THE SECOND BOOK OF DISCIPLINE.
In a previous lecture I have endeavoured to give a pretty full account
of the First Book of Discipline. It remains yet to say a few words about
the Second Book of Discipline.
[Sidenote: The Two Books Compared.]
Principal John Cunningham has said: "The First Book exhibited a system
of polity sagaciously suited to the circumstances of the country and the
church: it seemed to grow out of the times."[257] I will add that it was
not only suited to the times, but to many of the practical needs of the
church of all times. I therefore hold that even yet it is worthy of a
higher place than to be deemed merely a "collection of parchments and
coins deposited beneath it [_i.e._, the Second Book] by which future
generations may read the story of the times in which the building was
begun."[258] The Second Book is more a book of constitutional law; and
aims, as the Principal says, at elaborating a system from the New
Testament without reference to circumstances, and bears far more
resemblance to the Ordonnances of Calvin than to the less ambitious and
more comprehensive Church Order Books of Germany. But the Second Book of
Discipline has even fewer practical details than the ordinances of
Geneva. Of course, so far as it actually abolished or modified the
regulations of the First Book, these fell to be disused; but in so far
as it did not actually do so, they still had a certain validity: and
even in the Covenanting times it is generally the Books, not the Book of
Discipline, to which reference is made in Acts of Assembly.
No one in our times, perhaps, has shown a more thorough appreciation of
the real merits of the First Book than the Duke of Argyll in his
well-known essay on "Presbytery." Mr Hill Burton, who depreciates it in
comparison with the Second, makes far more than is warranted of the
strong language in which it occasionally indulges against the old
church, with which he contrasts the more restrained and balanced
utterances of the Second Book.[259] I do not yield to many in my
admiration of the courage and calmness of Melville; but I could no more
think of placing him, scholarly and bold, yet calm, as he generally was,
nor the Book attributed to him, more logical and unimpassionately
didactic though it be, before the eager, impetuous, yet sagacious Knox,
with his wealth of rude eloquence and thrilling tenderness, and his Book
in which these qualities of head and heart are so clearly mirrored, than
I would think of placing Calvin, highly as I honour him, before Luther,
or his Catechism before the Wittenberg hymn-books.
I do not believe that the principles of the two Books are so widely
different as they have sometimes been represented to be, or that the
grand ideas of Knox concerning the place of the laity in the church, the
education of the young, and the support and kindly treatment of the aged
poor, were meant to be rejected or ignored by his great successor; but I
do think these matters fall considerably into the background. Some of
the noblest conceptions of the earlier Book are narrowed, and the whole
system stiffened; and in the contests in which the church had then to
engage with the young monarch, in vindication of her independence in her
own province, positions were laid down which were soon pressed to
consequences from which Knox and his associates would have shrunk.
[Sidenote: The Supreme Power.]
They, who had been obliged long to contend with a corrupt and obstinate
clergy which would grant no real reform in doctrine, no substantial
concessions for the alleviation of practical grievances, boldly laid
down the principle that "to kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates ...
chieflie and most principallie the conservation and purgation of the
religioun apperteinis; so that not onlie they are appointed for civill
policie, but also for maintenance of the trew religioun, and for
suppressing of idolatrie and superstitioun whatsoever.... And therefore
wee confesse and avow that sik as resist the supreme power doing that
thing quhilk appertains to his charge, do resist Goddis ordinance, and
therefore cannot be guiltles."[260] Melville, who was called to contend
with a king bent on securing autocratic power in the church as well as
in the state, laid down, with the utmost precision, the principle in
chapter x., "Although kings and princes that be godlie, sumtymes be
their awin authority whan the kirk is corruptit and all things out of
ordor, place ministers and restore the trew service of the Lord efter
the examples of sum godly kings of Juda and divers godly emperours and
kings also in the light of the New Testament; yit quhair the ministrie
of the kirk is anes lawfullie constitute and they that are placeit do
thair office faithfullie, all godlie princes and magistratis aucht to
heir and obey thair voice, and reverence the majestie of the Son of God
speiking be them";[261] or, as in chapter i., where it is laid down, "As
ministeris are subject to the judgement and punishment of the magistrat
in externall things if they offend, so aucht the magistratis to submit
themselfis to the discipline of the kirk gif they transgresse in
matteris of conscience and religioun."[262]
[Sidenote: Limits of Ecclesiastical Power.]
