this point, have been very well set forth by an able writer in the Saturday Review. His remarks follow:

Through the ages of Christian history, the State and the Church have always been distinct, sometimes allied, but not less often antagonistic powers. Herein is a great fundamental difference between Christian and Pagan, indeed between ancient and modern history,-here is the fact which lies at the bottom of the history of modern civilization. In Greece and Rome, and other Pagan countries less known to us, the same phenomenon may be less distinctly traced -the Church, or outward form of religion, was always in close intercommunOnce severed from it, it could not exist independion with the State. ently, simply because the outward form was all-there was no inner life, no conviction, no conscience to support it. Hence the identification of king and priest; hence, under certain conditions, the yearning of the religious sentiment to identify the king with GOD. The deification of the Roman emperors was the desperate attempt of a failing religious principle to recover its connection with the world of spirits. Hence followed, also, the distinction which may be constantly observed between religious persecutions under Paganism and under Christianity. The Pagan, in ordinary times, treated an alien belief with an indulgence to which some writers have given the names of liberality and true philosophy; but whenever the State was afflicted by temporal calamities, when plague raged or war impended, or an impression prevailed of national decline, then all this indulgence, this philosophical liberality, vanished in a moment. The people's religion, it was supposed, had been insulted, the people's gods were incensed-the State suffered for the impiety of the unbelievers. Hence the superstitious fury of the Athenians at the mutilation of the Hermæ, and the more extensive and conspicuous persecutions of the Christians under the Roman emperors-persecutions waxing more and more furious, more and more frantic, in proportion, not to the religious convictions of the people who demanded them, but to the sufferings and apprehended dangers of the State. Quite different have been the origin and motives of persecution among Christians. These have sprung from the inner conscience of fanatical believersfrom their assurance that the death of the body might be the salvation of the soul. Wicked as they have been, they have not generally been selfish. Inconsistent as they have been with that rare philosophy of belief, which is content to leave to GOD the punishment of injuries done to Himself, they are equally inconsistent with the indifference, the levity, the vital unbelief, which accompanied the heathen cry of "The Christians to the lions." The State indeed, in modern times, has too often taken advantage of the earnestness of popular fanaticism to repress inconvenient innovations, and stifle the spirit of inquiry, and therefore persecution among Christians has worn sometimes the appearance of zeal for the welfare of the State; but the notion of the heresy of a part of the nation bringing a curse upon the whole-the great bugbear of the heathen religions-has made but a faint and fleeting impression upon the Christian world.

We have copied more of this passage than was absolutely necessary to our purpose; because it contained important truths which will serve to illustrate that portion of it which is so necessary. The first great difference between the Christian and the Pagan religions is the truth of the one and the falsehood of the other. The second is that the one addresses itself to the faith and conscience and the other does not. From

these two arises a third, that the Christian religion is exclusive. Exclusiveness is not an inseparable badge of truth; but all truth implies exclusiveness. Hence exclusiveness is sometimes assumed by imitations of truth. But exclusiveness is the inseparable badge of sincere belief. Christianity is true, claims to be true, is exclusive, addresses itself to the conscience. This is manifested in the character of the persecutions of which mistaken Christians have been guilty. But it is also the reason that Christianity can endure persecution. It is the reason that the Church can exist independently of the State. It is a reason for her being unfit for an union with the State.

The only point in which the functions of the Church and the State coincide is, that they are both makers of laws. Each of them has other functions; but when we treat of the relations of the Church and the State, we are to treat of them both as lawgivers; in which general phrase may be included the idea of law expounders. Laws are designed to regulate moral actions. All moral actions ought to be governed by the Divine Law. But it is not necessary that in every case the Divine Law should be expounded and enforced by human authority. There thus remains a large body of moral action, which is not governed by any human law. Within this field of action lies the undisputed domain of private judgment. Every man is to conform his actions to the Divine Will; but he is to decide, for himself, without any appeal to any earthly tribunal. The term morals is applied to the body of principles by which men are to govern themselves in such matters. The term law is applied to the rules which have been promulgated by authority. Law is ecclesiastical or civil, as it has been promulgated by the authorities of the Church or of the State. There are thus three sets of rules to which men are subject. Some actions are prohibited by one of these sets of rules, others by two, others by all three. The idea of an action prohibited by one of these codes only is, however, to be taken with much qualification. For, usually, the code of morals prohibits every thing which either of the other codes prohibits. But there may be cases in which one of the legislatures has transcended its powers, and prohibited that which is not prohibited by the Law of GOD, and consequently not by the law of morals. But these are anomalous cases.

There are certain limits to the authority of both the Church and the State. But they cannot be defined by any very formal and precise rules. They must rest upon general principles; on the application of which the legislative authorities must themselves decide. These principles are some of those by which the relations of Church and State are to be governed; but there are other things to be taken into consideration.

