II.
THE principle of the National Recognition of Religion, as we have seen, maintains that the Church and State are two equal independent powers, each supreme in its own distinct province, neither having any authoritative control over the other. The Civil Magistrate, according to this view, is bound in the exercise of proper authority to aim at the promotion of Religion and the welfare of the Church, but though this obligation brings the Church within the scope of the State’s care, it does not bring it within the sphere of its jurisdiction. One may hold this view consistently and yet be opposed to Churches established and recognised by the State, such as an Erastian establishment like the Church of England. In 1875, Dr Kennedy, writing as spokesman of the anti-voluntary section of the Free Church, thus sets forth their attitude to the Church of Scotland as established by law:—”I speak for myself, and for not a few besides, when I say that it is an unpleasant position to stand between an Established Church, of which we cannot become members, attached to the Establishment Principle though we be, and the leaders of our own Church, who would drag us to a Voluntaryism which we hate. For let it be distinctly understood, that if we cannot now join the Establishment as to this, at any rate, we are resolved, we will not be Voluntaries.” In his pamphlet—”The Distinctive Principles and Present Position and Duty of the Free Church,” from which the foregoing quotation is taken, Dr Kennedy enumerates and explains his reason for not joining the Church of Scotland—reasons that have not diminished but increased both in number and point of objection since 1875.
The Free Presbyterian Church has unequivocably stated its position in regard to the principle of the National Recognition of Religion in the Deed of Separation (1893). The following quotations, with the opening words of the Deed, will show that this principle is part of the constitution of our Church:—”And further, considering that the Establishment Principle—that is, the national recognition and encouragement of Religion and the Church of Christ by the State as such—is part of the Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland as settled in 1843, and since repeatedly affirmed in Acts and Proceedings of her General Assemblies, and that the maintenance of said Principle is binding and obligatory on all Ministers and Office-bearers of said Church.” Further, in giving reasons for separation from the pre-Union Free Church and the formation of the Free Presbyterian Church, it is stated in the Deed of Separation—(1) “That the present subsisting Church now calling herself the Free Church of Scotland, through majorities of her Commissioners in General Assembly met, has, in violation of one of the fundamental principles embodied in the Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland, of late years repeatedly passed resolutions having for their object the separation of Church and State and the abandonment of the distinctive testimony of the Free Church of Scotland in favour of a national recognition, and that without any declaration in favour of any Scheme for the reconstruction of a National Church on the basis claimed by the Church of Scotland in 1842. . . . (5) That the majority of the Ministers and Elders who for the present rule and guide the said present subsisting Church calling herself the Free Church of Scotland have, in the instances above set forth, abandoned one of the most vital principles of the Free Church of Scotland; have practically embraced Voluntaryism . . . whereby they have ceased to represent the Church of Scotland as settled in 1843.”
The Westminster position is set forth in the Confession in the following section:—”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 be according to the mind of God” (Chap. xxiii. section 3). The last clause of the section asserting the magistrate’s right to call synods is limited by the Act of Assembly, 1647, to kirks not constituted and settled. The whole section has been charged as pure Erastianism, and was appealed to in connection with the State’s interference in the Disruption struggle. That charge has, abundantly and satisfactorily, been answered by Dr William Cunningham in his “Remarks on the Twenty-third Chapter of the Confession of Faith as bearing on Existing Controversies,” and reprinted in his “Discussions on Church Principles” (Chapter viii.). The section was also attacked by the Voluntaries, who maintained that it gave the Civil Magistrate power to exercise authority or jurisdiction in religious matters and over the concerns of the Church. Dr Cunningham points out, however, that defenders of the Establishment Principle held that there was a plain distinction between the object of the magistrate’s care and the sphere or subject of his jurisdiction; for while he was bound to aim at the well-being of the Church, he had no jurisdiction or right of authoritative interference in religious matters. During the Union Controversy in the Free Church this section again came to the front. The Union leaders threw out the challenge that the section did not teach the establishment of religion by the State. Dr Moody-Stuart took up the challenge, and in a masterly speech, which was afterwards reprinted as a pamphlet under the title, “Is Establishment of Religion Outside of the Confession?” (1868. New Edition, 1900), he showed that the word “settled” used in the section meant “fixed by legal sanctions,” according to the phraseology of formal State and Church documents of the Westminster period.
Going back to Reformation period, we find the Scottish Confession of 1560 declaring:—”To kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates, we affirm that chiefly and most principally, the reformation and purgation of religion appertains, so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but also for the maintenance of the true religion, and suppression of idolatory and superstition whatsoever, as in David, Jehosophat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others highly commended for their zeal in that cause, may be espied.” The Church of Scotland was not established until 1567, but when some called this in question, John Knox delivered himself thus:—”I hear some say that we have nothing of our religion established, neither by law nor Parliament. The speaker, for treason committed against God and this poor Commonwealth, deserves the gallows.” His worthy successor, Andrew Melville, in his famous utterance that came forth in burning words when, to use his nephew’s words, he “brak af upon the King in so zealous, powerful, and unresistable a manner,” that though King James used his authority to silence him, “yit Mr Andro bore him down, and uttered the commission as from the mighty God,” taking the King by the sleeve, and through “mikle hot reasoning and many interruptions,” delivered himself thus:—”Sir, we will humbly reverence your Majesty always, namely, in public, but since we have this occasion to be with your Majesty in private, and the truth is, you are brought in extreme danger both of your life and crown, and with you the country and Kirk of Christ is like to wreck, for not telling you the truth, and giving you faithful counsel, we must discharge our duty therein, or else be traitors both to Christ and you. And therefore, Sir, as divers times before, so now again, I must tell you, there are two Kings and two Kingdoms in Scotland. There is Christ Jesus the King, and His Kingdom the Kirk, whose subject King James the Sixth is, and of whose kingdom not a king, nor a lord, nor a head but a member. And they whom Christ has called and commanded to watch over His Kirk, and govern His spiritual kingdom, has sufficient power of Him, and authority so to do both together and severally, the which no Christian King or Prince should control and discharge, but fortify and assist otherwise [they are] not faithful subjects nor members of Christ. And, Sir, when you were in your swaddling clothes, Christ Jesus reigned freely in this land, in spite of all His enemies, and His officers and ministers convened and assembled for the ruling and weal of His Kirk, which was ever for your welfare, defence, and preservation, also when the same enemies were seeking your destruction and cutting of. . . . And will you now, when there is more than extreme necessity of the continuance and faithful discharge of duty, drawn to your own destruction by a devilish and most pernicious counsel, begin to hinder and dishearten Christ’s servants, and your best and most faithful subjects, quarrelling with them for their convening and care that they have of their duty to Christ and you, when you should rather commend and countenance them, as the godly kings and good emperors did.” It is not every King who was privileged to listen to such plain speaking, and to have set before him in such sententious sentences, the relationships of the two Kingdoms and the duty of the Civil Magistrate to the cause of Christ.