Hill Burton sarcastically remarks that "if we grant that those who
prepared it were what they called themselves--the Church of God,
presided over by the Lord Jesus Christ as the representative of the
Godhead on earth--it would be difficult to refuse assent to what
follows. Nothing can be more perfect than the analysis by which the two
ruling powers are separated from each other, and the ecclesiastical set
above the secular."[263] If this is not quite borne out, one can hardly
help feeling that more care should have been taken to mark out the
limits of ecclesiastical authority, and to show that the power of
ministers and elders was as distinctly limited by the laws of Christ as
that of kings and magistrates ought to be by the laws of the land; or,
in other words, that ministers and elders may err in interpreting the
laws of Christ, just as civil rulers may err in interpreting the laws of
the land. No doubt the limitation contended for is in words admitted,
"the magistrat neither aucht to preich, minister the sacraments, nor
execute the censuris of the kirk, nor yit prescrive any rewll how it
sould be done; bot command the ministeris to observe the rewll commandit
in the Word, and punish the transgressours be civill means. The
ministeris exerce not the civill jurisdictioun, bot teich the magistrat
how it sould be exercit according to the Word."[264] "It is proper to
kings, princes, and magistrates to be callit lordis and dominators over
their subjectis, whom they govern civilly; bot it is proper to Christ
onlie to be callit Lord and Master in the spirituall government of the
kirk, and all utheris that beiris office therein aucht not to usurp
dominion therein, nor be callit lordis, bot onlie ministeris, disciples,
and servantis. For it is Christis proper office to command and rewll His
kirk universall, and every particular kirk, throw His Spirit and Word,
be the ministrie of men."[265] But it is not made sufficiently prominent
anywhere in the Book that these men are only entitled to unreserved
obedience when they truly speak Christ's mind and truly follow His Word.
Those who have made most of the Book have neither clearly perceived this
nor have they realised the full meaning of the lucid and explicit
statement made by Rutherfurd when he was contending against the
Erastians and Independents of England. Had they done so, I cannot but
think that the bitter divisions among Scottish Presbyterians would have
been fewer, and that there would have been far less occasion for the
reproach often cast on them, that new presbyter is but old priest writ
large.
[Sidenote: Rutherfurd's Opinion.]
"That the magistrate is not obliged," Rutherfurd affirms, "to execute
the decrees of the church without further examination, whether they be
right or wrong, as Papists teach that the magistrate is to execute the
decrees of their Popish councels with blind obedience, and submit his
faith to them, because he is a layman and may not dare to examine
whether the church doth erre or not, is clear. 1. Because, if in hearing
the Word all should follow the example of the men of Berea, not relying
on the testimony of Paul or any preacher, [and] try whether that which
concerneth their conscience and faith be agreeable to the Scriptures or
no, and accordingly receive or reject; so in all things of discipline
the magistrate is to try by the Word whether he ought to adde his
sanction to these decrees which the church gives out for edification,
and whether he should draw the sword against such a one as a heretick
and a perverter of souls. But the former is true; the magistrate's
practise in adding his civill sanction and in punishing hereticks
concerneth his conscience, knowing that he must do it in faith as he
doth all his moral actions; _ergo_, the magistrate must examine what he
practiseth in his office according to the Word, and must not take it
upon the meer authority of the church, else his faith in these moral
acts of his office should be resolved _ultimate_ on the authority of the
church, not on the Word of God, which, no doubt, is Popery, for so the
warrant of the magistrate's conscience should not be 'thus saith the
Lord,' but 'thus saith the church in their decrees.' 2. The magistrate
and all men have a command to try all things, _ergo_, to try the decrees
of the church, and to retain what is good (1 Thes. v. 21); to try the
spirits even of the church in their decrees (1 John iii. 1). 3. We
behooved [in that case] to lay down this Popish ground that ... the
church cannot erre in their decrees.... Its against Scripture and reason
that magistrates, and by the like reason all others, should obey the
decrees of the church with a blinde faith, without inquiring in the
warrants and grounds of their decrees, which is as good Popery as,
Magistrates and all men are to beleeve as the church beleeveth, with an
implicite faith, so ignorance shall be the mother of devotion. Whoever
impute this to us--who have suffered for nonconformity, and upon this
ground, that synods can erre, refused the ceremonies--are to consult
with their own conscience whether this be not to make us appear
disloyall and odious to magistracy in that which we never thought, far
lesse [presumed] to teache and professe it to the world."[266]
[Sidenote: Gillespie's Opinion.]
