BY THE REV. D. MACFARLANE, DINGWALL.
THE controversy as to which is the true Church is of old standing. It is as old as the time of Cain and Abel, and this question has been more or less agitated in the Church ever since. It shall continue to be so till the millennium, when the question shall be shelved for a thousand years. It shall at the close of that glorious period be revived once more for a short season, and shall be finally settled by the Judge of all at His second advent to judge the quick and the dead at the last day.
In New Testament times this controversy was carried on between Christ and the Jews, who, though they crucified the Lord of glory, maintained that they were the only Church of God in the world, and unchurched all others outside the pale of their own communion. At the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century the question was discussed between Protestants and Papists, and though the latter persecuted unto death 60,000,000 Christians, they held that they were the only true Church of Christ on earth, and they unchurched and excluded from salvation all others outside the pale of their own Church. At the time of the Oxford movement in 1833 the question was controverted between Protestants in the Church of England and the Tractarians, who are now designated “High Church Anglicans,” alias “Ritualists,” and the controversy is still going on in the Church of England and other Churches at home and abroad.
The question raised by the ritualistic Bishop of Zanzibar is a direct attack upon Presbyterian and other non-Episcopal Churches. It ultimately resolves itself into the question of the validity of Presbyterian ordination. The Bishop holds that the ordination of Presbyterian ministers is not valid because, not performed by a Bishop, and that Presbyterian Churches are not branches of the Church of Christ! This controversy is not to be settled by the opinions of men, but by the Word of God. “To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them.” Presbyterianism is supported by the Word of God, whereas Episcopacy has no warrant or authority in Scripture.
We can prove from Scripture that Presbyterian Churches that adhere to the Word of God as their only rule of faith and practice are branches of the Church of Christ, and we can prove from the same source that Ritualistic Churches are not branches of the Church of Christ, whatever they may profess. The Christian Church in the days of the apostles is the model to which we must bring all Churches that profess the Christian religion, in order to ascertain which are branches of the Church of Christ and which not. In examining the Christian Church in the days of the apostles we shall notice:—
1. Its office-bearers.
We find that there were two classes of office-bearers, elders and deacons. The elders were of two sorts—teaching elders, whose function was to teach and to rule; while the function of the other elders was to rule in conjunction with the teaching elders or ministers. In certain circumstances the ruling elders might teach also. The deacons’ work was in connection with the finances of the Church, especially the money contributed by the members of the Church towards the relief of the poor (Acts vi. 1-6). Now, this is exactly the order that is followed in Presbyterian Churches. But in the Episcopal Church there are at least three orders of office-bearers—bishop, priest, and deacon. The name, bishop, in the days of the apostles was synonymous with the name, presbyter. The names, bishop and presbyter, did not mean two offices, but two aspects of the one and the same office. The Presbyter was an overseer (as the word, bishop, means) of his own congregation, but he had no jurisdiction over other pastors and their congregations (1 Peter v. 2). Peter himself, though an apostle, was a Presbyterian, and he was addressing, not bishops in the prelatic sense but Presbyterian ministers as to their duties towards their congregations. As for the name, priest, it has no warrant or authority in the Christian Church. In all the New Testament Scripture the name, priest, is not once mentioned, either in the original or in a correct translation, to denominate an office-bearer in the Christian Church. The only Priest of the New Testament is Christ, “the High Priest of our profession” (Heb. iii. 1). The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews proves this beyond doubt. It is surprising that men who profess to believe the Word of God should be so blind as not to see that all human priesthood was abolished and superseded by the priesthood of Christ. But some men are wise above what is written in the Scriptures, but their wisdom is foolishness in the sight of God. The retention of the name, priest, under the New Testament dispensation has been productive of many other errors, as the past history of the Church shows, which should be a warning to us. The sacerdotalism in the Church of England is one of the evil fruits of retaining the name, priest, in that Church.
2. Its doctrines.
What were the doctrines taught in the Christian Church in the days of the apostles? We are not left to conjecture. We have these doctrines in the Acts of the Apostles and in their Epistles, and in the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They taught “all things whatsoever Christ had commanded them” (Matt. xxviii. 20). But Episcopalians teach many things which Christ never commanded. This is true, especially of Ritualists in the Church of England and in the Scottish Episcopal Church, who teach the commandments of men for doctrine, which Christ condemned as making void the law (or Word) of God. Presbyterian ministers who adhere to the doctrines of God’s Word, as contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith, preach the same doctrines that were taught in the Christian Church in the days of the apostles. They preach “the faith once delivered to the saints,” without adding to it or taking from it. Who will call them “heretics and schismatics” for this? None but anti-Christians. But who will believe anti-Christians? No person who believes God’s Word.
