The mind of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament Scriptures upon matters of government and office-bearers in the New Testament Church, is what ought to be the alone basis and guide in determining and discussing what type of government and what kind of office-bearers Christ Jesus would have in His Church, according to the pattern obtaining in the Apostolic Church; the New Testament and apostolic pattern being what the true spiritual and faithful Church should have and retain against all encroachments of an unscriptural nature. That form and practice which is consistent with clear Scripture teaching, is inevitably Christ honouring and profitable; and obligatory upon the Church to adopt and retain under all circumstances.
Much discussion has taken place recently in the Courts of the Church of Scotland, and among the public generally, upon the main feature of that Church’s Inter-Church Relations Report, viz., the proposal to introduce Bishops-in-Presbytery into the Church of Scotland. The Bishops proposed and the nature of their office and functions, are to be of the Episcopal, Prelatic order; and this drastic intrusion upon Presbyterianism in Scotland is professedly to assist in bringing unity and edification of a Christian character to the Church of Scotland in its relations with the Church of England and other Churches.
The term “bishop” is used in the New Testament now and again; but any careful reader of the Scriptures with average intelligence should perceive that the use of this term does not refer to an office or office-bearer of the Anglican sort. Let us quote from the late Professor Thomas Witherow, Professor of Church History, Londonderry, and his book, The Apostolic Church—Which is it? In referring to the elder or presbyter, Dr. Witherow writes: “This Church officer is often mentioned in the Acts and Epistles; but . . . no passage of Scripture ever speaks of him as holding an office distinct from the bishop. The same verse never speaks of bishops and elders. When Paul, for example, writes to the Philippians Church (i. 1) he mentions the bishops and deacons, but says nothing of elders. When James directs the sick to call for elders of the Church (v. 14) he says nothing of bishops. If the offices of bishop and elder were quite distinct—if a bishop were an office-bearer bearing rule over a number of elders, it does seem strange that no passage of Scripture speaks at the same time of bishops and elders . . . To suppose that the two offices were identical accounts sufficiently for the significant fact that they are never mentioned together in the same passage of the Word of God.” The Professor proceeds to cite Scripture as his warrant for arguing as above: “The first passage that comes before us is—Titus i. v. 5-7, ‘For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee; if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre.’ This passage strongly confirms the truth of the supposition already made, that the two offices were identical.” The Professor commends a statement by Dr. King on this passage, viz., “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 . . .” But Dr. Witherow himself further writes on this question, “Again we turn to 2nd John, Chap. 1, and we find the Apostle John styles himself an elder—‘The elder unto the elect lady, and her children, whom I love in the truth.’ Next comes up 1st Peter, chapter v. 1., and we find there that the Apostle Peter calls himself an elder—‘The elders which are among you I exhort who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ.’” Professor Witherow carries his argument still further by referring as follows to Acts xx. v. 17-28, “And he (Paul) warned them to take heed to themselves and to ‘the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers’—that is, bishops as the Word is elsewhere rendered. Every reader acquainted with the original is aware that the word translated overseers, in Acts xx. 28, is the very same as that translated bishops in Phil., i. v. 1, so that, we have here the evidence of inspiration, that the elders of Ephesus were bishops by appointment of the Holy Ghost . . . This conducts us to a principle—namely, that in the Apostolic Church, the offices of Bishop and Elder were identical. An elder was not inferior to a bishop nor was a bishop superior to an elder.”
The late Rev. D. Macfarlane, Dingwall, in his pamphlet, Presbyterianism and Episcopacy, refers to the office-bearers in the Christian and Presbyterian Church as follows: “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 . . . The deacons’ work was in connection with the finances of the church . . . But in the Episcopal Church there are at least three orders of office-bearers—bishop, priest and deacon.” In leaving these quotations which, we believe, set forth what the Word of God reveals and teaches on the matters dealt with; we would just note that Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, not by the hands of but one bishop of a prelatic character. It is envisaged in the Church of Scotland proposals anent Bishops in Presbytery, that this man “would act as its (Presbytery) principal minister in every ordination . . .”
Now the Presbyterian Church in Scotland was originally brought into being, in the divine providence, by our Reformation fathers in the 16th century; and by the light of Scripture and God’s help, they purged the then Church of Episcopacy and bishops and all involved therein, with the end in view of establishing a Church of a purer and more Scriptural character, to the greater promotion of the honour of Christ Jesus and of the influence of the gospel upon the people of Scotland.
