|
As indicated in my last lecture, the round
table of theological learning and scholarship that flourished in
Aberdeen was on the eve of being broken up. Events had been moving
rapidly south of the Tay and Forth, and the scene in St. Giles'
Cathedral, Edinburgh, over the introduction of the Book of Common
Prayer, commonly known as Laud's Liturgy, on the 23rd of July 1637, gave
the signal for the revolt of the Scottish Church and people against the
policy of King Charles and his advisers. The course of ecclesiastical
events in Scotland up to this point from the Reformation is so well
known, that it is unnecessary for me, in the present connection, to do
more than refer to it. It is impossible, of course, to get every one to
agree on the subject. Partisanship still prevails, although it is not of
the pronounced kind that existed in the days of which we are speaking.
It is not my object to advocate the one side or the other in the
disputes that had now come to a crisis, but to make plain, as far as
possible, the position of the Aberdeen Doctors, and to see in their
attitude that spirit of moderation and reconciliation which, at the
time, though seemingly unavailing, has more and more prevailed. It is
such a spirit that is being called out of the depths at the present
time, and for the successful working of which many good men are praying.
To one, reflecting upon what took place in
Scotland during the first century and a half of the existence of the
Reformed Church, it would seem as if the varying course of its history,
was like a game of see-saw. First one side is in the ascendant and then
another. To-day it is Andrew Melville, to-morrow it is King James ; at
one moment it is Presbytery, the next it is Episcopacy. In the first
part of the seventeenth century, when the Aberdeen Doctors flourished,
Episcopacy was in the ascendant, and it seemed as if it were going to
remain. But the Stuart Kings, especially Charles I., ignorant of, or
blind to, the history of ecclesiastical affairs in Scotland, were
determined to have uniformity, in all things, between the Anglican and
Scottish Churches, and, of his own accord, with the approval of some and
disapproval of others of the Scottish Bishops, Charles had a Book of
Canons and a Liturgy framed, and, foisting them upon the Church,
commanded their use. It was a foolish action, which any high-spirited
people would have resented, and, as any one might have foreseen, it
resulted in the disturbance in St. Giles', and the subsequent revolt of
many of the people. It might appear, at the time, as if this were but
one more act in the game of see-saw between Presbytery and Episcopacy,
but it was a good deal more ; and no one of King Charles' defenders at
the present day is foolhardy enough to justify his action, just as even
the most true-blue Presbyterian would hesitate to defend the conduct of
Andrew Melville, when that militant champion of the supposed privileges
of the Church would preach sedition in the pulpit, and deny the right of
the State to close his mouth, or to punish him for his misconduct. If
progress is through antagonism, if truth is the offspring of opposing
factions, and of the clash of conflicting opinions, then the Scottish
Church ought to be, as King James himself declared, "the purest Kirk in
Christendom," and the most fully developed.
The speed with which those who were
afterwards to be known as the Covenanters took action, at this supreme
moment, shows that the outburst in St. Giles' was not altogether
accidental. It was only the spark which showed that the fire was already
there. In any case, almost immediately, Committees, or Tables, as they
were called, were formed, and a document drawn up, ever after so well
known as the National Covenant, in which the Covenanters swore by the
great name of the Lord their God, that they would continue faithful to
the doctrine and discipline of the Church against all errors and
corruption; that they would be loyal to His Majesty in defence of the
laws, and true to one another. Some of the more moderate of the
ministers were alarmed by the tenor of the Covenant, by its apparent
condemnation of the form of Church government, and the ceremonies to
which they had vowed obedience, and its sanction of armed resistance to
the Royal authority. This was particularly felt among the more learned
and thoughtful of the community. While the Covenant was being largely
and enthusiastically signed by the common people, who identified Prelacy
with Popery, and by the nobility, who saw in the creation of Bishops a
disgorgement on their part of the Bishop's lands, which they had
acquired by a method of conveyancing that would scarcely stand close
inspection, the University of Glasgow was somewhat lukewarm, and certain
of its professors refused to sign the Covenant; while the Universities
of St. Andrews and Aberdeen went farther, and condemned it. Among the
number of those who thus disapproved of the Covenant were, of course,
the Aberdeen Doctors.
