sive jurisdiction of ecclesiastical office-bearers, as involved in or flowing from the doctrine of Christ's sole headship. It is with these two doctrines of the exclusive supremacy of the Bible, and the exclusive jurisdiction of ecclesiastical office-bearers, that we directly and immediately connect the formal defence of our cause as a question of dialectics. We do not introduce the doctrine of Christ's headship as affording a distinct and independent argument on which to rest our vindication, but rather as the basis and foundation of these two subordinate, but still important truths, the application of which to the practical matter in hand, constitutes the direct and proper argument on which we rest our case, and with which we call upon our opponents to deal. The headship of Christ then is not to be regarded in this matter as a distinct and separate doctrine from the exclusive supremacy of the Bible and the exclusive jurisdiction of ecclesiastical officebearers, or as introducing any new and independent element immediately into the strict and proper argumentation of the question, but as a great general Scriptural principle, including or comprehending these two doctrines, furnishing the basis on which they rest, the source from which they spring, the point to which they are attached. The right use and application of the doctrine of Christ's headship in the present question, is not that it should be held forth as the direct and immediate ground of the precise argument by which the course pursued by the Free Church is to be defended against opponents, but rather, that it should be employed to enforce the importance of the doctrines comprehended under it and flowing from it, on which the strict argument more immediately depends, to impress the deep responsibility connected with the faithful maintenance and the full and honest application of these doctrines, and to animate and encourage to an uncompromising discharge of the Church's duty with respect to everything involved in, or flowing from, or in any way connected with, "the crown rights of the Redeemer," to whatever dangers she may in consequence be exposed. This was the use and application made of the doctrine of Christ's headship, by the Scottish Presbyterians of the 16th and 17th centuries, and this is the use and application made of it by Free Churchmen. No other use or application of it is required by any of the principles they have ever professed, or by any of the arguments they have ever employed in defence of them, and no other is needed for the full vindication of the course they have pursued. Now, this use or application of it manifestly does not afford a shadow of ground for the allegation that our Church Courts in contending for the Scriptural doctrine of Christ's headship, and for their own right and duty to follow out all that is involved in it, and all that either directly or by consequence re

sults from it, are identifying themselves with Christ, and are upon this ground virtually claiming infallibility, and demanding implicit submission.

Let the Duke of Argyll contemplate the Free Church case as bearing upon the duty of a Church of Christ, not in detached portions, but in its amplitude and totality,-let hin attend to the true logical relations of the different parts of which the argument consists,―let him distinguish between what is strictly and properly argumentative, and what is fitted to illustrate the importance and solemnity of the points involved in the argument, and to enforce the discharge of practical duty in regard to them, and then we think he will be satisfied that this objection is utterly groundless.

5. The Duke, while charging Scottish Presbyterians in general with an irrelevant and illogical application of Scripture in defending their peculiar opinions, tries to show that Free Churchmen have surpassed all their predecessors in the extravagance and fanaticisim which they have manifested in this respect. Nothing but the most extraordinary ignorance or inconsideration could have led his Grace to make such a charge. This has been conclusively established in a very able and effective pamphlet by the Rev. Mr. Gray, entitled, "Correspondence between the Duke of Argyll and the Rev. A. Gray, Perth," in reference to his Grace's Essay, entitled "Presbytery Examined." We shall not dwell upon this topic, but refer our readers to Mr. Gray's pamphlet, where they will find also some very valuable materials for assisting them in forming a right estimate of his Grace's work, and of the merits of the controversy to which it chiefly relates.

The Duke of Argyll, notwithstanding the ability which he has brought to the task, has, we think, utterly failed in obscuring the import, or in depreciating the value, of the testimony of the Church of Scotland to the independence of the Church of Christ and its exemption from civil control, as connected with the doctrine of His sole headship over it, or in producing anything fitted to shake the confidence of intelligent Free Churchmen in the Scriptural truth and practical importance of the principles which they have been called upon to maintain. It is easy enough, in surveying the ecclesiastical history of Scotland, to point out traces of human imperfection and infirmity, but it is not easy to show that Scottish Presbyterians did not thoroughly understand the great principles for which they were so signally honoured to contend, or that they were not able to defend them from Scripture and reason against all who might assail them. It is easy enough to excite a prejudice in the minds of English readers against the principles of the Free Church, and against the men who have advocated and applied them, but