But at this present time, leaders of the Church of Scotland have only succeeded in effecting confusion and chaos in the thinking of many of their people on the claims of Presbyterianism and Episcopacy. The Scriptural foundations for the Presbyterian form of government, and offices embraced therein, have indeed been wilfully ignored, and the cry for visible and governmental unity in the professed Christian Church, has been substituted in the place of “what saith the Scriptures?” Linked up with this plausible demand for unity, are a hundred and one side issues, calculated to cloud and discredit that which is consistent with the Word of God, and which ought to be tenaciously conserved and held fast. And on the other hand Episcopacy is being carefully but favourably commended for the consideration of the people of the Church of Scotland, at all levels. At this point we would, so to speak, pause and ask—If Episcopacy and the office of the bishop of the Anglican sort are not being positively commended to the undermining of Scriptural Presbyterianism, then why does the Church of Scotland Report recommend that “Bishops would be chosen by each Presbytery from its own membership or otherwise . . . ?” And these bishops are to be consecrated by bishops from one or more of the Episcopal Churches.
Again, it has recently come to light, that there has been conflicting views as to how the Bishop-in-Presbytery Report was to be dealt with by Church of Scotland Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions, etc. Rev. W. D. Hunter, Clerk of Perth Presbytery, told his Presbytery in September, that he had received a letter from the Convener of the Inter-Church Relations Committee, drawing attention to the fact that the General Assembly had recommended that informal study groups should be formed in presbyteries and parishes to consider the Report. Mr. Hunter said, “It seems rather strange that they should submit to us a Report and ask us to study it and not discuss it. We are told that they don’t want discussion and motions made by presbyteries.” He continued, “What then is the use of preparing a report and sending it down to presbyteries, especially a report which has caused such concern throughout the whole Church.” Then another Church of Scotland minister, Rev. Donald Macfarlane, told the Inverness Presbytery, that a large number of people were disturbed because Life and Work, the official publication of the Church, was only giving one side of the problem, that is, as to the question of bishops. Of course that “one side” was in favour of the bishops.
By sensing the trend of things in this bishop business, we are coming to the opinion, that the pro-Anglican leaders and their disciples, are desirous that the people and the Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions of their Church shall not come to definite, concrete, formulated views and decisions against or for Bishops-in-Presbytery at present. Rev. Mr. Hunter whom we quoted, said motions of Presbyteries were not wanted. We think the Church leaders concerned wish the body of Church opinion at present to be fluid and undecided, and not to be presented at the 1958 Assembly, with figures of Congregations, Kirk Sessions and Presbyteries, definitely for or against. They may be afraid now of a decided vote against bishops, if definite figures and statistics are formally presented to the Assembly. On the other hand, they may even be shrinking from receiving a small majority vote. We may be mistaken in these observations, but we feel that the pro-bishop men, would like another debate without coming to a decision, to afford them another opportunity for careful propaganda, and to give time to many of the people and office-bearers in their Church, to recover from the shock of the bishop-in-Presbytery proposal, and to become accustomed to the question as a “legitimate” topic for discussion.
As we have already indicated many points and issues have arisen for discussion and controversy within and without the Church of Scotland on this matter; points which are immediately related to the actual installation and rule of Bishops within the Church. These varied points arousing discussion arise from the fact that the Report presents to the people quite a number of recommendations dealing with the actual operation of a measure of Episcopacy within their Church. For instance: “That Parish ministers would still admit people to Church membership but ‘the rite might come to be shared by the Bishop and Parish minister acting together.'” Now our intention here is to maintain that before all the said recommendations were mooted at all to the burdening of the people’s minds, the Church of Scotland leaders ought to have presented to the people the initial and limited issues, which are recorded as follows: “But the Anglican delegates made it clear from the start that unity could be achieved only by Presbyterian acceptance of Episcopacy—that is, government by Bishops.” This demand by the Anglicans upon the Church of Scotland with a view to the kind of unity contemplated, was and is now the one and only basic question which should be before the people for rejection or acceptance. The list of recommendations which follow are but entanglements upon the minds of many lay people, leading beyond the first and basic question—is government by Bishops to be accepted or not?
