By the REV. D. BEATON (now retired at Evelix, Dornoch).
* This paper was read by Rev. Donald Beaton before the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church at Glasgow in May, 1943.—Editor.
It has pleased God in His holy providence to allow divisions and controversies to take place in the Church in connection with some of the most important doctrines of the faith when these through neglect or accretions which impaired their purity, and displaced them in the circle of truth or threw them out of balance. It was so during the great Christological controversies in the 4th century when Arianism made a bold bid to capture the citadel of the faith but signally failed. Again, in the Pelagian controversy in the Western Church a bid was made which if successful would have undermined the precious doctrines of grace. In the former, Athanasius, and, in the latter, Augustine, were raised up in the providence of God to set forth with clearness the great doctrines which passed through the fierce fires of controversy. Again, in the eleventh century when the doctrine of Christ’s satisfaction was buried under a load of fantastic theories Anselm was raised up to defend the scriptural doctrine in his “Cur Deus Homo”? In the 16th century when the great doctrine of justification by faith was well-nigh smothered under the lifeless legalism of the Church of Rome God raised up Luther who by one blast from the trumpet of truth, shook the great system of superstition and imposture to its very foundations. It was, also, during this century the doctrine of the Headship of Christ came to the front and which, since then, has had to meet the embattled battalions of Hildebrandianism and Erastianism. The Hildebrandian or papal view of the headship of the Pope over the Church was rejected by the Reformers and the true doctrine of Christ’s Headship was asserted by Luther in Germany, Zwingle in Switzerland, and by the divines of Holland and Scotland. The doctrine is set forth in Calvin’s famous dedication in his “Institutes” in which he maintains Christ’s absolute sovereignty from sea to sea for the good of His Church. The doctrine is also set forth in the Scotch Confession (1560) and in the Second Helvetic and French Confessions. During the Puritan Controversy the great Presbyterian-Puritan leader, Thomas Cartwright, stated the doctrine with clearness and effect. Perhaps, in no country, however, was the doctrine so clearly enunciated and contended for as in Scotland. It was the battle-cry at the First and Second Reforms and at the time of the Disruption, and though not much is heard of it to-day, yet it was a doctrine for which men were willing to die and to give up their earthly all in its defence. The Crown Rights of Jesus Christ was a rallying cry to band together the best of Scotland’s sons and daughters in days of sore adversity and bitter controversy.
In none of the Reformation symbols has the doctrine of the Headship of Christ been so fully set forth as in the “Westminster Confession” and the “Form of Church Government.” The statements in the Confession will receive attention later on. Meantime the statement in the “Form of Church Government” of which it has been said: “A grander declaration of the supreme kingship of our Lord, both in heaven and on earth, eternal in origin, glorious in administration and everlasting in results, can hardly be found elsewhere in religious literature,” demands a few passing words. The statement in which the Headship of Christ is so nobly set forth forms the introduction to the “Form of Church Government” is as follows:—”Jesus Christ, upon whose shoulder the government is, whose name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace; of the increase of whose government and peace there shall be no end; who sits upon the throne of David, and upon his Kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and justice, from henceforth, even for ever; having all power given to Him in heaven and on earth by the Father, who raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand, far above all principalities and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all: He being ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things, received gifts for His Church and gave officers necessary for the edification of His Church, and perfecting of His saints.” The very scripturalness of it, made up as it is of some of the grandest texts of Scripture, gives it a noble dignity higher than the words of men.
