By REV. JOHN COLQUHOUN, Glendale.
VII.—THE NATIONAL RECOGNITION OF RELIGION.
The Establishment Principle in the Church of Scotland is not the same as the Establishment Principle of the Church of England for the former is a Scriptural Establishment while the latter is purely Erastian. In the Church of England there is no parity of the clergy. There are two Archbishops, one in Canterbury and the other in York, appointed by the Prime Minister for the time being. Along with these there are many bishops, archdeacons, and rural deans. In managing the affairs of the Church the various provinces have each a council or convocation, consisting of bishops, archdeacons, and deans. These councils are called by the Archbishop in pursuance of the Sovereign’s mandate, and must have the Sovereign’s license before they can deliberate, and the sanction of the Crown is necessary before the resolutions are binding on the clergy. This was the Erastianism which the protagonists of Episcopacy endeavoured to bring into Scotland, and against which the Church of Scotland fought for generations, and triumphed at last, although before doing so, many of her true and noble sons and daughters suffered indescribable tortures and privations, and death in various ways, the remembrance of which recalls the inhuman barbarity of their persecutors.
The first General Assembly of the Church of Scotland met in the Magdalen Chapel, Cowgate, Edinburgh, in December, 1560, when six ministers and thirty-four elders met and constituted themselves the Supreme Court of the Reformed Church of Scotland. Previous to this the First Scottish Confession of Faith was read before Parliament, and with only three dissentient voices, was sanctioned by Parliament in so far as that was competent for them to do. After this John Knox and five others received a charge from the Privy Council to prepare a Form of Church Government. The result of this was the drawing up of the First Book of Discipline, setting forth the Presbyterian form of Church Government, which has ever since been a characteristic feature of the Church of Scotland. The contents of this Book were not derived from Geneva or France, as is often asserted, but from the New Testament. The first General Assembly had adjourned to meet in January, 1561, and, before that meeting, the First Book of Discipline had been presented to the Scottish Parliament at the end of 1560, and the Act of Secret Council approving it was signed on 17th January, 1561.
In view of the proposal to introduce bishops into the present Presbyterian Church of Scotland, as published in May, and to be debated in the General Assembly of that Church, Mr. Colquhoun’s articles are timely, and the former ones should be re-read by readers.—Editor.
In the First Confession of Faith we find the duty of the civil magistrate clearly stated in Chapter xxiv. : “Moreover, to kings, princes, and rulers, and magistrates, we affirm that chiefly and most principally the reformation and purgation of the religion appertains; so that not only are they appointed for civil policy, but also for maintenance of the true religion, and for suppression of idolatry and superstition whatsoever, as in David, Jehosaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others, highly commended for their zeal in that case, may be perceived.” To the same effect is the First Book of Discipline where under the Head of Ecclesiastical Discipline we find a line of demarcation drawn between those offences which are punished by the civil magistrate and those punishable by the Church. It may be difficult for us to see clearly why some offences should be punished by the civil law and others punished by the Church, but the fact that the line of demarcation has at all been drawn reveals that our forefathers believed that the civil magistrate had his own province in religious matters and the Church her province, and that neither may invade the province of the other. This was the view of John Knox when he said, in answer to Maitland of Lethington, “If the liberty of the Church should stand upon the Queen’s allowance or dis-allowance, we are assured not only to lack Assemblies, but also to lack the public preaching of the Gospel. . . . Well, time will try the truth; but to my former words, this will I add, take from us the freedom of Assemblies, and take from us the Gospel; for without Assemblies how shall good order and unity in doctrine be kept?” Knox’s History, II. p. 296. To the same purpose we read in the Second Book of Discipline, chap. x., sect. 4, that the place of the civil magistrate is “to assist and maintain the discipline of the kirk; and punish them civilly, that will not obey the censure of the same, without confounding always the one jurisdiction with the other.”