Aberdeen and the North were never very
favourable to the Presbyterian system. Indeed, several parts of
Scotland, as one can see from the number of Roman Catholics that are
still to be found in them, were never really reformed, and while
Aberdeen was not one of them, it had never been so extreme in its
Protestant zeal as other counties of Scotland, nearer the ecclesiastical
centre, in Edinburgh. The powerful influence of the Marquis of Huntly,
who was more Roman Catholic than Protestant, may have contributed
largely to this ; and when Episcopacy was again introduced, the
Aberdonians took to it much more kindly than the majority of their
countrymen. The statesman-like rule of Bishop Patrick Forbes, supported
as it was by the learning and piety of the Professors in the University,
had established Episcopacy in the minds and hearts of the people.
Accordingly, one is not surprised to find that the Covenanters, who were
carrying all before them in many of the other districts of Scotland,
found little or no support in Aberdeen, and, determined that this
stubborn county and city should be no exception, the Tables resolved to
send special Commissioners north, to bring the less enthusiastic
citizens of Bon-Accord to reason. It was well known that the men who had
first of all to be persuaded into signing the Covenant were the Aberdeen
Doctors. If they could be won, the rest of the people were sure to
follow; so among the Commissioners were to be found the leading men in
the Covenanting party. The Earl of Montrose, Lord Cupar, the Master of
Forbes, and Sir Thomas Burnett of Leyes represented the nobility; and
Alexander Henderson, David Dickson, and Andrew Cant, the ministry.
This was a great occasion for Aberdeen, and
the Magistrates, according to the hospitable custom of the burgh,
determined to give them a friendly welcome. Certain of their number were
deputed to wait upon the Commissioners, on their arrival, and offer them
the courtesy of the town, or the cup of Bon-Accord, being a collation of
wine and other refreshments. The kindly invitation was refused, unless
the Covenant was first subscribed, and the Magistrates, offended at the
discourteous rejection of their hospitality, ordered the refreshments,
which they had prepared, to be distributed among the poor. The
Commissioners made a somewhat unpropitious start, but worse awaited
them; for, "no sooner," says the parson of Rothiemay, "were they
alighted from their horses, but the Doctors, and Divinity professors,
and ministers of Aberdeen, who before had loud advertisements of their
progress, did presently send unto the ministers some Queries concerning
the Covenant, professing withal, that if they could satisfy their
doubts, they would not refuse to join in Covenant with them, and
protested that they wished the flourishing of religion as much as any,
and that the reason that they had sent them that paper, was that it
might be known to their brethren, that if hitherto they had not found
themselves inclined to enter into Covenant with them, they, and all men,
might know that it was not without weighty causes, which concerned their
consciences, in all which they both desired and were willing to be
resolved." There and then began the famous paper warfare between the
Doctors and the three ministers representing the Covenant. The whole
correspondence was published almost immediately under the title of
General Demands concerning the Late Covenant. It was widely circulated,
and created much interest. The author of the History of Scots
Affairs,who, with Spalding, gives a long and graphic account of all the
proceedings, is in no doubt as to with whom the victory lay, "for," he
remarks, "there is no question but the three Covenanter ministers were
ill-matched, for their abilities, with the most part of these.
The rapidity with which the Doctors'
"Demands," fourteen in all, were prepared, and the Answers of the
ministers written, a day only intervening, shows that the
controversialists were not new to the task, but had the subject well
thought out. Indeed, Forbes and Henderson in particular had been over
the ground before, for the latter had a hand in preparing the Covenant,
and the former, on its appearance, had written his Peaceable Warning to
the Subjects in Scotland, for the purpose of forming a compromise, if
possible, between the contending parties, and of avoiding the strife
that was threatening to break up both the unity of the Church and the
constitution of the kingdom. It was a well-meant effort, but failed in
its purpose, just as his Irenicum, published after the introduction of
the Perth Articles into the Church, and with Similar object, also
failed. It fell to him, as it does not unfrequently tomediators, to
please neither party; in any case he certainly did not find favour with
the Covenanters, who attacked both his books, although he had been at
great pains to remove from them any expression that might give offence.
