Scotch Free Church in its relation to the National Church of Scotland. For if the perfect healing of the breach be hopeless, that has been caused by the lamented secession from the latter of so large and influential a body of its members, inclusive of many of its most eminent and excellent ministers, it should surely be remembered how small the grounds of separation of heart, in comparison with those of union :-seeing that it is not on questions involving the essentials of Christian faith that the disruption has arisen, but on questions of ecclesiastical constitution and government, never perfectly to be resolved in a world where all is imperfect, and on which sincere and enlightened Christians may reasonably hold different opinions; that the objected Erastianism2 of the Established Church, in so far as it attached also to the

1 I mean in regard of the chief disputed points on which the disruption arose. Thus, first, if the principle of patronage be objected to, and the popular call or nomination be preferred, as the prerequisite to ordination to a benefice, is not the doubt both permissible and reasonable whether the latter be not to the full as liable to abuse as the former, or even more so?-Again, if on questions involving both secular and ecclesiastical rights, in combination such as to make their enjoyment separately the one from the other in practice absurd and almost impossible, so as in the case of a presenteè to the fruits of a benefice, in his character of pastor of the congregation,-if, I say, on such questions, the supremacy of the highest ecclesiastical over the highest civil court, to all practical intents and purposes, be on the one side advocated, is it unreasonable to doubt on the other side whether this constitution of things might not as probably be abused to ecclesiastical tyranny, and even oppression of the truth, as the supremacy of the civil court? The operation and result of Gratian's law, mentioned by me in a Note Vol. iii. p. 168, by which exclusive jurisdiction over the clergy was assigned to the higher ecclesiastical or episcopal court, altogether distinctively and apart from the secular, is to my own mind a very instructive and striking fact; especially when considered in contrast with the satisfaction it was hailed with by the clergy of the day, as a great boon. For it laid the foundation of their ultimately almost hopeless enthralment to their episcopal superiors, and of these latter to the Popes. Does not the Free Church, or rather do not able and excellent writers associated with it, speak freely of the arbitrariness and despotism of the General Assembly, or Scotch supreme Ecclesiastical court, towards the inferior Presbyteries, when acting altogether independently of the Civil courts, during the ascendancy of Dr. Robertson in the last century? On the other hand has not the supremacy of the Civil court in England been on more than one important occasion within the last century a defence, not only of the beneficed clergy personally, but even of the truth itself, against the abuse of episcopal authority?

2 Erastus was a German divine of the xvith century. Neal, in his History of the Puritans, Vol. ii. Pref. p. ix,-after observing on the two Houses of Parliament, during the civil war, being almost all of the principles of Erastus, who maintained that Christ and his apostles had prescribed no particular form of discipline for his Church, but had left it in the hands of the civil magistrate to appoint such particular forms of church government as might most subserve the welfare of the Commonwealth,-adds, "These were the sentiments of the Re

primary constitutions of the German or other Churches of the Reformation, can rightly be viewed as no subject of the Divine disapprobation, supposing my explanation correct (as already just before remarked) of the Apocalyptic symbol of St. John's measuring the Temple, under the Covenant Angel's express regard and direction;1that as regards Christ's headship and kingship over his Church, the doctrine in the highest and most scriptural sense of those phrases, nay, and even in a more earthly

formers, from Cranmer down to Bancroft."-This last statement, however, needs the important modification of the magistrate doing nothing contrary to the Bible.

With regard to Erastus' doctrine, it may be useful further to give Archbishop Whateley's explanation of Erastianism. "Erastianism has always been considered as consisting in making the State as such, the civil magistrate by virtue of his office,-prescribe to the people what they shall believe, and how worship God." (Kingdom of Christ, p. 266.) Now if this be correct, then the inapplicability of the charge of Erastianism made by the seceders against the Scotch Established Church, will be evident. For has the State attempted to impose new Articles of Belief on the Church? Or have the seceders, in consequence of such Erastian pretensions, left the Establishment? * Dr. Candlish, however, on the other hand, (Letters on Horæ, p. 120) asserts that "neither articles of belief nor manner of worship came into question at all in the Erastian Controversy, properly so called; that it is more than doubtful if the earlier and more intelligent Erastians would have asserted, or even conceded, the civil magistrate's jurisdiction in these departments; and that it was on the lawfulness, according to Scripture and right reason, of the civil magistrate's jurisdiction in the exercise of Church discipline, particularly in the acts of excommunication, and of admitting to membership and office in the Church, that the dispute about which Erastus was concerned really turned."

At any rate it must be allowed that Erastianism is a just cause of reproach, in so far only as it can be proved to be anti-scriptural. And in such a case as the famous Marnoch and Strathbogie one, where the two jurisdictions met and conflicted, was God's revealed will so clear as that a Christian man, wishing to judge by that rule, might not honestly differ from the opinion of the majority in the General Assembly, who subsequently seceded from the Established Church?