any

it is not easy to show that these principles involve anything inconsistent either with the particular statements or the general doctrines of the Word of God, or that, in their substance, they have not the countenance and support of almost all the Churches of Christ, and of the great body of those whose testimony is entitled to the highest respect. The Duke seems to affect the character of an Eclectic in his ecclesiastical views, but we doubt much whether he is yet altogether qualified to sustain this position with credit and advantage. He can scarcely be said to have definite well-digested system of opinions on the subjects which he discusses. He rather criticises all other systems, and selects from them what suits his taste, without much regard to the unity or harmony of the combination. He can scarcely remain long in his present position, or continue to adhere to all the views which he now supports on ecclesiastical questions, and we greatly fear that the probability is in favour of his changing for the worse, of his deviating still farther than he now does from the paths of truth and sound doctrine. He still professes himself a Presbyterian, but we fear that he will land at length, like the great body of our Scottish aristocracy, in the Church of England. He is evidently prepared for at least tolerating almost any amount of Erastian interference by the civil power in the regulation of the Church's affairs. He sees nothing objectionable, but, on the contrary, evidence of enlarged wisdom, in the introduction. of the inventions of men into the worship of God; and he has already become familiar with the dangerous and delusive process of explaining away or evading the testimony of Scripture on all subjects on which its decisions are not direct, formal, and explicit. In these circumstances we see little or nothing to protect his Grace from the influence of those outward and inferior considerations which have led so many of the Scottish nobility to adhere to the English Establishment. He seems at present to be much in the same undecided and perilous position which his illustrious ancestor occupied during the earlier sittings of the Glasgow Assembly of 1638, but we scarcely venture to expect in this case an equally noble and magnanimous decision. And yet we would very willingly cherish the hope that one who is the descendant and representative of the illustrious men that did and suffered so much for the cause of civil and religious liberty in Scotland, and contended so nobly for those great principles, the maintenance of which forms the distinguishing glory of Scottish Presbyterians, and who himself possesses no ordinary personal claims to the admiration and respect of his countrymen, may yet attain to more clear and Scriptural views of the relations and duties of Churches and nations, and be honoured to contribute largely by his talents and influence to diffuse these views

The Duke's position—Dr. Arnold's views.

457

in the community, and to promote their practical application. May the Lord give him understanding in all things.

His Grace seems to have adopted to a large extent the views of Dr. Arnold in regard to the Church and its relation to the civil power, though we doubt much whether he fully understands them, and are pretty sure that he is not yet prepared to follow them out fully to their legitimate consequences. Dr. Arnold's favourite principle upon this point, was the identification of the Church and the Christian State, or in other words, a virtual denial that the Church is, by its institution, and according to Christ's appointment, a distinct and independent society, with a fixed and unchangeable constitution and government, and with settled laws for the regulation of its affairs. This is the notion which was devised by Hooker, and expounded by him in the Eighth Book of the Ecclesiastical Polity, for the purpose of sanctioning authoritative interference on the part of the State in the government of the Church, and warranting the civil power to regulate and control ecclesiastical matters, just as it does military or financial matters, or any other department of the ordinary national business. We do not suppose that the ingenious and benevolent mind of Dr. Arnold was influenced by any such motive or object in advocating that notion, but it fairly admits of being applied, and will of course be generally applied by politicians, to sanction a system of low and degrading Erastianism. The notion is so palpably inconsistent with the plainest Scriptural principles, that, notwithstanding the high authority of the "venerable" Hooker, it has never found much countenance among the clerical defenders of the Erastianism of the Church of England, who have preferred to try other shifts and expedients, in order to palliate their position, but has been taken up chiefly by worldly politicians. The only plausibility of the notion is derived from imagining what might, and probably would be the state of matters, if true Christianity pervaded the whole community, and affected the proceedings of the civil rulers and the general regulation of national affairs; and the essential fallacy of it lies in this, that it implies a total disregard and a virtual denial of all that the Scripture teaches us concerning the Church of Christ, its fixed and unalterable relation to Him and to his Word, and the perpetuity and unchangeableness of its constitution, government, and laws. Dr. Arnold defines the Church to be an association for the moral reformation of the community, and this might without impropriety enter as one feature into a detailed description that might be given of the Church, but it is not the definition of it furnished by Scripture. It omits everything essential and fundamental which Scripture teaches concerning the Church. It leaves out all the leading

ideas which Scripture requires us to introduce into our conception and definition of the visible Church Catholic, and all the main principles which it obliges every particular society calling itself a Church of Christ, to act upon, in the discharge of its duties, and in the regulation of its conduct. And of course it is evident that we ought to regulate our definition of the Church, and our views of its nature, constitution, government, functions, and objects, by the statements of the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever, and not by our own imaginings of what is possible or probable, nor even by any actual realities in the state. of society that might be presented before us. Even if Dr. Arnold's idea of a Christian community and a Christian State were to be fully realized in fact, this should not in the least affect the Scriptural doctrine concerning the Church and its constitution and government, and it would afford no warrant whatever to civil rulers as such, to interfere authoritatively in the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs.

There seems to be a strong desire in the present day on the part of politicians to acquire for the civil power a larger measure of control over Churches, not only over those which are Established, but over those also which are unconnected with the State, in order to employ ecclesiastical influence for political purposes. And it is melancholy that such men as Dr. Arnold, the Duke of Argyll, and in some degree also the Chevalier Bunsen, should have propounded views which are fitted to encourage them in the prosecution of this object, by encouraging Churches to accept of and submit to their interference and control. The general current of opinion, however, among thinking and earnest men of all denominations, is, happily, running in the opposite direction. There is now, perhaps, more generally dif fused in society than ever before, an intelligent appreciation of the true character of the Church of Christ as a distinct independent society, and of the obligation that attaches to every society calling itself a Church of Christ, to maintain its true position and character as such, to the exclusion of all civil control over its affairs, and with the forfeiture, when necessary for this end, (as it certainly is in the case of all existing ecclesiastical Establishments,) of civil advantages and emoluments. The Disruption of the Established Church of Scotland, with the prominence thereby given to the principles of Scottish Presbyterians, may be fairly regarded as one of the influences which have contributed to produce this desirable result, and we trust that this and other concordant influences, will continue to operate with increasing power, until all the Churches of Christ are wholly emancipated from civil control, and are walking "in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free."