Immediately after the Answers of the ministers to the Demands of the
Doctors were received, Replies were sent in, which again evoked fresh
Answers from the ministers. This did not end the wordy warfare, for the
Doctors penned a new series which they called "Duplyes," and as the
ministers had, by this time, left the city, without making many converts
to the Covenant, they were sent after them, and, if the last word in a
controversy is a mark of victory, the Doctors certainly had it.
The points in the discussion were, to a
certain extent, technical; some of them no doubt raised important
questions in jurisprudence. With these we have in this connection very
little to do, but when the Doctors pointed out that the Confession which
they were now asked to sign was, in a large measure, the Negative
Confession of 1580, and that by subscribing it they would be practically
abjuring the Confession of the Church, which was that of 1567, putting
themselves outwith the communion of other Reformed Churches, condemning
rites which in the sincerity of their hearts they held to be lawful, we
must admit they had good grounds for hesitating and, indeed, for
refusing to sign the Covenant; otherwise they would wound their
consciences by being false to their convictions and beliefs. The
Covenant, in short, would overturn the government of the Church as it
then existed, its form of worship, and its doctrines. And the Aberdeen
Doctors, especially John Forbes, who was their leader and
representative, could no more accept it than they could justify the
extreme views of the Anglo-Catholics who, under the encouragement of
Laud, were beginning to make their presence felt in the Church.
The triumph of the Doctors, however, was
short lived. The Covenanters soon took forcible possession of Aberdeen,
and the band of learned divines that had been formed and fostered by
Bishop Patrick Forbes was broken up, and its members scattered over the
country. After the Glasgow Assembly in 1638, when Episcopacy was
overthrown and the Covenant was made binding upon all the ministers of
the Church, the Aberdeen Doctors fared badly. Baron had died in the
interval, but the rest were deposed. Baillie, and others of the
Covenanters, speak with warm admiration and even affection of Baron, and
especially of John Forbes. They felt that the Laird of Corse was the
greatest man among them, if greatness consists in character, ability,
scholarship, and piety. Some of them would have saved him if they could,
and they sent him to St. Andrews to receive enlightenment at the hands
of Samuel Rutherford. This was something like asking Timothy to instruct
Paul. He was brought before the Synod at Aberdeen, and was found free of
Popery and Arminian-ism, and was ordered to appear in Edinburgh to hear
the decision. Dr. Garden, in his life of Forbes, suggests that, the
decision being deposition, the Covenanters shirked the responsibility
and odium of pronouncing it in Aberdeen, where Forbes was so highly
respected. They dragged him, an old man, to Edinburgh, which in those
days, even for an active person, was no light journey, to hear his doom
pronounced. It is at once pathetic and edifying to read Forbes's diary,
in which he tells of his travail during these years of suffering. The
humility of the man and his trust in God, in the midst of all his
troubles, are not the least remarkable features in his exemplary and
distinguished life.
When he was asked to declare that Episcopacy
was unlawful, he could not and he did not. Where is the Presbyterian,
who, if the same question were asked of him in our day, would answer
otherwise? Forbes, in his misfortune, had the consolation of the
scholar. He intended to retire to Aberdeen, in order that, being in
close proximity to the University Library, he might prosecute his
studies, and prepare the great work on which he was engaged, for the
press. But he had calculated without his host; he failed to remember
that, in conveying the house in which he resided to the University, as
the residence of the Professor of Divinity in King's College, he failed
to secure his own liferent. It never occurred to him, at the time, that
he would be ousted from his own residence as well as from his
professorship, but that is what happened. The Covenanters knew no mercy,
and poor Forbes was sent adrift. This last indignity and misfortune he
bore with equanimity, but even a greater was still to follow. When the
Solemn League and Covenant was agreed upon, a few years afterwards, he
was ordered to sign it on pain of banishment. His conscience prevented
him from signing ; he had accordingly to leave his country, and he
sought refuge in Holland, where he remained for two years, finishing and
publishing his book on Catholic Doctrine. He was then permitted to
return home, and he retired to his family seat of Corse, spending the
two remaining years of his life in meditation and the pious offices of a
deep and devout soul. He asked permission, before his death, for his
remains to be buried beside those of his wife in Old Machar Cathedral,
where his father also rested, but this the Covenanters also denied him,
and he was buried in the churchyard of Leochel, where no monument has
been erected to mark the last resting-place of one who was one of the
greatest theologians that the Church of Scotland has produced.