See Note1 p. 294 suprà.—I have said above, "in so far as the objected Erastianism attached also to the primary constitutions of the German or other Churches of the Reformation," because it is to these that the Apocalyptic symbol (if I am correct) relates; not to such changes in their ecclesiastical constitutions as may have been made at any later epoch. Moreover my argument from the Apocalyptic symbol has reference of course only to main points in the constitution of the Reformed Churches, not to details.

2 It may be well to subjoin, with a view to a right judgment on the scriptural sense of the phrase, all the passages in the New Testament which speak of Christ's headship over the Church.

And first we have Christ figured to us as the head corner-stone of his temple

Let me contrast the case of the Ministres demissionaires, now Ministers of the Free Church in the Canton de Vaud. Here the first and grand step of the secular government towards the oppression of the Vaudois Church was the abolition by it in 1839, at one fell swoop, and altogether by its own authority, of the Helvetic Confession of Faith.

the Church. So in Matt. xxi. 42, and the parallel passages in Mark and Luke. But what temple or Church? the visible earthly Society so called, including both false and true members; or that constituted of the true only? St. Peter (1 Pet. ii. 4—6) defines it distinctly as the latter. "To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed of men, but chosen of God and precious, ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house," &c; as it is in the Scripture, I lay in Zion a chief corner-stone... and, The stone which the builders disallowed the same is made the head of the corner."

Then, passing over 1 Cor. xi. 3, where it is said of individual Christians that "the head of the woman is the man, and the head of the man is Christ," a passage therefore not directly bearing on the point now in question, we come to the following apposite and famous passages in St. Paul's Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. Eph. i. 22; "And God gave him to be head above all things to the Church; which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." Eph. iv. 11—15; “ And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; that speaking the truth in love we may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ from whom the whole body fitly joined together... maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." Eph. v. 23, &c; "The husband is head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church... And he loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." Col. i. 18; "And he is the head of his body the Church." Col. ii. 18, 19; "Let no man beguile you of your reward, by a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, and not holding the Head; from which all the body, by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, increaseth with the increase of God."

In all which passages, especially as compared together and mutually illustrated by each other, it seems to me clear that the true Church is meant always and distinctively, as that of which Christ is head. I am surprised to see that Dr. Candlish (Letters, pp. 26, 27, 123), while fully admitting, nay contending, that "holding the head," Col. ii. 19, is said distinctively of true believers, yet contends also that most of the passages quoted belong both to the true Church, and also to visible Churches, "outstanding societies" (including of course both good and bad) formed in Christ's name; and especially that Eph. iv. 11, &c. has reference to these latter-" If there be meaning in words it must apply to a visible organized society." But why? Because, says he, the provision specified of outward means and ministers of grace, (apostles, prophets, evangelists, &c.) necessarily belongs to a visible organized Society. But whose edifying is accomplished by them? Surely not that of mere professors in the Church Society, but of the true members only. Which last therefore can alone in the scriptural sense be deemed Christ's body;* (just as in Col. ii. 19, where Dr. C. as I observed allows it ;) which last alone can have Christ as a head; which last alone grow up into him in all things; &c.t

As to the Scriptural view of Christ's kingship in the Church, and of those to whom the privilege attaches of having him for their king, the most illustrative passage that I know is John xviii. 37, “ Every one that is of the truth heareth my

* So Augustine, Vol. iii. p. 99: where, speaking of Tichonius' second interpretative principle, De Domini corpore bipartite, as including both the true members of Christ's body and the false, Augustine says that the phrase is wrongly exprest; because hypocrites and false professors do not really belong to Christ's body at all.

How strongly Christ is set forth as the Church's head, in this Scriptural sense of the phrase, by the founders of the Anglican Church, which yet has been spoken against as Erastian, will have been seen in the extract from King Edward's Catechism given a little earlier.

and less Scriptural sense of them,' may be considered, I presume, to be held by the members of the Scotch Established Church as truly as of the Free;-in fine,

voice: " following as it does on Christ's saying that he was born to be a king, though over a kingdom not of this world; and being in fact his explanation of the subjects that would belong to it. Does not St. John teach us (1 John iii. 19 &c.) that none but real heart-believers are of the truth? Does not Christ state it (John x. 27) as the distinctive of his own true sheep, that they hear his

voice?

I need hardly say that the Free Church holds Christ's headship over the visible Church; and this as an important principle in the right ecclesiastical constitution of Christian communities. So the Address by the Convocation to the People of Scotland, as also Dr. Candlish's, Mr. Grey's, and Mr. Hamilton's Pamphlets, &c. "Christ is not only inwardly a spiritual head to his mystical Church, but externally a spiritual head to the politic body of the Visible Church of professors, and their only lawgiver :"-a principle which the Reply by the General Assembly's Special Commission to Sir J. Graham applies, by declaring that an acknowledgment of the right of the Secular Court to act as it has, is a repudiation of the doctrine contained in the Scotch Confession of Faith, that the Lord Jesus is the only Head of the Church.