In both Books of Discipline we see that it is the duty of the civil magistrate to see to it that provision is made for the ministers, schools and the poor, out of the patrimony of the kirk. What this patrimony was is clearly stated in the Second Book of Discipline, chap. ix., sec. 1, 2. “By the patrimony of the kirk we mean whatsoever thing hath been at any time before, or shall be in times coming given; or by consent or universal custom of countries professing the Christian religion, applied to the public use and utility of the kirk. So that under the patrimony we comprehend all things given, or to be given to the kirk and service of God, as lands, buildings, possessions, annual-rents, and all such like, wherewith the kirk is presented, either by donations, foundations, mortifications, or any other lawful titles, of kings, princes, or any persons inferior to them; together with the continual oblations of the faithful. We comprehend also all such things as by laws or custom, or use of countries, has been applied to the use and utility of the kirk; of the which sort are teinds, manses, glebes, and such like, which by common and municipal laws and universal custom are possessed by the kirk.”
Our Reformers show in these subordinate standards the clear view which they had of the province of the State and the province of the Church. They steered clear of the Popish dogma that the Church has jurisdiction over the State, and the Erastian view that the State has dominion over the Church, and having gone to the fountain-head, the Word of God, they were able to present to us the province of both Church and State with a clearness which has not been equalled by any other statement on this point which was framed by Reformers in other countries. Thus they showed that while members of the Church should give all obedience and respect to the civil magistrate in matters within his province, yet they cannot allow him to interfere in spiritual matters, where his enactments might clash with the dictates of a conscience, enlightened by the Word of God. In this connection we may be permitted to quote a masterly statement by the late Principal Cunningham, Edinburgh. “Our Saviour has enjoined His followers to ‘render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s;'” and this implies that there are some things which belong to the province of Caesar, or the civil magistrate, which are subject to his jurisdiction—with respect to which he has rightful authority—and is ordinarily to be obeyed; reserving, of course, the great principle which is of universal application, namely, that ‘v must obey God rather than man.’ It implies, also that there are some things which are God’s, in such a sense as not to belong to Caesar at all—not to belong to the province, or to be subject to the authority, of the civil magistrate. There is no great difficulty in settling what these things are, respectively. Caesar’s things are the persons and the property of men, and God’s things are the conscience of men and the Church of Christ. The civil magistrate has rightful jurisdiction over the persons and the property of men, because the Word of God sanctions his right to the use of the sword, and because jurisdiction in these matters is evidently indispensable to the execution of the functions of his office, the attainment of the great end of civil government, namely, the promotion of the good order and prosperity of the community. He has no jurisdiction over the conscience, for ‘God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men.’ He has no jurisdiction over the Church of Christ, because ‘Christ alone is its King and Head,’—and because, by His own authority in His word, He has made full provision for its government, for the administration of its affairs, through other parties, without vesting any control over it in the civil magistrate.'” Discussions on Church Principles, p. 208. Here we have in perhaps less fiery language the sentiments expressed by Andrew Melville when he told King James VI. that there were two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland, and clearly showed King James his place in the kingdom of King Jesus.
From all that has been written on this subject we see that our Scottish divines of the Reformation held that the Church is a separate institution in the land, invested with power of discipline, and was, in no way, in subordination to the State, and, therefore, that its courts met, and acted on the ground of a Divine warrant and not on the ground of any civil warrant; that should the civil magistrate neglect to convene a meeting of the General Assembly, or forbid it to act after it was convened, the General Assembly had every right to continue sitting and had the power to transact all business of a spiritual nature though the civil magistrate gave it no countenance, and that it has that right and powers as part of its Constitution. In matters ecclesiastical the Church decides all, there is no head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ, and the highest Court of the Church is not responsible to any Court on earth for its decisions. This view is clearly stated by Erskine of Dun in his letter to the Regent Mar. “There is,” he says, “a spiritual jurisdiction and power which God has given unto His Kirk, and to them that bear office therein; and there is a temporal jurisdiction and power given of God to kings and civil magistrates. Both the powers are of God, and most agreeing to the fortifying one of the other if they be rightly used. The Kirk of God should fortify all lawful power and authority that pertains to the civil magistrate, because it is the ordinance of God; but if he pass the bounds of his office and enter within the sanctuary of the Lord, meddling with such things as appertain to the ministry of God’s Kirk, then the servants of God should withstand his unjust enterprise; for so are they commanded of God.”