The Aberdeen Doctors found it impossible to
sign the National Covenant, in which Episcopacy was abjured as unlawful,
and they gave very good grounds for their refusal. The Confession of
Faith of 1560, which was mainly the work of John Knox, and which was
afterwards ratified by Parliament in 1567, assuredly did not ask them to
do anything of the kind. Episcopacy was one of those questions which
were left open, and, as recent ecclesiastical history has shown, "open
questions" have a trick of proving very awkward when the interests
involved come up for final settlement. It cannot be said that Knox
thought Episcopacy to be unlawful ; he served as a minister for some
time in England under that form of government, and he refused a
Bishopric, not because he thought the office was contrary to the Word of
God, or to the practice of the primitive and Catholic Church, but
because, as he remarks, " of troubles to come." Nor did he believe in
what is popularly known as Presbyterian parity, in the equality of all
men, and especially of ministers, which some would have us regard as a
sacred heritage from the Reformer himself, for he introduced
Superintendents into the Church, to whom were delegated special powers
and duties, and the supervision of the ministers and flocks of their
district or diocese. Indeed, before his death, he saw the Concordat of
Leith, and the introduction of Bishops into the Church. He did protest,
not against the creation of Episcopacy, but against the first holder of
the office, because he thought him unworthy of it. It is said that Knox
accepted the new proposal because he thought it might help in getting
better stipends for the clergy, just as Morton, and those who were
acting with him, held that it would preserve the balance of the three
estates in Parliament, and so prevent the breaking up of the
Constitution. This of course may be true, but the point of importance
is, that Knox raised no objections to the office per se.
Then came Andrew Melville, and with his
Greek Testament proved that Presbyters were before Bishops in the
Apostolic Church, and, acting on this idea, he gradually got the Church
in 1580 committed to the acceptance of Presbytery; but, not content with
the triumph which he had obtained, he declared his belief in the divine
right of Presbytery. This was the beginning of troubles to come. In the
Churches of the Reformation period no such claim was ever thought of.
None of the Reformers declared that either Episcopacy or Presbytery, or
any other form of Church government, was of divine right. They
introduced the kind that seemed most expedient and suitable in the
particular circumstances of the Church and nation. Accordingly, between
all the Reformed Churches there was inter-communion, and the orders of
the one were accepted, without demur, by the others. But, with the
announcement of the divine right of Presbytery in Scotland by Melville,
and by the Puritans in England, came a challenge from Bancroft, the
future Archbishop of Canterbury, who promulgated the theory of the
divine right of Episcopacy. A gulf was now made, which gradually
increased in depth and width, and if we, in the present day, are to
bridge it, it can only be by going back to the point at which it
started.
Melville began to carry things with a high
hand, and if his theory of the Church as a theocracy, with its appendix
of spiritual independence, had been realised, the future history of
Scotland would certainly have been different ; whether or no it would
have been better is a doubtful point. James supported Episcopacy, in the
first instance, in self-protection, and latterly, no doubt, because he
saw that under such rule, as he conceived and enforced it, his position
as an absolute monarch would be very much stronger. Still, though he
packed Assemblies, browbeat some ministers, and banished others, he
acted on the whole with a semblance, at least, of legality, and got the
Assembly to pass and the Parliament to ratify all his actions. This
should not be forgotten in considering the strife that arose between the
Covenanters and the Aberdeen Doctors over Episcopacy and the ceremonies.
The rejectors of both, one would think, would find it hard to prove them
unlawful, either in relation to the laws of the country or the broad
meaning of the Word of God.
Nor should one forget the kind of Episcopacy
that found a home in Scotland during this period. It was what might be
termed Anglo-Presbyterianism. The courts of the Church, which had sprung
up under its earlier form of government, still continued in full force.
Kirk-Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies met and
dissolved, enforced discipline, and made and unmade ecclesiastical law.
The Bishops, like other ministers, were subject to the supreme Court of
the Church; they acted as permanent Moderators, ordained ministers with
the help of the Presbytery, and had the oversight of their dioceses.