The Erastian Coleman waged a strenuous battle against the doctrine in the foregoing statement, but he was no match for the subtle reasoning of Samuel Rutherford and the learning and keen-edged logic of young George Gillespie—they were a noble pair in debate and carried the honours of the day. It may now be asked what is really implied in the Headship of Christ? Generally speaking we mean by His Headship His sovereignty in His own Church, but there is more implied in the doctrine of the Headship than that. There is a Headship over the nations which is His by native right as the Son of the Ancient of Days. Then there is His Headship as Mediator over His own Church, and again there is the Headship delegated to Him by the Father when He received all power in heaven and in earth, and when He was made head over all things to the Church. Let us consider these more minutely:
1. The Headship which was His as “God” over all creatures, including the Civil Magistrate or ruling authority.
This was not a delegated authority but was His in virtue of the fact that He was God, the eternal Son of the Ancient of Days—of this authority He is never to divest Himself. This aspect of the Headship was brought prominently to the front in the controversy with the Erastians in the Westminster Assembly. It was this controversy which called forth George Gillespie’s “Aaron’s Rod Blossoming,” one of the greatest works, if not the greatest, in our Scottish polemical theology. Perhaps no one ever set forth so clearly the difference between Christ’s Headship as “God” over the nations and His Headship over His Church as “Mediator.” This distinction is of supreme importance in deciding the relation of the Civil Magistrate to the Church. Does he receive his authority from Christ as He is God or does he receive it from Christ as He is Mediator? It is from Christ as God is Gillespie’s answer, and by a series of propositions he establishes his contention in a convincing way.
The Civil Magistrate’s authority does not extend to the Church though certain duties are incumbent upon him in relation to the Church. This view so ably advocated by Gillespie and our other Scottish writers strikes a shattering blow at the very foundations of Erastianism. To put the matter in Gillespie’s own words: “So that though He that is Mediator, being the Eternal Son of God, is equal with the Father, yet as ‘Mediator’ He is not equal with the Father, but subordinate to the Father which the divines prove from these Scriptures: ‘My Father is greater than I’ (John xiv. 28); ‘The head of Christ is God’ (I Cor. xi. 3); ‘Thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness’ (Ps. xiv. 7). But we cannot say that Christ was anointed to that kingdom which He hath as the Eternal Son.” This kingdom is never to be given up.
2. The Headship which is Christ’s as “Mediator” in virtue of which He rules supreme in His own Church and from whom all its officers receive their authority.
It is this Headship that is generally referred to in the controversies which disturbed the peace of the Scottish Church. In connection with it Andrew Melville’s picturesque and pointed and pithy speech to King James may be recalled as he took him by the sleeve, calling him God’s silly (weak) vassal, and addressed him as follows in language, as Dr. McCrie says, “perhaps the most singular, in point of freedom, that ever saluted royal ears, or that ever proceeded from the mouth of a loyal subject, who would have spilt the last drop of his blood in defence of the person and honour of his prince:—”Sir, we will always humbly reverence your majesty in public; but since we have this occasion to be with your majesty in private, and since you are brought in extreme danger both of your life and crown, and along with you the country and Church of God are like to go to wreck, for not telling the truth and giving you faithful counsel, we must discharge our duty, or else be traitors to both Christ and you. Therefore, sir, as diverse times before I have told you, so now again I must tell you, there are two Kings and two kingdoms in Scotland: there is King James, the head of this commonwealth, and there is Christ Jesus, the King of the Church, whose subject James the Sixth is, and of whose kingdom he is not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member. Sir, those whom Christ has called and commanded to watch over His Church, have power and authority from Him to govern His spiritual Kingdom both jointly and severally; the which no Christian king or prince should control and discharge but fortify and assist; otherwise they are not faithful subjects of Christ and members of His Church. We will yield to you your place, and give you all due obedience; but, again, I say, you are not the head of the Church: you cannot give us that eternal life which we seek for, even in this world, and you cannot deprive us of it. Permit us then freely to meet in the name of Christ, and to attend to the interests of that Church of which you are the chief member. Sir, when you were in your swaddling clothes, Christ Jesus reigned freely in this land in spite of all His enemies: His officers and ministers convened and assembled for the ruling and welfare of His Church, which was ever for your welfare, defence, and preservation, when these same enemies were seeking your destruction and cutting off.”
