By REV. JOHN COLQUHOUN, Glendale.
(Continued from page 11.)
THE Westminster Divines, though the greater part of their number were men who had been ordained according to the Episcopal form, state in the Confession of Faith, Chapter xxxi, that “for the better government and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils,” thus approving of the gradation of church courts. This “better government” can only be obtained by the people being represented in all the church courts as that is the case in the Presbyterian Church, and we get a clear proof of the fact that this was the view of these Divines from the matter contained in the Form of Presbyterian Church Government which they drew up, and which was approved of in an Act of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland on 10th February, 1649. In this Form of Church Government we see that the Divines, taking the Scriptures as their guide, point out that the officers of the Church are pastors and teachers, who are commonly called teaching elders; ruling elders, and also deacons, who are to look after the temporal affairs of congregations; and that the government of the Church is to be carried through by various church courts, such as congregational assemblies, or Kirk-sessions, classical assemblies or presbyteries, provincial and national assemblies.
We have thus seen that the church government which is sanctioned in Scripture is presbyterian. Under this system no office-bearer has power to lord it over another, and in all its courts the people are adequately represented. It is not left with any single individual to judge any case which calls for settlement, as in Episcopacy, neither is it left with the congregation at large, as in Independency, to review or overturn the decisions of office-bearers, and neither should it be, for the people are represented by their office-bearers, and, therefore, to appeal to the people at large in a case already settled by the office-bearers of the congregation, met in solemn assembly, is not Presbyterianism but Independency.
The protagonists of Episcopacy often plead antiquity for that system, but in view of what we have seen, that claim rests on a wrong view of the office of the New Testament bishop, and therefore can have no foundation. Bishop Lightfoot, in his paper on the “Christian Ministry,” has made this so clear that the matter cannot be questioned, that in the New Testament the same officer in the church is called “bishop” and “elder” or “presbyter,” and says, “It is clear that at the close of the apostolic age the two lower orders of the three-fold ministry were firmly and widely established, but traces of the third and highest order, the episcopate properly so-called, are few and indistinct.” This, coming from an ardent but candid advocate of Episcopacy, shows how impossible it is for Episcopalians to find Scripture warrant for the office of a bishop, as that office is known among them. It can safely be said to be nothing but the creature of man’s imagination, brought forward to puff up the vanity of the evil heart.
Inseparable from the office of a bishop, as that is understood by the Episcopal Church, is the theory of Apostolic Succession, and this has caused them to stand aloof from all other branches of the Christian Church, yet the literature connected with the Church for the first two centuries shows that this theory was unknown to the early Christians, and this makes it very clear that it was only when men began to depart from the Word of God that it put in an appearance. It is this same theory of Apostolic Succession which causes the Episcopal Church of to-day in England to be different from the Church of England at the time of the Reformation. Then, she recognised the validity of ordination in other branches of the Protestant Church, such as the Church of Scotland and the Reformed Churches of the Continent, but now she holds the view that such ordination is invalid, and thus she refuses to have communion with them, putting herself outside the pale of fellowship with other branches of the Christian Church. Not only so but she makes it appear that her bishops have a monopoly of the grace of God to dispense it only to those within their own communion. The Presbyterian Church, on the other hand, denies this theory, as contrary to the Word of God, inconsistent with what the early Christian Church believed, and subversive of the office of the Christian ministry as that was instituted by Christ Himself. The Presbyterian Church is the Church of the people, governed by their chosen representative sitting in the various church courts, and having their highest interests at heart. In this connection we cannot do better than quote the language of Alexander Henderson, the famous Covenanter, in his Treatise on “The Government and Order of the Church of Scotland.” “Here is a superiority without tyranny for no minister hath a papal or monarchical jurisdiction over his own flock, far less over other pastors and over all the congregations or a large diocese. Here there is a parity without confusion and disorder, for the Pastors are in order before the Elders and the Elders before the Deacons: every particular Church is subordinate to the Presbytery, the Presbytery to the Synod, and the Synod to the National Assembly. One Pastor hath priority before another for age, for zeal, for gifts, for his good deservings of the Church, each one honouring him whom God hath honoured and as he beareth the image of God which was to be seen amongst the Apostles themselves. But none hath pre-eminence of title or power or jurisdiction above others; even as in nature one eye hath not power over another, only the head hath power over all, even as Christ over His Church . . . And lastly, here is a subjection without slavery, for the people are subject to the Pastors and Assemblies, yet there is no Assembly wherein every particular Church hath not interest and power, nor is there anything done but they are if not actually yet virtually called to consent unto it.”