They were very far indeed from being lords over Christ's heritage.1 But
a certain number of them, and these the younger men, began to assert
that theory of Episcopacy which was finding favour among the High Church
party across the border, and whose head and front was Archbishop Laud.
Doctor Leslie, Rector of St. Faith's, within Laud's own diocese in
London; William Forbes, anti-Presbyterian to the utmost, who had drafted
the first, and most obnoxious, of the five articles; Sydserf, a bitter
enemy to sincere professors; Wedderburn, the special confidant of Laud,
and a prebendary in the Cathedral of Wells; Whiteford, another divine of
the same stamp—these were all made Bishops, and the last four, the
leaders of the Canterburian faction, conducted themselves with a
violence and a lack of temper of which Sydserf, who survived the
Restoration, is said to have made ample acknowledgment in his old
age. These men went to as great extremes on the Episcopal side as
Melville and his friends did on the Presbyterian, and the
irreconcilability of their attitude was made manifest when Maxwell, who
was made a Bishop by Charles, about the same time as those just
mentioned, asserted the Divine right of Episcopacy. Fast upon this came
the Book of Canons and the Liturgy, which were forced upon the Church by
the Bishops at the command of the King, without the sanction of Assembly
or Parliament. This was indeed an uprooting of the constitution and
practice of the Church, as it existed under the moderate rule of
Archbishop Spottiswood and Bishop Patrick Forbes, as well as under the
purely Presbyterian system which had, for a short time previously,
prevailed.
Now it is at this point that the Aberdeen
Doctors intervened and endeavoured to guide the Church in a middle
course, which would have preserved its truly national character and the
best features both of Presbytery and Episcopacy. Every national Church,
worthy of the name, must represent the leading elements in the life of
the people. If the Reformation accomplished one thing, for which we
ought to be thankful, above almost every other, it was that it broke up
the Roman Catholic Church, which imposed its ideal of uniformity, mainly
an Italian one, on all the Churches of Christendom, irrespective of the
countries in which they existed. When the power of the Papacy was
broken, nationalities began to assert themselves, and the free life of
the people to develop. The pent-up energies of countries that had been
crushed and kept silent for centuries, burst forth, and expressed
themselves in ther own special manner. Scotland was no exception;
indeed, the national characteristics of our country are generally
regarded as of a very pronounced nature, and these characteristics are
found in our most representative men. John Knox himself has stamped his
individuality, not only upon the great event which he guided, but upon
the life of the people and the course of Scottish history as a whole.
And yet, on the other hand, Knox was the offspring of Scottish
parentage, and his character was moulded by the genius of his race. The
very fact of his country responding so heartily to his religious and
political views shows that he was their representative, bone of their
bone and flesh of their flesh.
Now, if there is one thing more than another
which can be said to be the national note of Scotland, it is what may be
termed its love of representative government, both in Church and in
State. It has never since the Reformation tolerated the dominance of any
one man or body of men, call them an oligarchy or hierarchy ; it has
always insisted upon free institutions, and has fought for them to the
death. Both the High Presbyterian and the Anglo-Catholic would have
robbed it of these; the former by his theocratic pretentions, and the
latter by his belief in, and advocacy of, bureaucracy. It should not be
forgotten that the nation repudiated the one as well as the other. When
the High Presbyterian party were, in the early days of James's reign,
carrying all before them, and imposing their theocratic ideas on the
State, and consequently on the people, it was the people themselves who
checkmated them and supported James. When in turn the Church, in the
time of Charles, led by the Anglo-Catholics, would have imposed upon the
people the tyranny of a group of Bishops with the King as their head,
and have practically abolished the free expression of opinion, the
nation again interposed, and would have none of it. The claim first made
for independent rule, on the part of a certain group of bishops, is
sometimes declared to be sacerdotalism; it is nothing of the kind. The "sacer"
is a priest, and a priest is a servant, one who is willing to sacrifice
his life. What was aimed at was a bureaucracy, a very different thing, a
conclave of men whose claims were as absurd as their rule was
tyrannical. This the national spirit of Scotland resented, and overthrew
in the Revolution of 1638.