Even more notable are the utterances of George Gillespie, when
vindicating against the Erastians of the south that more free government
of the church by its own courts from which they feared so many evils.
"I dare confidently say," he affirms, "that, if comparisons be rightly
made, presbyterial government is the most limited and the least
arbitrary government of any other in the world."[267] And, after
entering into details to make good this affirmation in regard to the
papal and prelatical forms of government, he proceeds to maintain that
Independents "must needs be supposed to exercise a much more unlimited
or arbitrary power than the presbyterial churches do," because they
exempt individual congregations from all control and correction by
superior courts, and because it is "one of their three grand principles
which disclaimeth the binding of themselves for the future unto their
present judgement and practice, and avoucheth the keeping of this
reserve to alter and retract."[268] Some who think that, after all
recent changes, they more truly hold the opinions of Gillespie than we
do, have laid it down very dogmatically that even although the
constitution of a national church were in all other respects scriptural,
yet if it did not reserve this power to alter and retract without let or
hindrance, it would still be at variance with the tenets of the
Covenanting times; but you see here that Gillespie affirms that that was
a principle of the Independents, not of the Presbyterians, and
claims[269] it as a special merit of the latter that they were willing
to explain their doctrine and discipline to the civil authorities, and,
getting these sanctioned, to abide by them till they were again altered
by consent of church and state. He denies that in claiming a distinct
government for the church the Presbyterians meant to deprive the
Christian magistrate of that power and authority in matters of religion
which the Word of God and the earlier Confessions of the Reformed
churches recognised as belonging to his office. On the contrary, he
maintains that not only in extraordinary cases when church government
doth degenerate into tyranny, or those who manage it make defection from
the truth, "the Christian magistrate may and ought to do diverse things
in and for religion, and interpose his authority diverse wayes so as
doth not properly belong to his cognisance, decision and administration
ordinarily, and in a reformed and well constituted church";[270] but
also that, in ordinary cases, he is free to act as his own conscience
directs in giving or refusing his sanction to the government and
discipline of the church; and that if he is offended with any sentence
of its courts, "they ought to be ready, in all humility and respect, to
give him an account and reason of such their proceedings, and by all
means to endeavour the satisfaction of the magistrate his conscience, or
otherwise to be warned and rectified if themselves have erred."[271]
[Sidenote: Its Influence not unmixed.]
Had the principles thus laid down been more clearly kept in view by
the framers of the Second Book of Discipline, its influence for good on
Scottish Christianity would have been more unmixed than it has been. Had
they been more consistently acted on by Rutherfurd and his associates,
who consented to their formal insertion in our later standards, many sad
troubles which then and afterwards befel the church, for which they
lived and laboured, would have been altogether avoided, or more easily
provided against; but as it is, great misunderstandings have certainly
arisen. The two Books of Discipline have been too much read apart,
instead of being regarded as complementary each of the other; and while
all that is liberal and progressive tends, I think, more and more to
rally round the one, I believe that much that is narrower, but still
earnest and resolutely Christian, will continue to draw its inspiration
from the other.
[Sidenote: Its Theory of the Church.]
