By REV. JOHN COLQUHOUN, Glendale.
XXI.—The Dangers of the Contemplated Union.
In previous Articles we have drawn attention to the fact that the Church of England is extremely Erastian. It is so by the very Constitution of England as legalised by the Act of Supremacy of Henry VIII., and renewed by Edward VI. and, again, by Queen Elizabeth. This involves (1) That there is no government of the Church independent of the State; (2) Every subject of the State is thus a member of the Church, and entitled to all its privileges; (3) Ministers of religion have simply power to preach and administer the sacraments. They have no power of discipline, since to exclude from ordinances is to deprive men of what is considered their civil rights. Thus we see that, in England, the Church is the creature of the State, and has no power, even in spiritual matters, to act independently. This is very different from the original Constitution of the Church of Scotland. The State in Scotland acknowledged the spiritual independence of the Church, and recognised that, in its own sphere, it had full power to rule and exercise discipline. It is true, as already pointed out, that the spiritual independence originally claimed by the Church and conceded by the State and established by law, is not the spiritual independence known in the Church of Scotland today, but something that is entirely foreign to the Church of Scotland in its best days. The modern version of spiritual independence is simply license to change the creed of the Church any time a majority of its office-bearers feel inclined to do so, without let or hindrance from the State. The fact that Modernists in the Church of Scotland have succeeded in effecting their purpose in this matter has put them a long step ahead of the Church of England as far as going on the down-grade from the old moorings is concerned. By two Acts, engineered through Parliament by the late Dr. John White, of the Barony, Glasgow, the Church of Scotland became dis-established and yet, succeeded in retaining the emoluments of the Establishment.
This raises a very important question. How can such a Voluntary organisation as the present Church of Scotland be united with the Erastian Church of England? From their respective Constitutions they are opposites and can never find a platform upon which they can mutually agree to unite, and the Church of England, being an integral part of the State, or a State Department by which the State manages spiritual matters, can never break with the State, neither is the tide of Evangelical religion so high as to cause a Disruption similar to that which took place in Scotland in 1843. If Union is to take place, it must take place at the expense of Presbyterianism, by the Church of Scotland becoming part and parcel of the Church of England, and accepting that “black prelacy” which our covenanting heart’s blood to keep out. Can it be possible that those who make so much noise about spiritual independence will enter into union with the Erastian Church of England? From all appearance this is the aim of the union-mongers in the Church of Scotland. We have only to look at the Joint Report issued in 1957 to see that all the concessions seem to be made on the part of the Church of Scotland. No concession is made by the Church of England except a half-hearted suggestion that the laity might get a place, not defined, in her Councils. This, of course, in no way interferes with the Church’s subserviency to the State, and therefore does not require an adjustment of its Constitution. In the light of this, no alternative can be seen but that the Church of Scotland would be back in the worse than Egyptian bondage of Erastianism, and would, in its results, be a case of history repeating itself and the clock set back to the time of James I. of England, when the following was true:—”The bishops being now masters of the field, they, as an incident to prelacy, shewed abundance of inclination to keep Presbyterians under; and perceiving the king’s good affection to their state, they spent so lustily upon his favours, as if that fountain would never run dry; and, having waxed fat by it, they kicked at even some of the nobles, which incensed almost the whole against them; and they corrupted the doctrines of our church with Arminian and Popish errors, and the worship with vain rites and superstitious ceremonies.” History of the Church and State of Scotland. Andrew Stevenson. p. 99. (1840 ed.)
This abolition of the Presbyterian Church government if it should happen, as it certainly will if the projected Church Union takes place, will be one of the greatest calamities that ever visited Scotland, for it will be a case of casting away the most democratic and Scriptural form of Church government known to the Church of Christ in the world, and an abject submission to the most Erastian form of Church government conceivable. Those who think lightly of the Presbyterian Church government might well ponder over the comprehensive description of it given by that great Covenanter, Alexander Henderson, “In the authority of these assemblies, parochial, presbyterial, provincial, and national, and in the subordination of the lesser unto the greater, or of more particular elderships to the larger and general elderships, doth consist the external order, strength, and steadfastness of the Church of Scotland. . . . Here there 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 the congregations of a large diocese. Here there is parity without confusion and disorder, for the pastors are in order before the elders, and the elders before the deacons; the church (that is, each congregation) is subordinate to the Presbytery, the Presbytery to the Synod, and the Synod to the National Assembly. One pastor also hath priority (of esteem) 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 among the Apostles themselves. But none hath 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 there is 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.” The Government and order of the Church of Scotland. (1641)
With the downfall of Presbyterianism another danger will make itself manifest, that is, the claiming of Church privileges as a civil right. It is very evident that, as things are at present, there are many in the Church of Scotland who are church members, but who do not live up to their profession, but should there be a conscientious Kirk-session, they have full power to deprive of church privileges the scandalous and profane. This cannot be done in the Church of England, as an appeal to the civil courts would restore to membership the drunkard, the unclean person, or the thief, and the Church could not stand in the way. The only discipline she exercises is in the case of the re-marriage of divorced persons. It is this Erastianism which showed itself in Parliament during the sitting of the Westminster Assembly when the Presbyterians wanted to emphasise that the Lord had vested the power of the keys in church officers as distinct from the civil magistrate, and as the Westminster Standards were not accepted by the Episcopal Church this Erastianism prevailed in it. The Erastian members of the Westminster Assembly were for laying the Communion open, and referring all crimes which involved church membership to the civil magistrate. In the House of Commons the learned Mr. Selden, who was also a member of the Assembly, delivered his opinion against all suspensions and excommunications, and maintained “that for four thousand years there was no law to suspend persons from religious exercises.” Mr. Whitelocke, another member delivered himself to the same effect when he said, “Power is desired to be given to suspend from the sacrament two sorts of persons, the ignorant and scandalous; now it is possible, that they who are judged to be competent in one place may be deemed ignorant in another; however, to keep them from the ordinances is no way to improve their knowledge. Scandalous persons are likewise to be suspended, and this is to be left to the discretion of the pastors and ruling elders; but where have they such a commission? Scandalous sinners should be admonished to forsake their evil ways, and amend their lives; and how can this be done better, than by allowing them to hear good sermons, and partake of the holy ordinances? A man may be a good physician, though he never cuts off a member from his patient; and a church may be a good church, though no member of it has ever been cut off. I have heard many complaints of the jurisdiction of the prelates, who were but few; now in this ordinance there will be a great multiplication of spiritual men in government. but I am of opinion, that where the temporal sword is sufficient for punishment of offences, there will be no need of this new discipline.” Neale’s History of the Puritans, Col. ii. p. 368. (1837 ed.) This is the Erastianism into which the union-mongers in the Church of Scotland are seeking to lead the people, and it is the same which prevailed in Scotland during the dark days of Moderatism.
