The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-08-23
MIR. Gardiner on Scotch Presby
terianiSm.

1t is interesting to mark the different
spirit in which different historical writers
refer to the part taken by Presbyterian
ism-and especially Scotch Presbyte-
rianism-in the great struggle for liberty
in the seventeenth century. They all
whether it be Hume, Buckle, Burton,
Macaulay, Froude, Mason, or Gardiner
regard the Presbyterians as the lead
ing factor in the situation Yet few of
these historians cared anything for Pres
byterianism, and some of them assailed
it with a bitterness that can hardly be
paralleled in literature. Buckle was the
worst of this class, but the man was a
PositiVist, who had hardly any place tor
religion in his theory of life. Yet even
he declared that these detested Presby-
terians of Scotland saved the liberties OF
Britain. Mason has done noble service
to Presbyterianism as we'll as to history
in his noble volumes on the life of Mil
ton. The latest historian of the period
is the Rev. Samuel R. Gardiner, LII D.,
who is Professor of Modern History in
Kings College, London, in work still
in progress, entitled THE Fall of the
Monarchy" of which two most interest
ing volumes have already made their
appearance. He is not brilliant, like
Macaulay or Froude, but he is one of the
most painstaking of writer's, with a mar
velIously true insight into the situation
of political and religious parties in the
great struggle which he is depicting with
a very rare power of description. Yet
he is an Eppiscopalian Churchman by
conviction who lets us see that there is
little in Presbyterianism that he sees to
commend, while he is ardently devoted
to a Broad Church responsiveness Of
thought which, he thinks, must always
find its true home, not in Presbyterianlsm
but in Episcopacy.
Mr.. Gardiner has no mercy upon Laud
and the bishops of that time, and quotes
admiringly the words of Lord Falkland
=" They who hated the Bishops hated
them worse than the Devil; they who
loved them did not love them so we'll as
their dinner" He tells the terrible
story of their intolerance with the utmost
faithfulness, but adds in one of his SEN
tences-" Undoubtedly there are con-
ditions under which bishops are much
safer guardians of religious liberty than
4 IeSDy JeIIdH hSSeuDlleS are likely 10
be- We should like Mr.. Gardiner to
prove his point by reference to histori-
cal facts, of ancient or modern times.
No doubt'h imagines that the religious
liberty which is now enjoyed in the
Church of England is there in virtue of
its Episcopal constitution. But it is
there simply because the bishops have
no power whatever over the incumbents
of parishes. In days when the bishops
were able to exercise their power, they
never supported the cause of religious
liberty. They have been sitting as Peers
In the House of Lords for hundreds of
years, and they have been always iden-
tilted with the cause of intolerance and
penal prescription. They have always
voted against the relaxation Of penal
laws, against religious liberty, and
against the legislation that has finally
secured it. But we are at present more
concerned with Mr. GARDENERS account
OF Presbyterianism in Scotland. He
shows how it arose in its might in 1858
to sweep away the old Episcopacy i'm
posed by the Stuarts, and he praises the
mixed lay-clerical constitution Of the
Assembly which established Presbyte-
rianism-" Whatever Scotland was in
its strength and its weakness, in its fierce
incorporating dogmatism, in its stern
religious enthusiasm, in it's worldly
ambition and hair-spltting argumen
tativeness, in it's homely ways and reso-
Lutte defiance Of foreign creed and Of a
fc~s