The Second Book of Discipline, as well as the First, failed to commend
itself to the ruling powers, and to obtain a place in its full form on
the statute book. Those of its clauses relating to the functions of the
several church courts were inserted almost word for word in the Act of
the Scottish Parliament of 1592, reckoned the charter of the
presbyterian church. It was, however, several times ratified by the
General Assembly, and was partially carried out by its authority from
the time of its ratification; and to this extent it, as well as the
First Book of Discipline, appears to have been fully recognised. The
question of its authority was very fully argued in the famous
Auchterarder case. The counsel for the presbytery and the minority of
the judges did not venture to argue, however, that as a whole the Second
Book of Discipline had received the sanction of the state save in
irregular times; but they contended that the notes, contained in
Spottiswoode's History, of the clauses respecting which the king and the
commissioners of Parliament had come to agreement with the ministers,
should be accepted as determining the extent to which it was law. It was
affirmed, however, by the majority of the judges that only the clauses
actually inserted in the Act of Parliament could be so regarded, and it
has since been maintained by Mr Peterkin that the alleged notes of
agreement between the king and the church's commissioners are not
actually found in the manuscript copy of the History which is preserved
in the Advocate's Library.[272] The general theory of the church,
however, which may be said to underlie the most important statement of
the Second Book of Discipline, is not materially different from that
which finds expression in the First. "The kirk of God," it is said, "is
sumtymes largelie takin for all them that professe the Evangill of Jesus
Christ, and so it is a company and fellowship, not onely of the godly,
but also of hypocrites professing alwayis outwardly ane true religion.
Uther tymes it is takin for the godlie and elect onlie, and sumtymes for
them that exercise spiritual function amongis the congregation of them
that professe the truth."[273] These last, ministers, doctors, elders,
and deacons, are taken to represent the church in its wider sense, and
must have a lawful calling from it. This lawful calling is said to
consist of two parts--viz., election and ordination. Election is defined
to be the choosing out of a person or persons most able for the office
that is vacant, by the judgment of the eldership and consent of the
congregation to which the person or persons are appointed. Ordination is
defined as the separation and sanctifying of the person appointed of God
and His kirk after he be well tried and found qualified. The ceremonies
of ordination are declared to be fasting, earnest prayer, and imposition
of the hands of the eldership. Then follow two of the most important
paragraphs in the Book, which come nearest to supplying that which I
deem defective in it, a clear and distinct admission that human rulers
in the church as well as in the state have but limited powers. "All thir
[_i.e._, those various kinds of office-bearers], as they must be raisit
up be God and be Him made able for the wark quhairto they ar callit, so
aught they [to] knaw their message to be limitit within God's Word,
without the quhilk bounds they aught not to passe. All thir sould tak
these titils and names onlie ... quhilk the Scriptures gevis unto them,
as these quhilks import labour, travell and wark; and ar names of
offices and service, and not of idlenes, dignitie, warldlie honour or
preheminence, quhilk be Christ our Maister is expresslie reprovit and
forbidden.... And generallie thir twa things aught they all to respect,
the glorie of God, and edifieing of His kirk, in discharging their
dewties in their callings."[274]
[Sidenote: Institution of the Presbytery.]
[Sidenote: Eldership or Presbytery.]
It is generally supposed that it is in this Second Book of Discipline
that we have the first clear institution of that church court which we
now call the presbytery, and it admits of no dispute that it was in the
year 1581, after the final adoption of the Book by the Assembly, that an
attempt was made, with consent of the crown, regularly to divide the
country into presbyteries. These, however, though marked out on paper in
that year, were in point of fact only gradually set up, and in general
they arose out of, and absorbed into themselves, the previously existing
_exercise_, which the First Book of Discipline had sanctioned and
recommended to meet weekly for the study and interpretation of the
Scriptures.[275] The introduction of what are called, but erroneously,
lay elders[276] to the place they have so long worthily filled in the
presbyteries was a still more gradual process. The presbytery of St
Andrews, even down to the close of the sixteenth century, appears to
have contained no elders save the _doctors_, under which name were
comprehended the masters of the university, both professors of divinity
and professors of philosophy, and even the doctor or master of the
grammar-school. The question, however, has been raised whether it is
really the presbytery or the kirk-session which is meant by the word
_eldership_, which is generally applied in the Second Book of Discipline
to that court to which it asserts that it belongs to see that the Word
of God is purely preached within its bounds, the sacraments rightly
administered, the discipline maintained, and the ecclesiastical goods
rightly distributed; to take care that the ordinances made by
provincial, national, and general assemblies are duly executed; and also
to make constitutions which concern τὸ πρéπον in the
kirk,[277]--all which duties by the Act of Parliament are expressly
assigned to the presbytery.[278] This question has been keenly debated
down to our own day. The weight of authority is certainly very decidedly
in favour of the opinion which identifies this eldership with the
presbytery. Among recent authorities we have Dr David Laing and Dr Cook
of Haddington on this side, in opposition to the late Principal
Cunningham of St Andrews; and among those of a somewhat earlier time we
have Principal Lee, Dr M'Crie, and the late Dr George Cook of St Andrews
pronouncing in favour of the same view. If we go to older authorities
again, we have Spottiswoode, the episcopal historian, and Calderwood,
the presbyterian, at one in supporting it. I know of no considerable
authority in the seventeenth century which has been adduced on the other
side, save that of Henderson, whose statement, however, is rather
inferential than direct. In fact, the eldership is used in the Second
Book of Discipline itself as a convertible term with presbytery, and is
often so used in the acts of contemporary assemblies. When presbyteries
came to be set up, they are sometimes designated by the name of
eldership, and sometimes by that of presbytery; and where our present
authorised version of Scripture reads "with the laying on of the hands
of the presbytery," the Genevan version reads, "with the laying on of
the hands of the companie of the eldership."[279]
[Sidenote: The Kirk-Session.]
