By REV. JOHN COLQUHOUN, Glendale.
* This is an Introductory Article to a series on the history, etc., of Episcopacy and Presbyterianism. These articles should be of interest to our church people and others as they appear during the coming months.—Editor.
YEAR after year we read of Conferences between representatives of the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Free Churches of England, and the Episcopal Church in Scotland with a view to union, and, after each Conference held, of late, reports were circulated of progress towards that end. A proof of that progress may be read in the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in May, 1956, and addressing that body. Truly Edinburgh saw other days as far as its relation to Episcopacy was concerned, and it has taken the Union-mongers many years to bring their beloved project as far as this. After the Union of 1900, Dr. James Cooper, Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Glasgow, writing in Saint Andrew, the literary organ of the Established Church of Scotland, said, “The days of our divisions are numbered. Already the hope of the larger Union dawns on the Scottish people. We are going to see, ere long, please God, a Church of Scotland which shall embrace in one flock Scottish Presbyterians and Scottish Episcopalians—a Church which, while retaining to the full its Scottish character, shall also be in alliance and communion with the great Church across the Border.” It is, however, very evident from press reports that a great many of the clergy and people of the Church of Scotland are not so keen on this Union as those who are looked upon as leaders in that Church. While the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland is, in no way, a party to this proposed Union, and from the point of view of doctrine and practice, has very little in common with the Church of Scotland of the present day yet, from the point of view of Church government, we are fellow-heirs with them of a great inheritance, and, therefore, intensely interested in matters which affect that inheritance, for, like them, we are Presbyterians, and when there is any danger of Presbyterianism being abolished, and what it stands for forgotten, we have an inalienable right to express our mind, and our determination to adhere to, and hand down intact to future generations, the priceless heritage bequeathed to us by our forefathers, and for which they sacrificed favour, property, and even life itself.
Should Union take place between the Church of England, which is Prelatical in government, and the Church of Scotland which is Presbyterian, the former being, by far the larger denomination, nothing else can be expected but that the united body will be governed by bishops, and that Presbyterianism will be thrown overboard. The views held by the Episcopal Church on ordination other than by a Bishop can admit of no other result. In the Exposition and Defence of the Presbyterian Form of Church Government, by the Rev. David King, LL.D., after quoting from various Episcopal writers denouncing Non-conformist Churches, he goes on to say, “The circumstances of belonging to an established church affords no refuge from these denunciations. All are dissenters who belong to State churches which are not Episcopal. The established clergy of Scotland are characterised by Dr. Hicks, in the preface to his Answer to the Rights of the Christian Church, as “a band of rebels;” “the abomination of desolation in the kingdom of God;” “not pastors, but wolves of the flock.” Thus we see that in the eyes of Episcopalians, ministers not episcopally ordained are mere laymen, and, therefore, among them, there can be no valid administration of ordinances, and no true church, which means that all ministers in the Church of Scotland who will enter this Union will have to be Episcopally ordained. When the Episcopal Church takes up such an attitude to non-Episcopal churches and those ordained by them, it is well to enquire as to their ground for it, and whether or not this proposed Union should take place. In doing so the following matters may be considered from the Presbyterian point of view: 1, Episcopacy and Presbyterianism considered in the light of Scripture; 2, The original government of the Church of Scotland; 3, The entrance of Episcopacy into the Scottish Church; 4, Scotland’s opposition to Episcopacy; 5, Episcopacy in the role of persecutor; 6, Can there be a true Union?
I.—Episcopacy and Presbyterianism considered in the light of Scripture.
