaven' is emphatically his kingdom. It 
 is his as distinguished from the princijoalities and 
 powers of a present world ; it is his, because he claims 
 the prerogative of ruhng in it by his servants and his 
 laws, to the entire exclusion of the kings and judges 
 of the eartli. He is not only ' Head over all things 
 to the church,' having the whole world under his com- 
 mand ; but he ' is the head of the body, the church.'* 
 ' As the husband is the head of the wife, even so 
 Christ is the head of the churcli — the clmrch is sub- 
 ject unto Christ.' t 
 
 There is a very common delusion — a delusion not 
 confined to irreligious men, or to those who do not 
 apply their minds to the subject-matter of religion, 
 but existing, we fear, in the minds of many real chris- 
 
 * Col. i. 18. t Eph. V. 23, 24. 
 
128 CHKIST^S HEiJ)SHIP 
 
 tians — that the doctrine of the headship, or exclusive 
 spiritual jurisdiction, is nothing more than a question 
 of church government — a question not affecting vital, 
 practical Christianity — with which, therefore, private 
 christians have no concern. ' If,' say they, ' we believe 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ, and have the liberty of pro- 
 fessing our faith in him, what does it concern us, if 
 the administration of spiritual affairs be partly in the 
 hands of the church, and partly in those of the civil 
 magistrate ? ' The dispute is about the possession of 
 the power of ruling ; with which, so long at least as 
 we are in the enjoyment of religious liberty, we do not 
 need to perplex ourselves.' In answer to this apology 
 for refusing to listen to argument' on this subject, we 
 would present, to. candid and christian minds, the fol- 
 lowing considerations :— ■ . 
 
 1. There is no portion of the revealed will of God 
 unimportant to the followers of Christ, whether they 
 be ministers of the gOspel, and rulers of the church, 
 or private christians: * All scripture is given by in- 
 spiration of God, and is profitable.' One part of it is 
 not intended for the learned, and another for the un- 
 learned — one for the professed theologian, another for 
 the humble, illiterate disciple. It has its 'milk for 
 babes,' and its * strong meat' for 'men of full age.' 
 There are ' the first principles of the oracles of God,'- 
 and there is the ' perfection ' of christian knowledge, 
 and faith, and obedience ; but surely it is not the will 
 of Christ that any should content themselves with the 
 infancy of the spiritual life, when, growing in know- 
 
IS OF NO SECONDARY IMPORTANCE. 129 
 
 ledge, it is in their power, through grace, to attain to 
 the 'fulness of the stature of perfect men in Christ 
 Jesus.' The scripture has its doctrine for convincing 
 and converting sinners, and for building them up in 
 holiness and comfort— which it.is the primary duty of 
 every hearer of the gospel to believe and apply ; but 
 it tells us also of a spiritual government to be exercised 
 by the church in the name, of Christ, in which some 
 have been ajjpointed to rule, and. others to obey. The 
 submission of every true christian to this divine ordi- 
 nance ought to be an enlightened and willing submis- 
 sion. If it be his. duty to be able to ' give to every 
 man that asketh him a reason of the hope which is in 
 him,' it is also his duty to be able to give a reason for 
 his submission to the discipline and government of 
 the church. 
 
 2. These remarks, famihar, we doubt not, to the 
 hearers of the gospel, are peculiarly applicable to the 
 subject before us. The doctrine for which we contend 
 is no mysterious doctrine, hidden deep in the treasury 
 of divine wisdom and knowledge, and requiring for its 
 comprehension the utmost effort of a vigorous and 
 highly cultivated . mind. It is a doctrine which any 
 one, with a capacity a . little elevated above that of 
 childhood, can comprehend.- It is simply this, that, in 
 matters spiritual, we must ' render to God the things 
 that are God's'— that, as in these, we are responsible to 
 him, and. to him only, we must acknowledge no 
 authority but his — that Christ has declared it to be his 
 will that in the administration of the affairs of his 
 
130 Christ's iiEADSinr 
 
 church his servaDts should act in his name ; and that, 
 unless it can be proved that they are abusing their 
 power in the gospel, they are entitled to the enlightened, 
 reverential obedience of the flock of Christ. 'He that 
 hearetb you, heareth me,' said our Lord to his disci- 
 ples. 'He that despiseth you, despiseth rae; and he 
 that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.'* 
 
 Whether this be the doctrine of scripture or no, 
 every one must admit that it is plain and intelligible ; 
 there is nothing mysterious in it. And, if it be the 
 doctrine of scripture, as we confidently believe, and 
 have endeavoured to prove, there is nothing fanatical, 
 nothing contrary to good taste in such phrases as 
 ' the Headship of Christ,' ' the crown-rights of the 
 E-edeemer,' etc. A spiritual government by Christ, 
 ' the King and Head of his church,' ' in the hands of 
 church- officers, distinct from the civil magistrate,' is 
 an ordinance of God. The man who refuses to ac- 
 knowledge this divine ordinance, or who presumes to 
 disturb and subvert it, by acquiescing in the inter- 
 ference of the secular with the spiritual power, *re- 
 sisteth the ordinance of God,' does what in him lies to 
 transfer the rights of his spiritual King to another, 
 and to put his crown on the head of the civil magis- 
 trate. He is chargeable with spiritual disloyalty and 
 rebellion, and cannot be held guiltless in the judgment 
 of him who has solemnly declared, that he will not 
 ' give his glory to another,' and that ' before all the 
 people he will be glorified.' 
 