Of course we write here after this manner, on this subject, in the role of an interested spectator. We thoroughly, and out and out, condemn every step taken by Church of Scotland ecclesiastics to embrace and imbibe Episcopacy in any measure or manner, and thus to assist in casting down the ecclesiastical and Scriptural bulwark of Presbyterian form of Church government in this land of Reformers, Covenanters and eminent Presbyterian divines of the past. And we desire, however inadequately by our pen, to contribute to the exposure of and opposition to, an attempted invasion of Scotland by high Anglicanism in these days. “Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered . . .” (Ps. lxxiii. v. 1). What Scotland needs for Christian unity is not unconverted men attired in mitre and colourful robes with a large ring on one finger lording it over others in the visible Church of Christ with the title of Bishop, but the power and the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, the alone head of His Church, to bring us back to the Bible, to the atoning death of Christ, to holy living and to separation from error and heresy, and to honour God. “Delight thyself also in the Lord” (Ps. xxxvii. v. 4).
Now by introducing the possibility of Bishops-in-Presbytery the Church of Scotland leaders affect to strive after Christian and Church unity. But even in the modernistic present day Church of Scotland, with a remaining Presbyterian tradition as to government and Church office-bearers, division of opinion and even threats of separation have been the result. Of course in the case of the Church of Scotland, if even some of the ministers and people had spiritual light and were right at heart, there would have been division and threats of separation long ago, over the teaching of false doctrine and the place the world is allowed in their Church. Be this as it may, it seems that Episcopacy to many of them, is wrong and undesirable, as we indeed believe it to be. Therefore should there be division and controversy, the responsibility is upon the shoulders of those suggesting a measure of Episcopacy in this Church, and not upon those who are in opposition thereto.
The breaking up of Scriptural unity and the creating of divisions in the visible organisation and activities of the professed Christian Church, say, in Presbyterian Scotland itself, in what we may call recent times, have been achieved or, rather occasioned by the unfaithful and un-Christian conduct of influential Church leaders and their disciples.
Prior to the great Disruption of 1843, the Presbyterian Established Church of Scotland (with the exception of the small original Secession Church and small Reformed Presbyterian Church) embraced practically all Scottish Presbyterians. But the Disruption fathers left the Established Church in 1843 because of evils permitted and perpetrated within its borders, and separated from it to retain Scriptural principles, and formed the Free Church of Scotland of 1843, that was the Church of Scotland Free. Who destroyed the unity of the Church then? Those men who supported Patronage and other unscriptural and unpresbyterian practices in the pre-Disruption Church.
Then in 1892, the Free Church of Scotland itself about fifty years after its inception, went down the hill doctrinally and disastrously, under the leadership of Principal Rainy, by the passing of the notorious Declaratory Act, which was anti-Bible and anti-Confession of Faith. In May, 1893, this Act upon the Statute book of the Free Church of Scotland, or the evil doctrines contained therein occasioned another deep and sharp division in the Presbyterian Church in Scotland. The late Rev. Donald Macfarlane, as is well known (but conveniently ignored by some) protested in the Free Church Assembly of May, 1893, against the Declaratory Act, and by his protest, separated from that Church there and then, and conserved for himself and all who adhered to his protest and followed him, the Word of God in its entirety and all the doctrines of that Word as set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith. He thus, and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland which he was employed by God to form, retained inviolate the Word of God and the Constitution of the Free Church of 1843. And so unfaithful men and erroneous doctrines were the procuring cause of this undermining of unity and the division which ensued and was accentuated by the late Rev. D. Macfarlane’s righteous conduct. On this specific division in the Scottish Church, we feel it necessary to point out, as has been done in the past, that those ministers and elders and others who continued in the Declaratory Act Free Church of Scotland, and under that Act as a binding law of the said Church, from 1893 until 1900, and who formed and originated the present Free Church of Scotland in 1900, were ministers and office-bearers who were not prepared to be involved in separation in 1893, for the sake of God’s precious Word and the Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland of 1843, handed down by the Disruption fathers. Rev. Mr. Macfarlane and those who adhered to his protest were, so to speak, forced to cause disunity, separation and division, by the notorious Declaratory Act, and that they might conserve for themselves and their children, the supreme and subordinate standards and Constitution of the Free Church of 1843. They were the opposite of schismatics. Their breach of unity was founded upon a justifiable cause indeed.
We have introduced these references to the Disruption and the formation of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland at the close of our observations upon the Bishop controversy in the Church of Scotland to assert that two things at least lie at the root of division in the visible and professed Christian Church. The first being the introduction of unscriptural doctrine and practices into the Church. And the second, opposition to and separation from such a branch of the visible Church where such dishonour to God obtains, and that separation engaged in by those who fear the Lord and are faithful to Him. Are there any in the Church of Scotland prepared to come out on the principle of Truth, if Episcopal government in any degree, is introduced to their Church? May the Lord Jesus come unto the “temple of God” in Scotland and cast out that which defiles it and restore it to its former glory by His holy Spirit’s power.