The only other alternative is that suggested by the late Procurator
Cook, that in the Second Book of Discipline the functions of the two
courts were as yet undistributed; and that when they came to be legally
distributed by the Act of Parliament of 1592, those which the framers of
the Second Book assigned to the eldership were in nearly its very words
appropriated to the presbytery, and a much more limited province
assigned to the kirk-session--the court called by the Puritans of the
south by the name of the Lesser Presbytery. Perhaps it may be regarded
as a rather curious confirmation of this theory of Procurator Cook's,
that what he supposes to have been first intended by the framers of the
Book as a common court is asserted by Gillespie, the ablest of their
successors in the following century, to have been really characteristic
of the presbytery of the primitive church. Whatever may be thought of
his argument in vindication of what he calls the two presbyteries, the
fact remains that he explicitly admits there was but one in the
primitive church;[280] and this will be all the more remarkable if,
with Mr Cook, we hold that what the framers of the Second Book of
Discipline really designed was one presbytery or eldership governing a
larger or smaller number of churches in common; and that we owe the
distribution of the power between the two courts rather to the Act of
Parliament than to the Second Book of Discipline. I agree with
Gillespie, however, that in the circumstances of the church in a
thoroughly Christianised country it would have been a matter to be
regretted if every congregation had not had its session or lesser
presbytery, with such definitely limited powers as by the Act of
Parliament, and by the later acts of the church, are entrusted to it;
and I am not sure that we do not owe this arrangement to the episcopal
rather than to the presbyterian party, and that it was a concession made
by them as the only presbytery they could well acknowledge, if they were
to leave any function for the bishop at all in this court. At least the
rough draft of the clause of the subsequent Act of Parliament in regard
to the kirk-session appears first in the conference held between the two
parties, and is then noted as having had the express approval of the
king and commissioners of Parliament,[281] which was not at that time,
nor till considerably later, secured to the clauses in the Act affirming
the powers of the larger presbytery.
[Sidenote: Westminster Theory of the Church.]
I have said elsewhere that in chapters xxv. and xxvi. of the Westminster
Confession of Faith we have a doctrine affirmed as to the church and the
communion of saints which seems to me to be more thoroughly catholic
than that which is set forth in the Articles of the Irish Episcopal
Church, of the teaching of which the compilers of our Confession have so
largely availed themselves. In addition to one invisible church to which
all the true elect of God are affirmed to belong, and particular visible
churches composed of _professing_ Christians in particular nations (both
of which are expressly owned in both formularies), the Westminster
Confession recognises one visible church to which all throughout the
world who profess faith in Christ are to feel that they belong, and
with the members of which they are bound, as God gives them opportunity,
to cultivate union and communion. "The catholic or universal church,
which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect that have
been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof;
and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.
