05.20. Appendix

APPENDIX.

NOTE. Page 318.

I AM tempted to republish here a portion of a little work, doomed I suppose to oblivion, namely, my Letters to Mr. Elliott on some passages in his " Horse Apocalypticae." In my argument with him regarding the constitution of the Church of Christ on earth, and its claim of freedom from the control of the civil power, I found myself brought into contact with " the famous text," as Mr. Elliott calls it, "My kingdom is not of this world;" and I was led to make the following observations upon it, which I reprint without any change, believing that they sufficiently explain themselves:

It is a remarkable scene which that "judgment-hall," or chamber of private audience, in the governor’s palace, presents. Pilate and Jesus are seen confronting one another, alone: apart from the accusing Jews, who remained, through all the trial, on the stairs, or in the vestibule, without. Pilate, then, and Jesus, are met face to face: Pilate representing the majesty of earth, Jesus the majesty of heaven: Pilate set in defence of the prerogatives of human governments, Jesus asserting a divine prerogative of his own. The State and the Church are brought together: the State, in the person of one who wields the power of the Roman Emperor, the ruler of the world, the Church, in the person of her great Head. And the business to be transacted is nothing less than the adjustment of their respective claims. I believe that nearly all the essential elements of a right adjustment of these claims may be found in the brief conversation that ensues.

Thus, in the first place, the Lord declares that he is a king, and that he has & kingdom. And I repeat that this must imply a purpose to have a visible society upon earth, organized in his name. That was the only sense in which his being a king, and having a kingdom, could be a matter with which Pilate had anything to do: and I own I cannot conceive of Christ using such language as that now before us, if he did not wish it to be understood of an actual, outstanding community, about to be formed in the world. He did intend to set up a commonwealth of his own, and to exercise authority in it, just as ostensibly as other kings do. This, therefore, seems to be sufficient warrant for the doctrine, that the visible Church is a divine institution; and that Christ exercises full royal authority in it, governing it by distinct laws and distinct officers of his own, laws and officers as distinct from those of civil governments, as the arrangements of one earthly king are from those of another.

Then, secondly, the Lord intimates that this kingdom or society of his, which he is to govern as King, by laws and officers of his own, differs from other kingdoms, inasmuch as being "not of this world," but spiritual and heavenly, in its professed character and objects, it has not, and ought not to have, any of this world’s authority or power intrusted to it. In particular, no civil authority belongs to it, and no power of the sword; or, in other words, no branch of the visible Church has any right,’ nor can it lawfully usurp or receive any right, to decide civil causes, or to use violence, conscience alone being the single principle by which it is to act and to maintain itself. But yet, thirdly, the Lord makes the domain of conscience very wide and universal. For he goes on, in the immediately following verse, to claim and challenge the allegiance of Pilate himself to this kingdom of his. It is a kingdom a government or sovereignty depending not at all on the force of arms, but wholly on the force of truth: its King is the witness to the truth: it appeals not to physical coercion, or constraint, but exclusively to conscience. It appeals, however, through the truth of which its King is the witness, to the conscience of every one, of rulers as well as subjects, of Pilate himself as well as others. The princes of this world, therefore all civil rulers and governors are, in their official capacity, and not merely as private persons, bound to hear the voice of this King, to own the truth of which he is the witness, and to acknowledge the kingdom of which he is the Governor. And hence, in the fourth place, as the Lord emphatically teaches, they are peculiarly responsible to God for the manner in which they deal with his Son, and with the kingdom which his Son sets up, a kingdom in, though not of, the world. For when Pilate, hard pressed between his own convictions on the one hand, and the bloodthirsty cry of the Jews on the other, turns rudely round upon the meek prisoner before him, and boasts of his power to do with Jesus what he pleased how does the Lord reply to him? ’That power thou doubtless hast. But whence derived? From God: "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above." And tbou art thinking to use the power received from God against the Son of God! ’ This was a fearful aggravation of the traitor’s sin, that he called forth a power ordained of God to crush the Son of God: " Therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. " ’ It must be an aggravation, also, of thy guilt, if thou fallest into his snare, and into his condemnation.’

Pilate here represents the princes of this world: and what the Lord says to him, applies to them. Their power is not superseded or abridged by the setting up of Christ’s kingdom, or by his claim of sovereignty. Neither on his own part, personally, nor for his visible Church under him, does he challenge any right to control civil rulers, even as to their treatment of himself and that very Church.

These rulers are left to their own discretion, to act upon their own responsibility. Their duty, however, is plain, and their interest and safety, too; to "kiss the Son " (Psalms 2:10-12); to own publicly and officially the truth to which he bears witness; and to respect and hold sacred his separate and independent authority in that kingdom, or visible Church, which he rules by statutes and magistrates of his own. In a word, he does not interfere with them in their kingdoms, nor should they interfere with him in his.

These, in substance, are our Church principles; denying the power of the sword to the Church, and the power of the keys to the civil magistrate. That power of the keys, in our view of it, is simply the right to determine who shall be members, and who shall be officers, of the Christian society. It is not, therefore, in reality, very formidable. No doubt, it is easy to create a vague fear of undefined and irresponsible ecclesiastical supremacy; and it is easy, also, to cast a mist around a plain doctrine, by exaggerating the difficulty of distinguishing between things civil and things ecclesiastical. Both of these artifices were very plentifully used against us when we were contending for our principles within the Scottish Establishment; and I am not surprised that they should have had their effect in influencing your view of our position since we left it. But stript of all its technicalities, and of the details of endless legal subtlety, our claim really never amounted to more than this, that it belongs to the visible Church herself, according to her own views of duty, guided by the word and Spirit of God alone, to say who shall be admitted to membership, and who shall be admitted to office, within her communion; that is, not merely to admit, by whatever ceremony, but to judge who shall be admitted. The Erastianisni "which we condemn, is a direct refusal of this claim.