by the late Rev. Alexander MacColl, Lochalsh
(Extracts translated from Gaelic articles in Vol. II of the Free Presbyterian Magazine. W. M.).
The Reformation Church of Scotland was ever noted for its steadfast defence of two points of doctrine in particular — the first, that Christ is the sole Head of His Church, and the second, that He is the Governor of the kings and kingdoms of this world.
What we hereby declare and hold we substantiate from the Truth of God that kingdoms are under solemn obligation to own and acknowledge the kingdom or Cause of Christ. They are not merely to be favourably disposed towards it, but to maintain and support it, on account of their being so highly privileged to have His Cause in their midst and His Word where His revealed will is made known, and also because they are subject to the authority and power of Christ. The teaching of God’s Word demands this from them. They are not only under the ruling of Christ in His providence, but He is also their moral governor. We could here advert to the distinction which exists between Christ’s Headship over the nations and His Headship over His Church if that were the particular purpose we had in view. Christ is the living head of His mystical body the Church — the Head of her life, of her ordinances, and her authority by the appointment of the Father as a revelation of His Godhead. But also by the appointment of the Father He possesses authority and power over the kings and kingdoms of this world. “He hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the head over all things to the Church.” There are those who hold the view that it is as God’s eternal Son, and not in His Mediatorial office as the God-man that this authority and power have been given to Him. But you will observe that all authority and power belong essentially to Him as God’s eternal Son, and therefore cannot be given to Him. We know what George Gillespie has to say on this point, but there is no occasion to enlarge on the matter at present. We affirm, however, that if it is as God’s eternal Son alone and not as the Mediator all things are put under the feet of Christ, it necessarily follows that the view of the followers of Arius is true, who maintain that the Son is inferior to the Father in essence and in dignity. But to countenance such a view were blasphemy. We read in 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28: “For He hath put all things under His feet. But when He saith all things are put under Him: it is manifest that He is expected which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” There is another truth which says, “The Father is greater than I.” Now is it with respect to His office as Redeemer, or to His essence and person as God alone that this truth refers? It is surely with respect to His office, and not to His essence and person as God alone. To adopt the other view would be blasphemy.
We shall now observe that it is especially for the good of the Church that this authority over the nations was given to Christ as Mediator. As this was the purpose of the Father, in giving Him this authority and power, does it not necessarily follow that it is the duty of kingdoms to promote the good of His Church? Must we not believe that rulers are under obligation to promote the good of the Church with all the lawful means at their disposal? We are to believe that they are under obligation to Christ not only as private individuals as other Christians are, but also in their public capacity. It was to this end they were put under Christ’s authority in order to advance His Cause . . . We do not say that the king is the servant of the Church, but that he is the servant of God for the good of the Church.
There are those who repudiate our view of the Headship of Christ over kings and kingdoms, on the ground that it is from God as Creator and not as Saviour they have their origin — that it is in nature and not in grace that their foundation was originally laid. Is this, therefore, contrary to our view that they are under the Headship of Christ as King of nations? We do not believe so. It would be inconsistent with the teaching of the Truth to believe otherwise. Without question the civil government was established in the natural law of creation. We do not deny that. But are all things which have their foundation in the law of nature and established by God as Creator excluded from Christ’s mediatorial dominion? If so, much we are accustomed to place under His dominion must be excluded from it. The relationship between parents and children, between masters and servants is founded in the law of nature or creation. But does that exclude them from the dominion of Christ and from obedience to Him? That manifestly cannot be; for if it did, how are we to understand the following exhortations given in the New Testament? “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” “Children obey your parents in the Lord.” Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh . . . as unto Christ,” and much such like. We see that the duties intimately bound up with godliness as prayer and praise to God are based on the law of nature. Are they on that account, therefore, to be excluded from the dominion of Christ as Mediator? And are we to seek to observe them without an eye to Him in that office? This proves to us the unscripturalness of the view we are condemning.
They (the Voluntaries) hold that it is not within the province of the civil magistrate to make any provision for the maintenance of the Church out of the national treasury; that Christ as King over His own Church has ordained that the gospel ministry be maintained and advanced by the free-will offerings of His people; and that since this is the ordinance of Christ support from the State is thereby excluded, and also the true freedom of the Church secured and protected.
These views are diametrically opposed to the views we hold. They are contrary to the views always held by the reformed Church of Scotland; and also contrary to the fundamental principles of the fathers which they affirmed as the principles of their Church when they separated from the Church of Scotland (ir. 1843). In the first place the Voluntaries maintain that it is unlawful for the civil magistrate to countenance any creed. They thereby exclude the true Scriptural creed of the Church of Christ, along with every false creed. Their view places the Truth of God on the same level with the teachings of falsehood and error, and equates the true Church of Christ with any association claiming the name of a church no matter how unsound its creed, or with any commercial combine in the kingdom. Furthermore they hold that it is unlawful for the civil magistrate to make any provision for the maintenance of gospel ordinances out of the national treasury, that the rule which Christ established for the maintenance of His Cause and for its advancement is the free-will offerings of the people, and on that account support from the state is excluded, and that in this way alone can the freedom of the Church be secured. If this is true, then the Reformation Church in Scotland for three hundred years was violating the order established by Christ. Her views on the matter were, therefore, unscriptural, and John Knox, Andrew Melville, Henderson, Rutherford and all the rest from that time who upheld our view were in error and guilty of transgressing the order of Christ. It is a certainty that the majority of the people of Scotland, divided though they be, will not accept views so unsound and so dangerous, which cast such dishonour on the stalwarts now in glory who were steadfast unto death in defending the doctrines which the Voluntaries condemn as sinful.