“During the delivery of this confounding speech,” says Dr. McCrie, “his majesty’s passion subsided,” and one may be permitted to remark—was it any wonder? When the King recovered his composure he remarked that he did not know of the return of the Popish lords, and he promised that he would show them no favour until they satisfied the Church. There were giants in the land in those days, men who did not fear the face of man whether they were kings or princes. During the Second Reformation the Crown Rights of Jesus became the battle cry of the Covenanters—a truth not only to be asserted but sufficiently important in their estimation for men, women, boys and girls to die for. Theirs was a battle right nobly fought and right royally won under the favouring providence of Him on whose behalf they waged this battle to the death. Later on, the same doctrine came to the front in the Ten Years’ Struggle which ended in the Disruption. One has only to read the literature of that tremendous upheaval in the ecclesiastical life of Scotland which shook dead Moderatism to its very foundations to realise this. This mediatorial kingdom, like the Kingdom He has as God, is to be His for ever and ever.
3. There is in addition the Headship to which the Lord Jesus was exalted after His resurrection, when all power (exousia, authority) was given to Him in heaven and in earth.
He was made Head over all things for His body the Church. This authority was delegated to Him as Mediator, but the Civil Magistrate did not receive his authority from Him as such, but from Him as God, as we have seen. By this authority delegated to Him as Mediator, the Redeemer was to reign supreme over all constituted authority—over devils and men until He would fulfil His purposes in the ingathering of His people, and when the “Last” Enemy—death—would be destroyed then He is to deliver up this kingdom to God, even the Father, when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power (I Cor. xv. 24). Before proceeding further we may be permitted to give a quotation from a master theologian and recognised orthodox interpreter of a number of the New Testament books. This is how Dr. Hodge sums up what we have been endeavouring to say: “In what sense, then, can He be said to deliver up His kingdom? It must be remembered, that the Scriptures speak of a three-fold kingdom as belonging to Christ. (1) That which necessarily belongs to Him as a divine person, extending over all creatures, and of which He can never divest Himself. (2) That which belongs to Him as the incarnate Son of God, extending over His own people. This also is everlasting. He will forever remain the head and sovereign of the redeemed. (3) That dominion to which He was exalted after His resurrection, when all power in heaven and in earth was committed to His hands. This kingdom which He exercises as the “Theanthropos” (God-man) which extends over all principalities and powers, He is to deliver up when the work of redemption is accomplished. He was invested with this dominion in His mediatorial character for the purpose of carrying on His work to its consummation. When that is done, that is, when He has subdued all His enemies, then He will no longer reign over the Universe as Mediator but only as God; while His Headship over His people is to continue for ever.”
This interpretation of a difficult passage is the view taken by George Gillespie in “Aaron’s Rod Blossoming,” and it throws a flood of light on the greatness of the Saviour’s reward when He laid down His life for the Church which He purchased with His own blood.
In connection with the doctrine stated in the foregoing pages a few questions arise demanding consideration, such as the place of the Civil Magistrate in relation to the Church. If his authority is not derived from Christ as Mediator but from Christ as God then is he free to ignore the Church of Christ altogether? In asking these questions we are immediately confronted with the controversies so keenly engaged in at the time of the Westminster Assembly and at the Disruption, in which the Civil Magistrate’s relation was debated as to whether his authority was in sacris (in sacred things) or circa sacra (about sacred things). There are statements in the Confession which have been laid hold of by some quite unacquainted with the strong anti-Erastianism of the Confession as teaching the very doctrine which was anathema to the Divines. In Chap. xxiii, sec. 3, we read: “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 blasphemies 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 effecting whereof he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them to be according to the mind of God.” Again in Chap. xxxi, sec. 2, we have the following: “As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, 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.”