By what has been written above we see that Presbyterianism sets before us a democratic church government, in the hands of office-bearers appointed by the people in accordance with Christ’s own institution, and that these office-bearers are in office, not by virtue of any grace supposed to be transferred to them through a long line of bishops who had it from the Apostles, but because they had been set apart and ordained by regularly constituted church courts composed of presbyters or elders, and not of bishops according to the Episcopal Church’s understanding of that term. In this connection the case of the Apostle Paul himself is rather significant. He was an Apostle who, as he says himself, was born out of due time, and as the Apostle of the Gentiles he magnified his office, but his being set apart for the work of the ministry was not due to anything on the part of those who were Apostles already. In the account which he gives in the Epistle to the Galatians of his conversion and going forth to preach, he expressly states that he did not go up to Jerusalem to them who were Apostles before him, and, even fourteen years afterwards, all the contact he seems to have had with any of the Apostles was when “James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars,” gave to Barnabas and himself the “right hand of fellowship,” that they should go unto the heathen. In the account which Luke gives of Paul being set apart by the Church to his missionary work among the Gentiles, we find that that was done at Antioch and not at Jerusalem, where at least some of the Apostles might at the time be residing. No bishop, claiming the grace supposed to be connected with Apostolic Succession, is mentioned as laying his hands on Barnabas and Saul in order to communicate that grace to them, but we find that there were certain prophets and teachers there, whose names are given, and they all “laid their hands on them,” pretty much as is done under Presbyterian church government. On this first missionary journey on which they went we find that Paul and Barnabas were associated in ordaining elders in every church. Whatever Episcopalians may claim for Paul as an Apostle, Barnabas was neither an Apostle nor a bishop in their sense of the term, and therefore, according to their view, had no right to take part in the ordination of these elders, but the fact that he did so shows that ordination is Scriptural when performed by others than a diocesan bishop. Neither in this matter, nor in any other matters, do we find the Apostles claiming for themselves a higher place than belonged to presbyters or elders, and a very clear example of that is given by the Apostle Peter, for he does not claim to exhort the elders because he is an Apostle, but says, “The elders which are among you, I exhort who am also an elder,” or presbyter, (I Peter v, 1).
This shows us how unscriptural the attitude of aloofness of the Church of England is in refusing to recognise the validity of ordination, or the dispensing of the Sacraments, when performed by a Church holding the Presbyterian form of government. This aloofness recoils upon itself by casting it into a state of isolation which is more hurtful to itself than to those branches of the Christian Church which it refuses to recognise. In support of this contention we cannot do better than close this article with a quotation from the justly renowned Dr. Charles Hodge, of Princeton, in order to show the serious consequences into which the doctrine of Apostolic Succession and the holding of distorted views of church government leads the Church of England. “The isolation of that Church is no doubt to be referred, in a measure, to the outward course of her history; to her having been framed and fashioned by the king and parliament, established by the law of the land, and made the exclusive recipient of the wealth and honours of the State. But besides these outward circumstances, there must be something in the system itself, some element essentially anti-Protestant and exclusive, to which the effect in question is principally to be referred. This, we doubt not, is in general the subordination of truth to form; the making what is outward more important than what is inward. The question how a company of Christians is organised; what is their form of government; what their mode of worship; what their ecclesiastical descent, is of far more consequence in determining the question whether they are to be recognised as a Church, and to be communed with, and regarded as Christian brethren, members of the body of Christ, than either their faith or practice. If a body of professing Christians is organised in a certain way, it is a Church, no matter whether it is heretical and idolatrous as Rome,† or as ignorant and superstitious as the Greeks and Abyssinians. If organised in a different way, it is no Church, it has no ministry, no sacraments, and no part in the covenant of mercy. This is the legitimate consequence of the idea of the Church on which the whole Anglican system is founded. The Church is regarded as an external society, with a definite organisation, perpetuated by a regular succession of ordinations. Of course, in searching for the Church, the search is not for truth and holiness, but for organisation and succession,” (Church Polity, p. 135-136).
To cover grudges and jealousies in our hearts, were to nourish a flame in our bosom which doth but wait for a vent, and will at one occasion or other burst out. But to look too narrowly to every step, and to write up a register of men’s mere frailties, especially so as to publish them to the world; that is inconsistent with the rule of love. And truly, it is a token of one destitute of wisdom to despise his neighbour; but a man of understanding will hold his peace. He that has most defects himself will find most in others, and strive to vilify them one way or other; but a wise man can pass by frailties, yea, offences done to him and be silent, (Prov. xi, 12).—Hugh Binning.
† In this statement, Hodge is making a certain point. We, or Mr. Colquhoun, are not to be taken as supporting any implication that Rome is a Christian Church.—Editor.