It will thus be seen that the two parties
that came into conflict at this period have both practically vanished
from Scottish Church history. It may be true that now and again the
still, small voice of each may be heard, lifting itself plaintively up
for recognition, but in vain ; there is no response. The party which has
prevailed and remains is that of the Aberdeen Doctors. It may be that
the form of Church government which they favoured has passed away, but
its essential features remain; it is the party of true
constitutionalism, of moderation, the one that really expresses the
national spirit, and which embodies the leading characteristics of the
Scottish people.
The views of the Doctors on the subject may
be gathered from various sources, but the most authoritative
pronouncement is that of Dr. John Forbes, who on this, as on the other
leading questions, may be taken as their representative. In a work
published by him in Aberdeen in 1629, to which reference has already
been made, and about which we shall hear more when dealing with the
subject of a subsequent lecture, he among other matters discusses very
fully the question of Episcopacy. This work he issued under the title
of Irenicum Amatoribus Veritatis et Pads in Ecclesia Scoticana. In it,
as the title shows, he appeals to the unprejudiced section of his
countrymen, to those in the Church who were more in love with truth and
peace than with the triumph of either of the contending parties.
Unfortunately, as the sequel showed, they were a minority. Like his
other efforts in this direction, it aimed at producing harmony by
appealing, not to the prejudices of one section or another, but to
Scripture, to the testimony of Catholic antiquity, to the Reformed
Church, and to right reason. These surely formed a broad enough basis,
and one far enough removed from the misunderstandings and
misrepresentations of the hour, on which to build up the truth and to
join the warring factions in friendly unity. His book was suggested by
the contention and strife which arose over the introduction of the Perth
Articles into the Church, and while it deals chiefly with the questions
which the Articles themselves raise, it also handles the broader
question of Episcopacy and Presbytery.
The great argument advanced by those who
were opposed to Episcopacy was that it was human, or ecclesiastical, and
not Divine, and that it should accordingly be rooted out of the Church.
That is an argument from which we have departed in our day, not only so
far as it relates to one form of Church government, but almost to every
other. It may well be that believers in Presbytery can claim priority
for the form which they favour, but it is generally admitted that so far
as the Church of the Apostles is concerned, all that can be found in the
way of government is the germ or germs : the Church itself as it grew
and developed, evolving a form or forms best suited to its spirit, and
adapted for carrying out its work, as a Divine institution in the world.
It is enough for us to believe in the Church itself and its ministry as
of Divine appointment, without contending for more than the case merits,
or indeed requires.
To those who argued against Episcopacy, on
the ground just stated, Forbes pointed out that much was constituted by
ecclesiastical authority, which it was not expedient to be held lightly
by those who sat under it. Hence it by no means followed that this
government must be despised, although it was introduced by
ecclesiastical authority. No one in the Early Church, except Arius and
Jerome, disputed that Bishops, by Divine authority, presided over
Presbyters. Among the first Reformers, such as Calvin and Zanchy, this
polity was recognised as lawful, pious, Christian, and not contrary to
the Word of God, but in conformity with it, and useful and necessary.
Forbes then comes nearer home, and appeals to the position of the
Scottish Church itself, as this is found, in the First Book of
Discipline, which represents mainly the views of John Knox himself. He
refers especially to the section which relates to the election of
Superintendents, and their function and power, and says that the opinion
is clear that Knox's views on this subject were at one with those he had
already quoted.
He then takes up the question of what at a
later date—later, I mean, than the Reformation—came to be known in the
Scottish Church as Presbyterian Parity ; and he maintains that on the
Divine right theory of the ministry, disparity of ministers was not
repugnant to such a theory, but was found to agree with it. For example,
he says it was necessary that by Divine authority there should be a
president over any gathering of clergy, and that he should not be
removed from his office, or resign, except through fault or infirmity ;
and because this president was called a Bishop, and the others were
pleased with the title of Presbyters, it was not done contrary to Divine
law, but, agreeable to Divine law, it was introduced by ecclesiastical
authority, and by the oecumenical, Apostolic, and perpetual use of all
ages. Therefore, he concludes, it remains that the cries and
disturbances of the mob regarding this nomenclature is most insane.