The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel
(not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all
those throughout the world that profess the true religion, and of their
children, and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and
family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of
salvation. Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the
ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God for the gathering and
perfecting of the saints in this life to the end of the world; and doth
by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them
effectual thereunto. This catholic church hath been sometimes more,
sometimes less, visible; and particular churches which are members
thereof are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel
is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship
performed more or less purely in them.... All saints that are united to
Jesus Christ their head, by His Spirit and by faith, have fellowship
with Him in His graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory. And,
being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other's
gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties,
public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good." In other words,
every true member of the church, be he hearer or office-bearer, holds
his place in the body for the good of all, and is bound to use his gifts
and opportunities to promote, as far as he can, the spiritual and
temporal good of all. A single sentence from the Westminster Directory
for Church Government is all I need to give, in supplement of this
statement of the Confession, to put you in full possession of their
authors' views and aspirations. "When their number [_i.e._, the
membership of a congregation] is so great that they cannot conveniently
meet in one place, it is expedient that they be divided according to the
respective bounds of their dwellings into distinct and fixed
congregations for the better administration of such ordinances as belong
unto them, and the discharge of mutual duties; wherein all, according to
their several places and callings, are to labour to promote whatever
appertains to the power of godliness and credit of religion, that the
whole land, in the full extent of it, may become the kingdom of our Lord
and of His Christ."
[Sidenote: Ideal Presbytery.]
The sum of all this may be given in the words of Henderson, in the
conclusion of his treatise on 'The Government and Order of the Church of
Scotland,' the only other treatise which has any right to be set
alongside of the Books of Discipline. "In the authoritie of these
assemblies, parochial, presbyteriall, provinciall, and nationall, and in
the subordination of the lesser unto the greater, or of more particular
elderships to the larger and generall eldership, doth consist the
externall order, strength, and steadfastnesse of the Church of
Scotland.... Here there is a superiority without tyrannie, for no
minister hath a papall or monarchicall jurisdiction over his own flock,
far lesse over other pastors and over all the congregations of a large
dioces. Here there is paritie without confusion and disorder, for the
pastors are in order before the elders, and the elders before the
deacons; the church [_i.e._, each congregation] is subordinate to the
presbyterie, the presbyterie to the synod, and the synod to the
nationall assembly. One pastor also hath priority [of esteem] before
another, for age, for zeale, for gifts, for his good deservings of the
church, each one honouring him whom God hath honoured, and as he beareth
the image of God which was to bee seen among the apostles themselves.
But none hath power or jurisdiction above others: even as in nature one
eye hath not power over another, only the head hath power over all, even
as Christ over His church.... And lastly, here there is a subjection
without slaverie, for the people are subject to the pastors and
assemblies, yet there is no assemblie wherein everie particular church
hath not interest and power; nor is there anything done but they are, if
not actually, yet virtually called to consent unto it."[282] This is
presbytery in theory, and there is no reason why we should not
approximate to the ideal in practice more closely than some recent
representations imply, save that we come short of what we ought to be as
men and as Christians, and that would suffice to mar any form of
government that could be devised by the wit of men.
FOOTNOTES:
[257] Cunningham's Church History of Scotland, 1859, i. 444.
[258] Ibid., i. 445.
[259] Hill Burton's History of Scotland, 1876, v. 203.
[260] Confession of 1560, in Dunlop's Confessions, ii. 92, 93. [In
Laing's Knox, ii. 118, it is _reformatioun and purgatioun_ instead of
_conservation and purgation_.]
[261] Dunlop's Confessions, ii. 788, 789. [The Second Book of Discipline
has been frequently printed. It is in Calderwood's History, Wodrow
Society ed., iii. 529-555; Spottiswoode's History, 1655, pp. 289-302;
Spottiswoode Society ed., ii. 233-256; Booke of the Universall Kirk,
Bannatyne Club ed., ii. 488-512; Peterkin's ed., pp. 537-563; Dunlop's
Confessions, ii. 757-805. The quotations in the text are from Dunlop.]
[262] Ibid., ii. 764. Melville afterwards more pithily expressed the
same principle in his sovereign's presence: "Thair is twa kings and twa
kingdomes in Scotland. Thair is Chryst Jesus the King, and His kingdome
the kirk, whase subject King James the Saxt is, and of whase kingdome
nocht a king, nor a lord, nor a heid, bot a member! And they whome
Chryst hes callit and commandit to watch over His kirk, and governe His
spirituall kingdome, hes sufficient powar of Him and authoritie sa to
do, bathe togidder and severalie; the quhilk na Christian king nor
prince sould controll and discharge, but fortifie and assist, utherwayes
nocht fathfull subjects nor members of Chryst" (Melville's Diary, p.