The power assigned to the magistrates in the section from Chapter xxiii refers to moral support and encouragement to ecclesiastical officers in their carrying out discipline and the administration of doctrine. The section rightly understood does not teach persecuting principles as the Free Church Act of 1846 indicates. The whole subject in these sections has been discussed with great ability and insight by Dr. Cunningham in his “Discussions on Church Principles,” pp. 196-210, 211-234, and by Dr. Bannerman in his “Church of Christ,” i, 178-185. In their interpretation of Chapter xxiii, sec. 3, the technical meaning of “take order” is explained. It was a common phrase, it seems, in the controversial theology of the times of the Westminster Assembly. Our time will not allow us to present their arguments at greater length, but anyone who wishes to pursue the subject further may do so with advantage by studying the above pages in the books referred to. How anyone, reading the statements of the Confession on the Civil Magistrate in Chapters 25, 30 and 31, could assert that Chap. xxiii, taught Erastianism is inexplicable unless he boldly but ignorantly asserts that the Divines glaringly contradicted their own teaching. Yet in the pre-Disruption debates this section was relied on in defence of the decisions of the Judges in the law courts. The leaders of the Evangelicals led by some of the finest debaters in the country were quick enough to see and ready to point out to the Moderates that the section dealt with the Civil Magistrates, the ruling authority, and that the law lords did not come under that category. The clause in Chapter xxiii, sec. 3, quoted above, is to be read in the light of the Act of Assembly passed in 1647, when the Confession was received by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland as referring to churches not yet settled.
Another principle closely related to Christ’s Headship and the Civil Magistrate’s duty to the Church is that of National Religion, or as it is sometimes called the Establishment Principle. In an excellent pamphlet by the late Dr. Moody Stuart entitled “Is the Establishment Principle Outside the Confession?” he proves conclusively that it is taught in the Confession. We cannot do more at the present time than refer to this subject as it would introduce us into the realm of the controversy waged around this principle and Voluntaryism. Those who hold this principle are careful to point out that they regard the State and Church as separate powers, and that those two powers are not to interfere with the authority that belongs to each in their co-ordinate spheres, but they are to be helpful to each other. The Voluntary view is that the Church does not desire any recognition from the State in matters of religion.
The doctrine of the Headship of Christ is in direct antagonism—(1) to Hildebrandianism, and (2) Erastianism.
1. Hildebrandianism.
This is the Romish view so named after Hildebrand, Pope Gregory VII, one of the most aggressive of the Popes. According to this view the Church is supreme over the State and the Pope is the Head of the Church acting as Christ’s vicegerent. The Reformers delivered a blow against this view when they were delivered from the thralldom of Rome.
2. Erastianism.
This view teaches that the State is supreme over the Church. It had very able defenders in the Westminster Assembly—Coleman, Selden, Lightfoot, etc., and it occasioned some of the greatest debates in the Assembly. But, as stated already, the Erastians, able debaters and learned scholars though they were, were no match for Samuel Rutherford and George Gillespie, two of the Scotch Commissioners to the Assembly. Erastianism is an incubus on any of the Protestant Churches where its sway is acknowledged as in the Church of England.
As a result of the pre-Disruption struggle the great doctrine of Christ’s Headship is embedded in the Free Church’s important documents—Claim, Declaration and Protest (1842), and the Protest of 1843. These documents are accepted by the Free Presbyterian Church and every office-bearer (deacons, elders, ministers) and probationer professes belief in the doctrine of Christ’s Headship and expresses approval of the general principles embodied in the foregoing documents.
The doctrine we have been discussing is not one of merely academic interest nor simply a subject for discussion among theologians, it is one of vital interest to the whole Church of Christ. It was so in Scotland in days gone by. Our fathers fought for it, bled and died for it. They gave up their earthly possessions and their prospects in life that it might be handed down unimpaired to generations yet unborn, and shall we fail to do the same because it has not the prominence in our day that it had in theirs? We never know when this doctrine will again become a living issue, and may we who wish well to Sion and who would desire to honour Sion’s King seek to have an intelligent grasp of this great doctrine and be able to give a reason for the hope that is in us.