In the General Assembly of The Church of Scotland met at Edinburgh on 26th May, 1959, the commonly called “Bishops’ Report” was rejected by the Assembly as representing the people of that Church throughout Scotland. Discussion in the Assembly had taken place since two years; and during the year 1958-1959, the many Presbyteries and congregations of the Church had fully discussed their views of and attitude to the question of Bishops in Presbytery, along with relative vital points arising therefrom. Two major issues were challenged by the Church of England, viz., The Catholicity of the Church of Scotland and the validity of the ordination and ministry of its ministers. Of course many other serious questions rose to the surface which pointed to an undermining of Presbyterianism in Scotland as the determined design of the Church of England leaders in the protracted Conversations carried on in recent years.
We stated some time ago in this magazine before any Report of a concrete character emerged from these Conversations, that the Anglicans would concede absolutely nothing, and alter none of their views especially upon Anglican Church Orders, Apostolic Succession etc., in order to facilitate organic unity between them and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. This is exactly the attitude today of the Anglicans. And in this connection, the Anglican Lambeth Conference of Bishops, as those conversant with these matters know, made it their business to make it abundantly clear that the Church of England was not to descend from its unscriptural and proud stand upon the necessity for episcopacy in any union with other Churches. And so at Lambeth it was recorded: “That it was impossible to envisage the establishment of fully reciprocal intercommunion at any stage short of the adoption of Episcopacy by the Churches of the Presbyterian order.”
Now this Lambeth Conference Statement was the view of an unofficial body. It was not a Statement emerging from one or other of the official ecclesiastical Courts of the Church of England. Did the Church of England, deliberately organise this move, while avoiding even to this present date official discussion of and decision upon the Joint Report? We have had the spectacle of the Courts and people of the Church of Scotland, struggling with this attempt to influence them to accept bishops, and on the other hand practically nothing at all said or done by the Church of England, and in the Church of England, by way of effort or desire to meet any requirements on the part of the Church of Scotland in the matter of seeking union. There is the spirit and the shadow of popedom in this aspect of the whole affair: the demand for unreserved subjection on the part of Presbyterians. Dr. Craig, the Convener and chief spokesman on the Church of Scotland side in this whole disturbing business, has made it evident by his clever and subtle argumentations that he and members of the Assembly Committee were prepared to sell themselves and the Church of Scotland right over to Episcopacy.
But this feared disaster (two years ago) has not happened. The majority of the Presbyteries were manifestly against bishops, and not prepared to cast away the validity of the form of their ministers’ ordination, by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. Rev. Dr. A. C. Craig in the deliverance of the Inter-Church Relations Committee, had asked the Assembly to state that the proposals in the Joint Report were “unacceptable in their present form.” Let our readers note the simple but far-reaching phrase prepared to ensnare the Assembly viz., “… in their present form.” Dr. Craig is a clever man; but in the goodness of God, his scheme was rendered null and void by a counter-motion by Dr. G. M. Dryburgh, of Battlefield Congregation, Glasgow. It stated that the proposals were unacceptable—”in that they imply a denial of the Catholicity of the Church of Scotland and of the validity and regularity of its ministry within the Church Catholic.” Rev. Dr. Dryburgh’s counter-motion was carried by 300 votes to 266—a majority of 34. From reports, Dr. Dryburgh spoke clearly and unflinchingly to his counter-motion. But what of the 266 ministers and elders who did not support the counter-motion? They will continue to constitute a dangerous leaven within the Church of Scotland; although it has been suggested that this vote against the Bishops in the Assembly has set aside any further consideration of such proposals for the next twenty-five years. And shall we venture to hope once and for all.
To revert for a moment to the Lambeth Conference statement which we quoted above; it had a very decisive influence upon many in the Church of Scotland to stand firm for Presbyterianism, and raised opposition in their minds to the overbearing and autocratic attitude of bishops in Conference. Where have the laity and the people of the Church of England been during all these discussions? They have been silent. Why? They are not informed of vital ecclesiastical questions except as the bishops condescend to enlighten them by an occasional brief Address. They are not consulted as to what their Church should do except through a limited number of laity who represent them in Anglican Church Courts far removed from contact with the generality of the people. But what some of the lower clergy and laity are engaged in within the Church of England at the present time is, fighting against Canon Laws of a Romish nature, and which many of the bishops seek to introduce into their Church. Surely it cannot be, that Rev. Dr. Craig and his recent Committee men have been entirely ignorant of these Romish tendencies in the Church they sought to bow to. They were not ignorant of these movements towards Rome in the Anglican Communion.
And so the Rev. Dr. Craig, when his Committee’s proposals were defeated, resigned as Convener of the Inter-Church Relations Committee, because he averred that the Church of Scotland had “switched its policy” on union with the Anglican Church. The people and the Presbyteries, who are the Church as to expression of opinion and voting, they, so far, saw through the prelatic policy of Dr. Craig and his supporters and they switched the policy of their Church. But Dr. Craig, by his resignation, revealed that he remained unchanged as a bishops’ man. It will be no loss to the Church of Scotland, and a great relief to many throughout Scotland, that this Bishops Report has been defeated and that Dr. Craig no longer leads in such activities.