370).
[263] Hill Burton's History of Scotland, v. 203.
[264] Dunlop's Confessions, ii. 763.
[265] Dunlop's Confessions, ii. 762.
[266] Rutherfurd's Divine Right of Church Government, 1646, pp. 596,
597. [1 John iii. 1 is a misprint in the original for 1 John iv. 1.]
[267] Aaron's Rod Blossoming, 1646, p. 177.
[268] Ibid., pp. 180, 181.
[269] [Dr Mitchell may have found such a claim elsewhere in Gillespie's
works; but it is not distinctly made in that chapter of 'Aaron's Rod
Blossoming' from which the quotations in this paragraph are taken,
although perhaps it may be held to be implied in the words: "By which it
appeareth that their [_i.e._, the Independents'] way will not suffer
them to be so far moulded into an uniformity, or bounded within certain
particular rules (I say not with others, but even among themselves) as
the Presbyterian way will admit of" (Aaron's Rod Blossoming, p. 181).]
[270] Aaron's Rod Blossoming, p, 182.
[271] Aaron's Rod Blossoming, p. 183.
[272] Peterkin's Booke of the Universall Kirk, 1839, p. 549 n. [The late
Bishop Russell, after examining the four MS. copies of Spottiswoode's
History, came to the conclusion that the one in the Advocates' Library
is only the first and incompleted draft of the work, and that the one in
Trinity College, Dublin, is the one which Spottiswoode himself prepared
for the press. Bishop Russell accordingly followed the Dublin MS. in his
edition of the History printed for the Spottiswoode Society, and that
edition (as well as the old folio edition) contains the notes of
agreement and disagreement. Peterkin has printed the Second Book of
Discipline, from an attested copy publicly read on the 29th of September
1591 "in the elderschip of Haddingtoun," and "subscryvit be the brethren
thairof." Of the ten subscribers, nine write _minister_ after their
names; the other simply signs, "Mr L. Hay, Bass."]
[273] Dunlop's Confessions, ii. 759, 760.
[274] Dunlop's Confessions, ii. 769.
[275] _Supra_, pp. 170-173.
[276] ["Some reproachfully and others ignorantly call them _lay elders_.
But the distinction of the clergie and laity is popish and
anti-christian; and they who have narrowly considered the records of
ancient times have noted this distinction as one of the grounds whence
the mystery of iniquity had the beginning of it. The name of _clergie_
appropriate to ministers is full of pride and vaine-glory, and hath made
the holy people of God to be despised, as if they were prophane and
uncleane in comparison of their ministers" (Gillespie's Assertion of the
Government, 1641, p. 3).]
[277] Dunlop's Confessions, ii. 779, 780.
[278] Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, iii. 542.
[279] [In some editions of the Genevan version the word "eldership" is
thus explained in the margin: "Under this name he containeth the whole
ministerie of the church which was at Ephesus."]
[280] Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, 1641, pp.
128-130, 136-147.
[281] [It is not quite clear which conference Dr Mitchell is here
referring to. In the conference held at Stirling in December 1578, the
Second Book of Discipline was discussed section by section. The results
are preserved not only by Spottiswoode, as mentioned above (p. 227 n.),
but also by Calderwood (iii. 433-442), neither of whom, however, says
that these results were then noted as having been expressly approved by
the king. The heads agreed upon at the Holyrood conference on 17th
February 1585-86 do not include anything which can be regarded as the
draft of the clause of the Act of 1592 concerning the power and
jurisdiction of "particulare kirkis" (Calderwood's History, iv.
491-494). The articles defining the jurisdiction of provincial
assemblies, presbyteries, and particular kirks, agreed on by the king in
conference with some of the brethren sent to him by the General Assembly
in May 1586, are transferred almost _verbatim_ to the Act of Parliament
of 1592 (Booke of the Universall Kirk, Bannatyne Club edit., ii. 665,
666; Calderwood's History, iv. 567, 568; Acts of Parliament, iii. 541,
542).]
[282] The Government and Order of the Church of Scotland, 1641, pp. 60,
64, 65.