Forbes then turns to the other side of the
question, and speaks with even greater emphasis in favour of those who
would do away with the kind of Bishop that bulked so largely in the
popular imagination of the Scottish people. He would have none of your
proud, tyrannical, arrogant, worldly, and slothful prelates, who
flourished during the Roman supremacy in Scotland, and the remembrance
of whom still lingered in the minds of the people. There can be no doubt
that it was the scandals and evils associated with the rule of the old
hierarchy that made the people of Scotland so hostile to the very name
of Bishop, and they fancied that, in the mitre of the innocent prelate
which John Forbes would recommend, they saw the horns of the Popish
beast, and all the misrule of those dark days. Forbes detested, as
whole-heartedly as they, the pretence and arrogance of the old order,
and he set himself with equal force and reason to argue against the
claims of the Anglo-Catholics, who were now beginning to appear in the
Scottish Church, and to whom, as weak or willing tools in the hands of
Charles and his advisers, we owe the introduction of the Liturgy which
played such havoc in the national Church. Forbes held that the
president, call him Bishop, Superintendent, or any name you please,
should be as a brother, and subject himself to censure. That he ought to
preside with all humility, and without pride or compulsion. That it was
of Divine right that nothing of importance should be carried through
without the consent of assembled presbyters; that by Divine ordinance he
should remain a presbyter, and should be kept to the discharge of the
Presbyterian office.
If Forbes's book was displeasing to the
Highflying Presbyterian, it was no less objectionable to the High
Anglican. Moderate men on both sides, lovers of truth and peace, agreed
with him, and those who held views contrary to his could only answer
them with abuse. Human nature then was pretty much as it is now, for
Forbes' biographer tells us that those who wished that the rights of
Episcopacy should be^tretched to their utmost limits, and who looked to
its glory and splendour rather than to the pastoral office, received
certain of his propositions neither with pleasure nor enthusiasm. We are
far removed now from those times with their heat and strife. We see
things in a truer light, and many, I feel certain, fully sympathise with
the position of Forbes, if they do not altogether agree with it. And
even more with him when in his reflection in his Diary on his trial by
the Covenanters, and probable deposition, he says: "Concerning what is
stated in the Covenant regarding Episcopacy, I dissent from my brethren,
and although Episcopacy, which I regard as lawful, and according to the
Word of God, does not overthrow Presbytery; and although in churches
which are ruled by presbyters there be no Bishop, still this does not
destroy the nature of the Church, nor abolish the validity of Orders and
Jurisdiction; and although my opinion concerning these domestic
dissentions agrees with the judgment of Catholic Antiquity and the
Reformed Churches ; and since it was known to my brethren that I had
been placed in this position by God through the Church, and that I had
proved faithful to my charge and the Reformed religion ; I do not see
how, with due reverence towards God, it is safe for my brethren to expel
me, or to place any terror in my path, in following the duty demanded of
me by God."
There is something pathetic in this appeal
of one who was the greatest theologian in the Church, and one of the
purest spirits that ever adorned its ministry, to his brethren, that
they should not expel him for holding views which every one in our day
regard as in no way contrary to the Word of God, or to the teaching and
practice of the Church of the earliest times, or of the Reformation.
Forbes was quite prepared to accept service in the Presbyterian Church
as now restored, as he was in the Episcopal Church that had just been
abolished. Although he had a preference for the one form of
ecclesiastical government over the other, it was only a preference, and
he believed that both were quite in keeping with the teaching of
Scripture and the mind of the Apostles. He would have gone on quite
willingly discharging the duties of his office, as Professor of Divinity
in King's College, in the Presbyterian Church, as now restored. He would
have held communion with its members, as he actually did, and preached
in its pulpits, but this was denied him. The validity of the orders and
the right of jurisdiction of the one Church he held to be as sound and
lawful as of the other, and he would leave it to the wisdom of the
Church itself, which, with its ministry, he regarded as of Divine
appointment, to choose between the two forms of Church government,
which, acting under the guidance of Almighty God, it believed to be most
expedient and best suited in the circumstances.
Is there not something very germane to the
present condition of Churches and ecclesiastical parties in our country
in this attitude of Dr. John Forbes? Not only his spirit but his views
seem to me to point in the direction which good men in all churches
should follow, in striving to bring harmony and unity, not only between
the separate sections of Presbyterianism, but also between the two great
Communions which were at strife in his day, and between whom a better
understanding would now seem to exist. It is not principle but prejudice
that stands in the way. |