This was the view of the leading Reformers who took a leading part in setting up the Reformed Church of Scotland. The Parliament which met in July, 1560, ratified the Scottish Confession of Faith and abolished the Papal jurisdiction, sent Sir James Sandilands to France in order to get the royal assent of Francis and Mary to these Acts, and, as Knox says, “This was done rather to show our dutiful obedience than to beg of them any strength to our religion which from God hath full power, and needeth not the suffrage of men.” This favour was refused until in 1567, on the abdication of Queen Mary in favour of her son, King James VI., and the appointment of a Regency, the Acts of 1560 establishing the Protestant religion and abolishing the Papacy were ratified on behalf of royalty by the Regent. Thus we find in 1560 and again in 1567, Parliament acknowledging the jurisdiction already belonging to the Church, but, in this, nothing was conferred on the Church but what belonged to her of right, and which she exercised during the seven years previous to 1567. This period was a time of great prosperity to the Church. At the Assembly of 1560 six ministers attended out of a possible twelve, and in 1567 there were two hundred and fifty-two ministers, along with 154 exhorters and 467 readers engaged in the religious instruction of the people. Truly the Church was blessed by her Glorious Head though frowned upon by a royalty which refused to acknowledge her spiritual independence, and was waiting for a vehemently desired opportunity for destroying her.
Though it was held firmly by the Church in Scotland, down through the ages since the Reformation, that the civil magistrate had no right to interfere in the affairs of the Church as far as spiritual matters were concerned, yet our Reformers showed their vehement desire that the civil magistrate should acknowledge the Church and give it his protecting care, and it was in perfect consistency with that principle that Sir James Sandilands was sent to France to obtain the royal assent to the Acts abolishing the Papal jurisdiction and setting up the Reformed religion. The background of that principle is clearly set forth by the elder Dr. McCrie when he says, “The true religion is substantially the same in every age; and notwithstanding accidental changes in outward situation and particular ordinances, the Church of God has been essentially the same in every period since her erection. For a long time she appeared principally in the domestic and patriarchal state, afterwards she was advanced to the national state, and since the coming of Christ her boundaries have been enlarged to receive all nations. When her members were ‘a few men in number, yea very few, when they went from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another,’ God ‘reproved kings for their sakes,’ and inclined their hearts to protect and favour them. When He had ‘increased them with men like a flock,’ and settled them in ‘the lands of the heathen,’ He ‘raised up judges who delivered them,’ and rulers, whom He ‘commanded to feed them.’ And, with reference to the times of the New Testament, when ‘the abundance of the sea shall be converted, and their forces come unto’ her, He hath promised, that ‘kings shall be her nursing fathers; her officers peace, and her exactors righteousness.’ This is connected with the ‘advancement of the interests of the mediatorial kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is in, but not of this world, and as subservient to which the kingdom of providence is committed to Him.’ The kingdom of Christ is erected in an external form in the world; and in this respect, as it is subject to injury, restraint, and persecution from men and powers of the earth, so it is capable of receiving, and stands in need of protection, encouragement, and countenance from them. To these it has a divine claim. Though the institution of civil magistrates is from God ‘as the supreme Lord and king of all the world,’ and ‘not properly from Christ as Mediator; yet, ‘a right to have the kingdoms of this world rendered subservient and tributary to his spiritual kingdom, in the visible Church, belongs to Him as Mediator.’ And as He, by His power, in the management of the kingdom of providence committed to Him, will bring them into this state; so it is the duty of these kingdoms, and their rulers, to be actively ‘subservient and tributary’ unto His kingdom, by advancing its interests. ‘The shields of the earth belong unto God,’ who ‘is gone up with a shout,’ and who ‘reigneth over the heathen,’ and He has a right to their service.” Statement, by Thomas McCric, D.D., 1871 edition, pp. 132-133.