By REV. JOHN COLQUHOUN, Glendale.
II.—The Original Government of the Church of Scotland.
Having seen, in a previous article, that there is not a shred of support for Episcopacy in the New Testament we now proceed to notice how our forefathers in Scotland reacted to efforts to put its galling yoke upon their shoulders. From the establishment of the Protestant Church in 1650 it can be proved that they regarded it as a plant which the Heavenly Father did not plant, and, therefore, that it was destined to be rooted up. They felt it to be their duty, in faithfulness to Christ and His Cause in the land to do all that the Lord would enable them towards that end. With more truth than delicacy they characterised the whole system as “a limb of antichrist,” and its ceremonies as the “rotton rags of Popery.” The background to this hostility to Episcopacy is to be seen in the fact that the Church of England was never so thoroughly reformed as the Church of Scotland. It cannot be denied that when Henry VIII of England cast off his allegiance to the Pope it was for very worldly and carnal reasons, and that was soon seen by his constituting himself a Pope by proclaiming the King to be head of the Church in England. He who was given, by the Pope, the title of Defender of the Faith for writing a book in defence of the Roman dogma that there are seven sacraments, now became a defender of the faith in the sense that he protected those who proclaimed the doctrines of the Reformation. This was a disadvantage from the point of view that whatever liberties the Reformers had in England they had it by keeping in the good books of the king. It was not to be expected that a man of King Henry’s morals would set up a Church on a scriptural foundation, though he himself thought, and probably his thoughts were right, that he could do it, at least as good as the Pope. Unfortunately there were no John Knoxes, Andrew Melvilles, or Alexander Hendersons in England at that time and with sad results to the Reformation and the rearing of the ecclesiastical fabric there.
Matters were different in the Northern Kingdom when the light of the Reformation broke in upon it. The reigning Sovereign, being a Papist, was bitterly hostile to the Reformers, and, though living in France, was represented in Scotland by her mother, Mary of Guise, another most plausible Romanist. It was under these circumstances that the Reformation in Scotland prospered, and was ultimately established in 1560, the year in which John Knox and four other ministers drew up the First Book of Discipline. Dr. McCrie, quoting from one of Row’s manuscripts, informs us that “they took not their example from any kirk in the world, no, not from Geneva; but drew their plan from the sacred Scriptures.” In this Book there is no mention of bishops as office-bearers in the Church. Those who were styled bishops in the Roman Catholic Church and who embraced the Reformed religion were not allowed to have any place in the Church until they were received by the General Assembly. John Row tells us that “there was a general Act concluded, That all ministers, they also that call themselves Bishops, should be entered into the ministry according to the order set down in the Book of Discipline anent the admission of ministers, or else they should have no place in that holy calling. Also, many other Acts were made against the corruptions in bishops’ lives, because sundry of them were continually committing heinous and great offences, and therefore were censured and deposed by the General Assemblies, which caused some of them to refuse to come to the General Assembly, until they were compelled, through fear of excommunication. The General Assembly also, in their setting of tacks and leases, prohibited them to use their ordinary style of Reverend Father in God, as not appertaining to the Minister of Jesus Christ, neither is it to be found in the Scriptures.” (Historie of the Kirk of Scotland, Page 21).
This manifests the thoroughness of the work of Reformation in Scotland in these early days, for the Church from which our Reformers were delivered holds to the divine origin and authority of Episcopacy. The Council of Trent at its 23rd session maintained that “If any one saith that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy instituted by divine ordinance, consisting of bishops, priests, and deacons, let him be anathema” (Canon vi). Thus we see that their view is that Episcopacy is as essential to the Church as the sacramentals, and that without it the Church could not exist. Though the Church of England does not put ordination among the sacraments, yet the Anglicans, which are predominant in that Church to-day, regard Episcopacy as indispensable to the very being of the Church, hold to the transmission of grace by the imposition of hands, and accept the dogma of Apostolic Succession. It is true that the Low Church party does not go to this extreme for they do not regard the Episcopate as indispensable to the existence of the Church but only desirable and necessary to its well-being. This was the view of Cranmer, Jewel, Grindal, and other divines of the English Reformation, and in later times by such well-known writers as Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham, and Dean Stanley. In spite of this the Low Church unites with Anglicans in requiring the re-ordination of Presbyterian ministers who enter into their communion, while they receive priests of the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church without re-ordination because they were Episcopally ordained.
When the Protestant Church was set up in Scotland the Reformers did not see any necessity for bishops or that they were indispensable to the existence of the Church, but, on the other hand, having taken the Scriptures as their sole guide, they saw that there was not only no authority for setting up one minister above another, but that all ministers had equal standing in the Church, and, that even the Apostles did not usurp authority over one another, or over those ministers who were their successors. Peter did not claim authority over Paul, neither did either of them hold under subjection the rest of the ministers who held office in their lifetime. Peter, in writing as an Apostle, does not refer to himself as a bishop but as an elder. “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ”; and part of that exhortation was that they would not be “lords over God’s heritage,” but that they were to be “ensamples to the flock.” Paul’s exhortation to Timothy was not in connection with any supposed virtues received by any contact with the Apostles, but “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” This parity of ministers which is so clearly revealed in the Word of God, and which was a main plank in the platform of the Scottish Reformers, is well brought out by the Rev. William Scot, minister of Cupar, when he says, “Seeing pastors are equal in power by God’s ordinance, that government cannot be lawful which brings in superiority of one above others. Whereas that parity in power is charged with anarchy and confusion, it is an unjust imputation, proceeding from malice or ignorance; for, notwithstanding of this parity among pastors considered severally, there is a subordination of deacons to elders, of elders to pastors; next a subordination and subjection of sessions or elderships of particular kirks to Presbyteries, of Presbyteries to Synods, of Synods to the National Assembly. Thirdly, every Pastor is subject to the joint fellowship of pastors in Presbyteries, Synods, or National Assemblies. Fourthly, there is a priority of order, in that there is one to be President or Moderator in every meeting or Assembly.
“This comely order preservest that parity which God has allowed to be among pastors, considered with respect of one to another severally, and is more convenient for the Kirk of God than the superiority of diocesan bishops. It cannot be denied, but that many eyes see better than one, either in trying ministers or finding out of heretics, or devising remedies for evils, or examining delinquents. Next, put the case in this way, the sight of one may be sharper than of many; yet many having equal power are not so easily corrupted to pervert discipline and judgment, as one judging and ruling by his sole power, or with power by his negative voice to frustrate the voices of many. One that is a stranger and no kindly pastor may be more easily induced to wink at heretics; to admit or tolerate unworthy or vicious ministers; to suffer atheism or Popery to grow, than a number of pastors watching over their own flocks. The zeal of one stirs up the coldness of another, and his zeal is tempered by the mildness of a third. The contempt of the world in one bears down the covetousness of some worldling. The grace and gifts of God to diverse persons, like sundry ingredients in one salve, meet together and temper one another” (Apologetical Narration, Page 62).
In the light of this one sees the truth of the observation of the younger Dr. McCrie when he says, “It is the boast and beauty of Presbytery, that while it calls no man Master upon earth, it natively brings forth and cordially acknowledges the hierarchy of talent, piety, and principle.”