Episcopalians maintain that there are three orders in the Christian ministry, that is, Deacons, Presbyters or Elders, and Bishops. The duties of the Deacons are to preach and baptise; of the Presbyter to preach and administer both sacraments; and of the Bishop to govern, ordain, and confirm. That the names of the three orders mentioned are found in Scripture might appear to lend support to Episcopal claims were it not that bishop and elder are used interchangeably in the Scriptures. In the New Testament the word for “presbyter” or “elder” occurs seventy-one times. In a few instances it denotes age or social position, and in all the other cases it indicates official position or character. The word “episcopus” translated “bishop” occurs only five times in the New Testament; once it is applied to the Lord Jesus Himself and on all the other occasions it is applied to the elders in their character as overseers of the Church of Christ. Presbyter in the early Christian Church is synonymous with the officer of that name in the Jewish Commonwealth and in the Church, and was used in that sense among the Jewish Christians, while episcopus, meaning an overseer, was used for one occupying the same office among the Gentile Christians. In the Epistle to Titus i. 5-9, the Apostle Paul, referring to the office-bearers who were to be ordained, referred to them, both as elders and bishops, showing clearly that his instructions to Titus did not refer to two different classes of office-bearers. The same holds true in his instructions to Timothy (I. Timothy iii. 1, 2). On the passage in Titus i. 5-9, Dr. King observes, “Here we have in one verse a requirement to ordain elders; in the next verse their requisite qualifications were to be demanded of them: ‘For a bishop must be blameless.’ It will be observed that the term elder, used at the commencement, is exchanged for the term bishop in the conclusion, while the same office-bearer is spoken of. An elder must have such and such qualifications. Why? Because ‘a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God.’ Does not this identify the elder and the bishop? If not, identification is impossible. Were it said the Lord Mayor of London must devote himself to his duties, for the chief magistrate of such a city has great responsibilities, would not the language bear, that the Lord Mayor and the chief magistrate were the same office-bearer? Otherwise, the representation would be absurd; for why should the mayor devote himself to his duties because some other person had great responsibilities? Yet the mayor and the chief magistrate are not more identified in this comparison, than are the elder and the bishop in Paul’s instructions to Titus. We never find bishop and presbyter discriminated in the Scriptures. Mention is made of apostles and elders, of bishops and deacons—never of bishops and elders.”
Presbyters and bishops being used in the New Testament for one and the same class of office-bearers it would be necessary for Episcopalians, in order to establish their contention that Episcopacy has Scripture warrant, to show that Christ or His Apostles appointed bishops in the Church, having the power and authority, and performing the functions, which are supposed to belong to diocesan bishops. It is very clear that no such evidence can be brought forward, and, therefore, that their claim for the setting up of Prelacy has no foundation. The late Prof. Bannerman, New College, Edinburgh, after discussing the absence of any support for Episcopacy in the Scriptures, says, “Looking back upon the whole argument, we seem fairly justified in saying that there is no Scripture evidence whatsoever for the institution of an office of diocesan bishop, as separate from that of a Presbyter, in the New Testament. It is a most remarkable fact, and one pregnant with meaning, that we have no account in Scripture of the origin of such an office, or of the ordination of any man to it; and that the advocates of the Episcopalian system are compelled to seek for its first institution in the institution of the apostolic or evangelistic offices. We have seen that there is no evidence, but the reverse, for believing that in the recorded origin of the office of apostle or evangelist we are at liberty to date the desiderated origin of the Prelatic office also. And further, we have seen that the use of the terms bishop and presbyter in the New Testament forbid the supposition that these offices had a separate institution or separate existence in the Church. Even were there no additional proof of the soundness of the Presbyterian theory of Church government as opposed to the Episcopalian, the evidence which has already emerged would be amply sufficient to establish it.” The Church of Christ, vol. ii. 277.
By the foregoing we see that there is no Scripture warrant for the setting up of the Episcopalian form of Church government, and that, instead of being, what it claims to be, the only Scriptural government, it has its origin in the heart of sinful man, and that, instead of non-Episcopal clergy being “a band of rebels,” that appellation belongs to the upholders of the Prelatical system, for if they cannot trace their origin in the Word of God they must be contrary to the institutions set up by Christ. This is very clearly brought out by the Rev. James Moir Porteous, of Wanlockhead, when he says, in commenting on Christ’s commission to His disciples in Matthew xxviii. 19: “The power of administering His laws by instruction, ordinances, and government, as the platform of His Church was here conferred.” Now, if there be superior and inferior orders of the ministry by the special appointment of Christ, why are no such distinctions here laid down? Were an earthly king to issue a commission for the appointment of officers in perpetuity, and for the discharge of specific duties, and were a portion of these officers in after ages to combine, by their own enactment, to invest themselves as their peculiar prerogative with some presidential authority, would not the other officers justly require the production of the original charter, that, by its wording, their claims might be either invalidated or confirmed? Where, then, is the mention in this charter of an order of prelates or diocesan bishops? On the contrary, this commission addresses itself to all equally, who, by the inner and outer calls of the Spirit and the bride, are sent forth with the message of salvation. Was this commission not given to ordinary pastors? As they are commissioned to preach, so they are commissioned to baptise; as they are authorised to baptise, so are they authorised to teach what is commanded—that is, by the Word and government to train the initiated disciples in obedience to the laws of the kingdom. No constitutional principle can be modified except by the party that ordained it. Now, as no fuller or more authoritative commission was issued by Christ, and as the Acts of the Apostles is a commentary upon this commission, and as in neither of these documents is there any trace of prelatical bishops, they must be accounted destitute of the authoritative commission of the King. “The Government of the Kingdom of Christ.” Second edition, p. 248.