3. Its worship.
The worship of the Christian Church in the days of the apostles consisted of reading and expounding the Scriptures, singing of Psalms by the lips or voice without the accompaniment of an organ, and prayer spoken and not read from a prayer-book. This is the mode of worship practised in Presbyterian Churches that adhere to the Scriptural creed of the Church. This is not true of the Episcopal Church, especially the ritualistic portion of it. They have uninspired hymns, organs, read prayers, read sermons; so that a schoolboy might conduct the most part of public worship at a less salary than is paid to ordained clergymen. In Ritualistic Churches they have also altars, crosses, incense, the mass in the morning, under the name of “holy communion,” the abominable confessional and absolution, prayers for the dead, images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and other saints. So that there is no difference between them and the Church of Rome but the name. In fact, they are Romanists in disguise, and when it suits them they go over to the Church of Rome, like Cardinal Newman and many others. They have no resemblance whatever to the early Christian Church. They are therefore “heretics and schismatics,” and should not be tolerated in a Protestant Church except as hearers only. Any person may come to hear the Gospel. But they would not remain long in a Protestant Church as hearers only. What they want is office in the Church, as bishops or archbishops, so as to make such changes in the Church as to undo the work of the Reformation, which brought unspeakable blessings to England, Scotland, and other countries of Europe. It brought an open Bible and a preached Gospel, by means of which many were translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son. Satan was angry at this, and he is now trying to show his revenge. He knows that the Bible is the powerful means of destroying his kingdom. Hence his hatred of the Bible and its doctrines, and his efforts, through the instrumentality of deluded men, to get it displaced by “the commandments of men,” superstition, and idolatry. “The Lord rebuke thee, Satan.”
4. Its government.
So far as we learn from the teaching and practice of the apostles the government of the Church was neither papal nor prelatic. It could not be papal because there was no Pope then; nor could it be prelatic, for Prelacy did not exist at that early period of the Church’s history. Christ was their only Lord and Master, and all they were brethren, holding equal status in the Church. An ambition for superiority appeared among them, but Christ nipped it in the bud; and it took at least two centuries before the presbyter was, on mere human authority, exalted above his brethren. This was the origin of Episcopacy. Episcopacy was the root from which the Papacy sprang. Any person reading Church history may see this. The Bishop was the father of the Pope, and strange to say, the poor father must now obey his son, or he will get his whipping.
Guided by the light of New Testament Scripture, we may confidently say that the government of the Church in the apostolic age was Presbyterial. The pastor, who was always a Presbyterian, not only preached the doctrines of God’s Word to his congregation, but also ruled them in conjunction with ruling elders. This governing body in the congregation is now called the Kirk-Session. One congregation is in Scripture called a church, but as the apostles went on to preach the Gospel, according to Christ’s command, and as the Lord added, through their preaching, to the Church such as should be saved, several congregations were formed and pastors were ordained over them—the ordination being performed not by a Bishop but by the Presbytery (1 Tim. iv. 14). The governing body of these several congregations consisted of the pastors of the congregations, together with their representative ruling elders, to whom matters in dispute were referred and by whom these matters were settled according to the law of the Church—the Word of God. As these congregations were not different denominations but branches of the one Church, it was meet that the governing body, which is called the Presbytery, should take an interest in all the congregations within their bounds and under their jurisdiction. But as the Church grew and congregations increased in numbers and widely apart throughout the land, and several Presbyteries formed, a higher Court of appeal was necessary, to which all matters of controversy were referred for final settlement. In our Presbyterian Church we call this highest Court the Synod or General Assembly. We have this highest Court of the Church not as a mere matter of human arrangement or expediency, but on the warrant of New Testament Scripture. In the fifteenth chapter of Acts we have a precedent for it. This meeting, convened at Jerusalem, was a General Assembly, for there were representatives present from all congregations of the Church concerned in the case submitted to the Court, and the case was decided by the unanimous consent of the “apostles, elders, and the brethren.”