Rev. Alexander MacLeod, Uig, Lewis, the first evangelical minister settled in the Islands, tells us in his Diary that when he went there in 1824, there were from eight hundred to a thousand communicants in the parish, but such was the low state of religion that, at the first prayer-meeting which he attempted to hold there, one of the elders who was called upon to pray, “actually offered a request that a wreck should be cast ashore in the neighbourhood.” This was asked for with a view to the relief of their temporal needs. We must not think that the case of this parish was an isolated one. It was the case with every parish in Scotland which was cursed with a dead ministry, for indeed it is a curse, and not a blessing, when there is a large Communion Roll, and little or no vital godliness. Mr. MacLeod’s ministry proved a living, searching one, and at the end of three years, when he held his first Communion, only six of the congregation came forward to the Lord’s Table, but this was an indication that the Holy Spirit was working, and after events proved that it was the beginning of a work which was to make the wilderness and the solitary place blossom as the rose. Those who are made church members by a decree of the State only, cannot be members of the mystical body of Christ, and can never seek the advancement of His kingdom in the world. When Erastianism prevailed in Scotland during the time of the Covenanters there was plenty of profession of religion among those who embraced Episcopacy and who heard the curates, but true and vital godliness was largely to be found among those who were hunted like partridges on the moors and among the moss-hags of Scotland, and this was proved when it came to men and women sealing their testimony with their blood. Their conflict was against a dead Erastianism which was being foisted upon them through Episcopacy, and which rendered to Caesar what was not Caesar’s and robbed God of what belonged to Him.
Another danger that in all probability will arise if the projected union will take place, is persecution. It was so in the past when Episcopacy held the power, and, judging by present appearances, we can expect nothing better in the event of this union taking place. Episcopacy in the past, backed by the civil power, tried to carry all things before it, and where its progress was resisted it showed no mercy. Some of the most eminent ministers of the Church of Scotland were put to death, and others suffered imprisonment in vile dungeons for long periods, while others were banished to the wildest parts of the kingdom where the primitive conditions prevailing caused untold privations which, had the sentence been banishment out of the country as was the case with some of their brethren would have ameliorated their lot, as they would at least have the benefits of civilised Society. The present trend of affairs seems to point in the same direction. The Joint Report clearly shows that those on the Episcopal side have yielded nothing while those on the Presbyterian side have yielded much, and, therefore, the only conclusion that one is warranted to come to is that the United Church, if ever it becomes united, will be Episcopalian, and thus become a powerful body in the land, so powerful that there will be little or no living outwith its pale.
As things are at present one sometimes finds an unscrupulous minister using his position on County Education Committees in order to deprive a student of one of the smaller denominations of a bursary, and this may be taken as an indication of what might take place if an Erastian Church had too much power. There are many avenues in which this spirit of persecution could exercise itself covertly if not openly. For instance, very often in forms of application for employment in one of the learned professions, the question is asked, What is the applicant’s religion? If the application would be from a member or adherent of one of the smaller denominations in Scotland the answer would be “Presbyterian.” In such a case one may reasonably ask the question, What chance would such an applicant have when the disposal of the matter would be in the hands of a whole bench of Episcopalians? The present attitude of the Episcopal Church to other denominations and its past history in Scotland do not warrant those who would adhere to a Scriptural Church government and worship to expect any toleration. The very reverse would be the case, for all the persecution endured by Christ’s witnesses in Scotland during the Covenanting struggle till the Revolution of 1688 was all on account of their refusal to conform to Episcopacy, and because of that refusal they were branded as rebels and traitors who had forfeited all right to be treated as human beings. For the present state of affairs in connection with Church union a timely exhortation is to be found in the words of the late Andrew Symington, D.D., of Paisley; “The martyrs solemnly protested against Erastianism. They condemned the ecclesiastical supremacy of the king; they asserted the exclusive Headship of Jesus Christ in His Church, and held the intrinsic power of the Church, independently of all civil authority. The Church’s freedom is chartered in the blood of her Head, and none have right or qualification to assume His titles, or exercise His prerogatives. Let the kings of the earth give facilities and protection to the Church, but not at the price of her liberty. Let her people, her ministers, and her courts stand in the liberty wherewith Christ has made them free.”