 * Luke X. 16. 
 
IS FUNDAMENTAL. 131 
 
 3. The spiritual jurisdiction principle is funda- 
 mental. The question is not -with regard to forms of 
 worship and gOYernment^ concerning which there is 
 more room for argument and diversity of opinion : it 
 respects the authority which Christ possesses, and has 
 an undoubted right to exercise in the administration 
 of the affairs of his church. It is a first principle in 
 Christianity, which cannot be yielded without manifest 
 danger and injury to faith and morals. When we 
 speak of Christ as the alone King and Head of his 
 church, administering its affairs by spiritual rulers or 
 office-bearers, we do not represent them as receiving 
 for this purpose, by immediate revelation, the know- 
 ledge of his will, but as acting in obedience to his will 
 revealed to them in his word. In this point of view, 
 the principle for which we contend is the grand pro- 
 testant principle of the supreme authority of the scrip- 
 tures in its apphcation to the spiritual government. 
 Let it be yielded to our opponents in this branch of 
 christian obedience, and who can tell where the en- 
 croachment shall terminate ? Let it be admitted that 
 rulers, whether temporal or spiritual, may and ought 
 to legislate and administer of their own proper mind 
 in matters of religion — that the laws and ordinances of 
 men may be put in the place of the laws and ordinances 
 of Christ, and enforced by merely human authority, 
 and what security should we have for purity of faith 
 and manners in ministers and private christians ? The 
 supreme authority of the scriptures is, on such an ad- 
 mission, virtually abjured ; and the interests of truth 
 
132 Christ's headship. 
 
 and christian order are exposed to the pernicious in- 
 fluence of the imaginations of men. 
 
 The assertion of the supremacy of Christ is just 
 another form of asserting the great principle of the 
 Eeformation — the supreme authority of the scriptures 
 in matters of rehgion. No sober-minded, intelhgent 
 christian man, when he speaks of Christ's Headship, 
 pretends to receive direct revelation, in any form, from 
 his divine Master — he means nothing more than that 
 it is his duty, and the duty of all men, to submit un- 
 reservedly and implicitly to Christ speaking to them 
 in the scriptures, and to repudiate every kind and 
 degree of interference with his authority as there de- 
 clared. When, therefore, we assert Christ's supremacy, 
 we do nothing more than assert the supreme authority 
 of the scriptures. On the other hand, we virtually 
 abjure this great principle when we consent to the 
 interference, and submit, in matters spiritual, to the 
 commands of the civil magistrate. If we consent to 
 his interference in any one point coming within the 
 province of the spiritual jurisdiction, we virtually con- 
 sent to it in all. . Our faith, our worshij), our ^disci- 
 pline, is at the mercy of a fellow-creature. The bible 
 is set aside : Christ is set aside, and a fallible human 
 being is set up in his room. 
 
 It cannot be said with justice, in answer to this, 
 that men do submit to fellow- creatures when they ac 
 knowledge the authority of spiritual rulers ; for sub- 
 jection to their authority is a voluntary subjection-— 
 voluntarily given and continued to them, because they 
 
ASCENDANCY OF THIS PRINCirLE. 133 
 
 are the ministers of Christ, and subsisting no longer, 
 if such be the will of the individual, than while they 
 act consistently with their character and profession. 
 On the contrary, if we consent to the interference of 
 the civil ruler in matters spiritual, if avowedly or 
 tacitly we admit this vicious principle, we must needs 
 be subject, however contrary his laws and decrees may 
 be to the word of God and our own convictions. By 
 our own act we withdraw our allegiance from our 
 rightful sovereign, and transfer it to another, perhaps 
 an open enemy, or, what is worse, a deceitful friend ; 
 we give up, not the rights of Christ only, but his very 
 cause and kingdom in the world, into other hands. 
 
 4. It is well known to all who have the slightest 
 acquaintance with the history of the church, that Chris- 
 tianity obtained an ascendancy in the world under the 
 shade of the principle for which we are now contend- 
 ing, and that no sooner was it overruled and practically 
 abjured than Christianity began to decline, and to be 
 overspread, and at length supplanted, by the abomi- 
 nations of the Roman apostacy. 
 
 Every reader of the scripture knows that the gospel 
 was preached at Jerusalem in direct opposition to the 
 priests and rulers of the Jews, and that it was when 
 the watchword of the followers of Christ, in succeeding 
 ages — ' We ought to obey God rather than men ' — 
 was first adopted, that the apostles had filled Jerusalem 
 with their doctrine. Prosecuting their godlike under- 
 taking in the sarae spirit and by the light and guidance 
 of the same great principle, Paul and the other apostles 
 
134 chkist's headship. 
 
 carried their conquests into the midst of the Eoman 
 empire, braving persecution and death ; and whilst 
 they inculcated subjection to civil authority, even in 
 its most despotic form, they never forgot that they were 
 also the subjects of a spiritual kingdom, and that in 
 that kingdom they owed no allegiance but to Christ 
 their only Lord. 
 
 GLASGOW: 
 
 PBIKTED BT S. AND T. DUNK, 
 
 PEINCE'S SQUARE. 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 \L\ir'k \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f