The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-08-23

mirror, in the Assembly which was now
elected in the teeth of the Kings Com
missioner" Speaking again, of the re-
markable work done by this Assembly,
he says -" Whatever forces were be-
hind, the revolution which had been eff
fected was a Presbyterian revolution.
The preacher was and remained the guide
and hero of Scottish nationality. The
preacher was strong because he appealed
to an ideal conviction larger and nobler
than his logic. Bishops were to be pro-
scribed, not because particular bishops
had done amiss, but in the name of the
principle of parity amongst all who were
engaged in the ministration of the truths.
The influence of the King was to be set
aside in the Church, not because Charles
had been unwarrantably meddlesome,
but because the Church knew but one
Heavenly King. 1t is impossible to
doubt that the Scottish people grew the
nobler and the purer for these thoughts
far nobler and purer than if they had
accepted larger creed at the bidding of
any earthly King. Of liberty of thought
these Scottish preachers neither knew
anything nor cared to know anything.
10 the mass of their followers they were
kindly guides, reciprocating in their
teaching the faith which existed around
them. But Scotland was no country for
eccentricities of thought and action.
Hardihood was there, and brave cham
plonshlp of the native land and the ma
tive religion. Spiritual and mental free
dom would have one day to be learned
from England" This passage is fair
specimen of Mr. GARDENERS way of treat
ing Presbyterianism.
But it is passage which contains
much that is open to criticism. The
writer talks Of an ideal conviction
larger and nobler than their logic"
which led the Presbyterians to abolish
bishops and limit the kings prerogative
in things ecclesiastical. This is only re-
peating the jargon of literary school of
our day, for the logic of the Presbyterian
divines in their application of Scripture
was quite broad enough to carry the
weight of these two momentous conclu-
sions. The conviction, besides, was more
real than ideal. Mr.. Gardiner admits
that the Scotch people grew nobler un-
der these thoughts than if they had ac-
cepted "a larger creed "-that is, in the
Jargon of our time, broader and loosen
creed-from an earthly king. We are
not aware of any people reared to great
ness under the larger creed" that Mr..
Gardiner speaks of: we are disposed to
believe with Mr.. Froude that Arminian-
the term in its Laudian sense
has always stereotyped men in little
ness. Mr.. Gardiner talks of elderly OF
thought" as a thing foreign to the ideas
OF these Scotch preachers; but, like other
writers of our time, he confounds two
things that are entirely distict, freedom
of speculation with the federation of diff
ferences of opinion. 1t may be admitted
that all religious parties had much to
learn concerning religious liberty-that
is, the liberty of teaching what they be-
ieved-but as to liberty of thought"
though law and opinion in our day Law
no restrictions upon it, it is still as re
stricted as it ever was, by the Divine
Word. Though no king or magistrate
may call us to account for what we be-
lieve, we are just as accountable now as
we ever were to the King of Kings for
what we believe as well as for what we
do. The obligations of religion are in
tellectual as well as moral, and touch
the issues of thought as well as the issues
of conduct. We call no man master, but
it is just because werecognise the lordship
of the Redeemer over our whole intel
lectual life; and, in this sense, cannot
but think that the Scotch Divines of the
seventeenth century were the Lord s
freemen in the very act of subjecting
their views to the supreme authority and
guidance of the Lord Himself. We
should like Mr.. Gardiner to show us
larger liberty than this that can found
itself on any reasonably defensible prin-
ciples.-BeyaSt Witness.