The government of the Christian Church is not monarchical—founded on a supposed apostolical succession. Both the Church of Rome and the Episcopal Church claim apostolical succession, but without any Scripture warrant or authority. For the apostles, as inspired men, were no ordinary office-bearers in the Church; their office was unique and temporary, and came to an end when they left the world. They had their commission direct from Christ—the Head of the Church—and they were ordained to their office by Christ. This was true even of the Apostle Paul, which he proves when his apostleship is called in question. But no other office-bearer in the Church since Christ’s ascension to heaven has been called, set apart, and ordained to his office in like manner. The only apostolical succession that can be claimed now is that of doctrine. The apostles left the doctrines they taught behind them, which we have in the Scriptures of the New Testament; and the ministers who hold and teach these doctrines are the true followers of the apostles, while those whose teaching is contrary to these doctrines have no claim to be the successors of the apostles, whatever they may profess. Ritualists should be the last to claim apostolical succession, for they teach the very opposite of what the apostles taught. They teach and practice idolatry, which Christ and His apostles condemned, and which God’s prophets of old condemned, and which all Christ’s true servants now condemn. It is evident from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments that idolatrous Churches are not branches of the Church of Christ. Ritualistic Churches are idolatrous; therefore they are not branches of the Church of Christ.
While we are in full sympathy with our fellow-Protestants in England, and doing all we can, by prayer and otherwise, to help them in their struggle against the Romanising work that is going on in their Church, we desire to point out some of the mistakes they made at the time of the Reformation, the bitter fruits of which they are now reaping.
i. The form of Church government they adopted.
At the Reformation they rejected the Pope but retained the papedom. They put the government of the Church in the hands of one man—the King—who is the head of their Church, and who, through the Prime Minister, appoints bishops and archbishops to vacant charges in the Church. If those bishops and archbishops are Romanists they will intrude Romanising clergymen on Protestant congregations against their will, and thus deprive the people of the power of choosing their own pastors—a privilege that belongs to all Christians. And if the people complain that the pastors thus forced on them teach Romanism instead of the Gospel of Christ, and appeal to the bishops and archbishops for redress, they shall not be listened to. This is actually the case now in the Church of England, and this is one of the evil effects of the form of Church government they adopted at the Reformation. We have not yet observed that the Protestants in the Church of England, who are oppressed in a high-handed manner by their superiors, have come to see the real root of the evil, and therefore we wish to call their attention to it. In Presbyterian Churches the people have the power of choosing their own pastors, and if these pastors after their ordination preach Romanism or any other error, contrary to their ordination vows, the people have the right and the privilege of appealing to the Courts of the Church, with the result that the offending pastors must give up their heretical teaching or be deposed. We have seen a Romanising clergyman tried at the Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, found guilty, and deposed. If the Archbishops in England were true Protestants they might deal with the Romanising Bishop of Zanzibar and other Romanisers in the same way. But will they do it? We fear not. But the people should demand it, and if the archbishops in any way encouraged the Romanising of the Protestant Church of England, the people should oppose them and appeal to the civil law of the country for justice. The Church of England is by law established. It is to be borne in mind that it was not men that were established, but the Protestant doctrines of the Church. Therefore no Romaniser should be permitted to enter the pulpit of the Church. The only place for such in the Church, whether he be a bishop or an archbishop, is as a hearer only, and if he is not pleased, let him leave and join a Church in which he may find as much idolatry as he can swallow.
ii. The Church of England at the Reformation retained some dregs of Popery, such as the sign of the cross in baptism, kneeling at the Lord’s Supper, bowing at the name of Jesus, baptismal regeneration, the names, priest, bishop, and archbishop, observance of Christmas, Easter, and other “holy days”—all which are unscriptural, and tend to Romanise the Church.
Besides, she holds that she has power to decree rites and ceremonies. If so, why find fault with Ritualists?
We point out these mistakes in a Christian spirit and in brotherly love, believing that the Protestant Church of England is a branch of the Church of Christ, and that the ritualistic party in it, but not of it—represented by the Bishop of Zanzibar—is not a branch of the Christian Church.
“THOU that repentest not, look to the thing before thee, an eternity of wrath, ready to embrace thee everlastingly, a fire of hell abiding thee, and a worm that shall never die to gnaw thee eternally, and an eternity of torment to punish thee. O, eternity, eternity! Who will not be astonished to think on that eternity? O soul! why shakest thou not, and tremblest not, when thou hast mind of that eternity? Are these fables, think you, when I am telling you of these things, when I preach to you of eternity, and when I speak of a heaven and a hell to you, is it not the oracle of God? And is it not this truth, which the Son Himself that was from the beginning, and came out of the Father’s bosom, and was upon the counsel of God, and knew all that was in the Father’s heart? Is it not He that hath spoken this, for He has told you that there is a fire that shall never be quenched, and there is a worm that shall never die; and He that brought the glad tidings of salvation to a sinner that repents He has brought the same news from heaven that one day he shall throw all impenitent sinners into a lake that burns with fire and brimstone eternally.”— John Welch.