A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

But if we refer to history, what we find to be thus improbable, is proved to be impossible. “The Church, under a Presbyterian form, as it now is,” did not at that time exist as a recognised body, or an establishment. We will refer for proof, in the first place, to the Compendium of the Laws of Scotland, published by authority, where we read that “From the time that the Assembly of Perth was held, (1597,) the Presbyterian Constitution of the Church, as established in 1592, and the legitimate authority of its General Assemblies and other judicatories, may be regarded as subverted by the interferences of King James the Sixth. On the 19th December, 1597, soon after the Assemblies of Perth and Dundee, he brought his projects under the consideration of parliament; when an act was passed ordaining that such pastors and ministers as his Majesty should at any time please to invest with the office, place, and dignity of bishop, abbot, or other prelate, should, in all time hereafter, have vote in parliament, in the same way as any prelate was accustomed to have; declaring that all bishoprics presently vacant, or which might afterwards become vacant, should be given by his Majesty to actual preachers and ministers. Henceforward, therefore, and indeed from the Assembly at Perth, (1597,) the Church of Scotland must be regarded as Episcopalian;”—in principle, we may add, though not fully developed.”—Compendium of the Laws of the Church of Scotland, part ii. p. 36.

In the year 1600, “the Presbyterian form of government was, after eight years of intolerable agitation, abolished by the king, with the full consent of an overwhelming majority of the ministers and the applause of the people, whose opinions seem to have been changed by experience of its tyranny.”—Stephens’s History of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 417.

The Scottish parliament had also passed an act, in 1597, “That such pastors and ministers as his Majesty should promote to the place, dignity, and title of a bishop, or other prelate, at any time, should have a voice in parliament, as freely as any ecclesiastical prelate had in times past.” In the year 1600, the king informed the Assembly, that “there was a necessity of restoring the ancient government of the Church;” and, consequently, under the sanction of parliament, “persons were nominated to the bishoprics that were void,” before the end of the year.—Skinner’s Church History, vol. ii. pp. 234–236.

And so we find that what, reasoning a priori, we should consider so improbable as to be almost incredible, was in point of fact impossible, “The Church of Scotland under a Presbyterian form, as it now is,” could not be intended by the canon, for such a Church did not exist as a recognised body in the state. On the contrary, as early as 1598, an act of the Scottish parliament had secured to the bishops and other ecclesiastical prelates to be appointed by the king their seats in parliament. And before the year 1600, bishops were nominated to the sees of Aberdeen, Argyle, Dunkeld, Brechin, and Dunblane. David Lindsay and George Gladstone were in that year designated to the sees of Ross and Caithness.

But it is said, these were not persons whom we regard as bishops; they were not consecrated, they were only titular bishops. Every child who has looked into ecclesiastical history knows this. But what do the advocates of Presbyterianism take by the fact? The fact is this, Presbyterianism was legally abolished: Episcopacy was legally established: the bishops were nominated: but the bishops designate were not yet consecrated. Can it be doubted to what the canon referred? It is absolutely certain that it could not refer to Presbyterianism; to what, then, did it refer? Ecclesiastical affairs in Scotland were in a transitional state. It was known that the king intended to introduce the substance of Episcopacy as well as the form. His principles were known. His power undoubted. The act of parliament enabled him to designate bishops. He had designated them; but he himself said, “I cannot make you bishops,” that was to be done by consecration. The Church of Scotland was in the very act of being formed and organized. The Convocation, acting prospectively, spoke of it as it was about to be, and as it soon after became. The bishops designate were consecrated in 1610.

But we must not stop here. So far from true is it, that “the Church of Scotland under a Presbyterian form, as it now is,” was the Church contemplated by the 55th canon, that by other canons passed in this very Convocation of 1603, the Presbyterians were actually excommunicated.

The Presbyterians had anathematized the Church of England. We have only to refer to the “Book of the universal Kirk,” to see that at the fourth session of the General Assemblie, held at Dundee, in 1580, the following was enacted: “Forasmeickle as the office of a bischop, as it is now usit, and commonly taken within this realme, hes no sure warrand, auctoritie, nor good ground out of the Book and Scriptures of God, but is brocht in by the folie and corruptions of [men’s] invention, to the great overthrow of the Kirk of God; the haill assembly of the Kirk, in ane voice, after liberty given to all men to reason in the matter, none opposing themselves in defending the said pretendit office, finds and declares the samein pretendit office, useit and termeit, as above said, unlawfull in the selfe, as have had neither foundation ground, nor warrant within the Word of God.”—Pt. ii. 453.

This was subsequently ratified in the second session of the General Assembly, holden at Edinburgh, in 1592. Again, in the Conference connected with the General Assembly, holden at Montrose, in 1600, it was maintained by the Kirk, that “The Anglican Episcopal dignities, offices, places, titles, and all Ecclesiastical Prelacies, are flat repugnant to the Word of God;” and that “all corruptions of these bishopricks are damned and rejected.”

So spake the sect which the advocates of Presbyterianism maintain that we place in our Bidding Prayer on the same footing as the Churches of England and Ireland. How the members of this “Holy Kirk” spoke of the Prayer Book, we learn from the president of the Convocation himself. Their language was, “That it (the Prayer Book) is full of corruption, confusion, and profanation; that it contains at least five hundred errors; that the orders therein described are carnal, beggarly, dung, dross, lousy, and anti-Christian. They say we eat not the Lord’s supper, but play a pageant of our own, to make the poor silly souls believe they have an English Mass; and so put no difference betwixt truth and falsehood, betwixt Christ and anti-Christ, betwixt God and the devil!”—See Bancroft’s Sermon, p. 284.

Such were the feelings and principles and charity and forbearance of the Presbyterians of that age; and how does the Church of England deal with such persons? Let the Church of England speak for herself through the canons of 1603:—