But since the Church visible in any professedly Christian country must be held to embrace the whole community and ToλTea, people as well as pastors, prince as well as people, all in allegiance to Him whom they in common profess to regard as their King, ought not the Prince's subordinate officers, the Judges of the law inclusive, to be considered as acting under the heavenly King, while conscientiously fulfilling their several appointed functions, as truly as Church officers so called, (in a narrower sense of the word Church,) while fulfilling theirs? Was Sir Matthew Hale in his secular court less a servant and minister of the Church's Head and King Christ Jesus, than Archbishop Laud in his spiritual or rather ecclesiastical court? So that the difference on this point between the Free Church and both the English and Scotch Established Churches seems to be still more narrowed. It strikes me that this large view of the Church constituent body, and its various functionaries, has been practically too much overlooked, on one side at least, in the controversy; the Church and the State, Church Courts and Secular Courts, being spoken and written about as antagonistic, and the former only as under Christ, the Church's Head and King.

And let me suggest whether another misapplication of language (as it seems to me to be) may not have further confused the question, needlessly widened the difference, and even opened what might be a door to serious error; I mean the use of spiritual for ecclesiastical, in speaking of the members of Church Courts in contradistinction to those of Secular Courts. Says Mr. Hamilton, in

See my Note on the text, "My kingdom is not of this world," a little suprà. -Archbishop Whateley, in his well-known Work on the Kingdom of Christ, already more than once referred to, appears to me to have greatly impoverished and understated Christ's meaning in this declaration; by explaining it (p. 29) wholly or chiefly, as "the renunciation of all secular coercion in behalf of his religion." This view of the words in the text's latter clause arises from his viewing Christ's kingdom in the former clause as meaning only the earthly visible society, called the Church, in its earthly present mixt state: for he says scarce a word in his Treatise of this earthly state being one in which many would profess to attach to Christ's kingdom that really do not, the tares as well as the wheat; or of the future state as that in which alone the true constituency of the kingdom will be separated from the untrue, and in perfect union and glory shine forth for ever.The different views from this of Wicliff and of the Anglican Church have been shown before.

2

that, instead of that established Church being an "Egypt" that God's Israel had to come out of,' it was and is by that evangelic Confession of Faith which it holds for its standard, as well as the Free Church, a joint Witness and bulwark with it against the only figurative Egypt of New Testament prophecy, I mean Papal Rome. To the noble devotedness of the Free Church, since the disruption, and zeal and energy and self-denial in carrying out its many high objects, the world itself bears testimony. But has not one thing been wanting? And would her labors be less holy or less blest, if acrimony towards the Church she has seceded from were altogether banished; and if, instead of it, there was exhibited by her in clearer daylight the holding of the fellowship of the Spirit in the bond of peace ?3

"

3

his Harp on the Willows," p. 20; (and he is only one among many that have used the same language;)" They hold that the Lord Jesus is the only Head of the Church. In their ecclesiastical procedure they desire to follow his will, as that will is revealed in his word. They believe that the Spirit of God, speaking through spiritual men, is the sole interpreter of that word. And they cannot allow the commandments of men, the verdicts of secular courts, to interpose between them and their heavenly King." It seems to me evident that the spiritual men here meant are the members of the Scotch ecclesiastical Courts, as opposed on the questions that finally caused the disruption to the Judges of the Secular Courts; and it is the decisions of the former that are characterized as the voice of the Spirit, in opposition to the verdicts of the latter, which are styled the commandments of men. Now is not the similarity of this to Papal language about Councils, held under Papal presidency, ominous and a warning? Spiritûs Sancti testatur præsentiam congregatio sacerdotum," said Pope Celestine of the Ephesian Council held A.D. 468; and it was deemed fitting that the Seal of the Council of Trent should have a dove engraved on it, in token of the same presence of, and inspiration of the Council by, the Divine Spirit. (See my Vol. iii. p. 198.) Ecclesiastical men, congregated on ecclesiastical matters, were deemed by Rome spiritual men inspired in their decisions by God's Spirit. On the other hand I believe that in the New Testament the word яveνμatikos, spiritual, when said of persons, is only used of true Christians. So 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15; iii. 1; xiv. 37; Gal. vi. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 5. See especially the first passage on the list, 1 Cor. ii. 15; "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him: but the spiritual man judgeth (or discerneth) all things."

1 So the title of Mr. Hamilton's Sermon, "Farewell to Egypt; or the Departure of the Free Church out of the Erastian Establishment." And other writers of the Free Church have used the same figure. 2 See my Vol. ii. p. 385.

3 I believe that the Erangelical Alliance, formed subsequently to the first publication of my Work, very much at the instance of some eminent members of the Scotch Free Church, and on the principle of comprehending all that "hold the Head," in the Scriptural sense of the phrase, has already operated in some cases to reconcile differences, and bring members of the Established and the Free Churches nearer together. This is a subject for real thankfulness. *

* In regard to the passage on the Free Church here concluded, and what may