Collisions between the Church and the State are great evils; and they are, if possible, to be avoided; but not at the expense of the abdication, by either, of its proper functions and authority. These extend, though upon different grounds, to the conservation of good morals, and that not only by direct laws, but by the assertion of principles which are not directly enforced by penal law. The latter is more within the province of the Church than of the State. It may be so used as to do much good, without any danger of a collision.

The present article must now draw to a close. It has been chiefly occupied with the nature of the Divine institutions of Church and State. Upon some future occasion it will be attempted to apply the general principles which it enunciates to their relations. From their nature those relations are to be inferred. They are very important as regulating the action of the Church herself, as well as that of individuals, and they are by no means generally understood.

H. D. E.

HISTORICAL SKETCHES OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION.

NO. VIII.-CLOUDS AND STORMS.

"A plague upon this howling!

They are louder than the weather, or our office."

-The Tempest.

CHARLES I. Succeeded his father upon the throne of Great Britain at the early age of twenty-five years. He was haughty and imperious by nature, possessed with the loftiest ideas of the royal prerogative, and entirely unacquainted with the spirit and character of the Scottish people. He had correct views of the

nature and constitution of the Christian Church, but his zeal far outran his discretion. When he wished to reach a point he essayed the shortest road to it, regardless of the obstacles in the way, and his ability to surmount them. The year after his accession (1624) he issued a new commission for Scotland to take cognizance of all ecclesiastical offences; but the nobles and other leading men fancied they saw another Star Chamber, and resisted so stoutly that he withdrew it. He also gave Archbishop Spottiswoode precedence before the Lord Chancellor, but that functionary, Sir George Hay, afterwards Earl of Kinnoul, sturdily objected, and would "never let him have it all the days of his life." He also issued Ten Articles to the Bishops for the more strict enforcing of those of Perth. The Primate had possessed much influence with James, and his wise suggestions and counsels were always attended to with respect; but Charles preferred to carry out his own ideas and opinions, and his Scotch advisers eventually deluded and betrayed him to gratify their hostility to the Church and Prelates.

The measures he took in reference to the tenths or tithes, though perfectly just in themselves, and indeed admirable, proved the main occasion of his future difficulties and disasters in this kingdom. It is impossible here to trace minutely and clearly the mode by which laymen had since the days of Knox's outbreak, got possession of the Church lands and tithes: suffice it to say that such was the fact. James had made vigorous attempts to remedy the evil, but had only succeeded in recovering some of the Episcopal estates at great expense; while his other efforts proved fruitless. Charles at one stroke revoked all the grants made in the two preceding reigns (as he had a legal right to do), except as to those lands which belonged to the Episcopal sees. In 1629 the parties interested made "a submission" to the King that he might decide on their respective rights; and a royal decree-arbitral was promulgated in September of that year, which provided among other things for the valuation of the tithes, and their appropriation as a fund liable to the utmost for the support of the clergy. Lawson states that the system established by Charles is substantially the same with that now existing; and that, though furiously assailed at the outset, it is now universally admitted to be ɛ

noble monument of the wisdom and magnanimity of the royal martyr.

A conference had been held at Edinburgh in 1628 to deliberate on the resumption of the Church laws, and was attended by many of the bishops, nobles, and clergy. An anecdote is related which forcibly illustrates the barbarity and ferocity of the manners of the day, and the wicked motives and principles of the opponents of the Church. It was agreed by these worthies that the Earl of Nithsdale and the other royal commis. sioners should be assassinated if they ventured to press the proposed scheme. Sir Robert Douglas, afterwards Earl of Belhaven, was blind, but he nevertheless desired to make one of the party and be placed by the side of one of the intended victims, as he said he "could make sure." He was accordingly seated next to the Earl of Dumfries, whom he tightly grasped with one hand, saying that from his blindness he was afraid of falling, while he kept the other on his dagger, prepared to stab his unsuspecting neighbour to the heart, as soon as he heard the sound of the commencement of the purposed massacre. The dark looks and threatening conduct of the conspirators alarmed the advocates of the measure, and they sent back a report to the King that it could not be carried into operation at this time. We shall find these advocates of murder the strongest supporters, in after days, of sedition, treason, and sacrilege,— in a word, of the detestable League and Covenant.

Charles visited Scotland in 1633, and was crowned at Holyrood House on the 17th of June. The chapel-royal was handsomely fitted up, and the coronation performed with much solemnity and dignity. The English service was celebrated constantly in the chapel during the King's stay, and on one occasion Archbishop Laud preached-which "scarcely any Englishman had done before him."

A Parliament was held after the coronation, and the King's restoration and restitution of Church lands was sanctioned by statute; and an act was also passed with some difficulty respecting the dress of the clergy. This latter was violently opposed by the Presbyterians, because they feared the surplice would be introduced in the performance of Divine service under cover of the authority granted to the King; and an insulting petition