PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 404, 30 June 1908, Page 4

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

Reply to the Anglican Vicar. By the Rev. G. K. Aitken. At the local Presbyterian Church on Sunday morning, the Rev. G. K. Aitken replied to a sermon preached by the Rev. G. YoungWoodward at All Saints' Church last Sunday night week. The Rev. Mr Aitken preached from the text: — 3 Tim 1-13. “ Hold fast the form of sound words.”

I do not need to apologise for a departure from our usual practice this morning, in the character of our service. A sufficient reason, I think, is to be found in the fact that the Minister of the local Anglican Church has seen fit to publish a sermon which not only maligns our Church and Christian community, but sets out doctrines contrary to the faith and teaching of every Protestant Church through out the world. The position into which we arc forced, therefore, is that of a defence of our faith and principles. If what he states is tfi*e true tenets of Christian faith and doctrine, then we are altogether wrong in our religious beliefs, and I have been teaching you errors and false doctrines ever since I have been here. If, on the other hand, what I believe and teach, and you receive and adopt as an exposition of your religious faith, is right and in harmony with scriptural declaration, then it naturally follows that bis teaching is wrong, misleading, and corrupt. That it is such, I have every confidence that I will be able to prove....t?, .your intellectual and spiritual,.pei.cep.tion. Had the vicar ,„ t preached this sermon, I should have regretted to ihear oi it, but I should not have it my duty to publicly icriticise or express an opinion up[on it, but when it appeared in public print, the whole circumstances are changed, and I am compelled, however painful the process is, to defend my faith and my church against his unbecoming and erroneous statements. Some may be of the opinion that the whole matter is not worthy of serious consideration, and ought to be treated with silent contempt. On the other hand there are others who would probably believe if his Strict uses and declarations were unanswered they were unanswerable ; while I am disposed to think that the spirit in which they were uttered and published is one of bravado, and a throwing down of the gauntlet to the other congregations in the place. Under such circumstances I hesitate not to do my duty and will to the best of my ability, humbly and dispassionatley endeavour to place before you the characteristics of the true Church of Christ and that which is contrary thereto. In doing so I am to be guided by scriptural authority, and apostolic practice. In this I presume, or at least I should hope, we meet on common ground, for surely even the Anglican vicar is not prepared to accept as aulioritative what is not in harmony with the Word of God. Ido not intend taking up subjects beyond those raised by the Anglican vicar, and will therefore confine myself to his three points, belief in which he declares to be essential to the salvation of the human soul. Ist apostolic succession, 2nd the power of the priesthood, and 3rd belief in the sacraments. The first point, then, claiming attention is apostolic succession. In the Anglican vicar’s opinion this question is of premier importance. He says :

The. Church traced herauihority back to her founder, onr Lord Himself. The channel bv which her Continuity was kept was ihe apostolic succession—the means being the laying on of hands. He then gave an example in the present Bishop of Wellington—his consecration having taken place by three bishops—these bishops in their turn being similarly consecrated, and so on, until, by the imposition of hands, the line could be traced to our Lord Himself and His apostles.

As an assertion, the local Anglican vicar’s declaration of apostolical succession, cannot surely count for much ; and as he makes no attempt to demonstrate the fact that the apostolic succession actually did proceed from Christ through His apostlesdown through the ages till it reached the venerable head of the Bishop of Wellington, he cannot feel aggrieved if we hesitate to accept his unattested assertion; more especially, when we come to consider that the most advanced thinkers, the most eminent ministers of his own church, the most intellectual and sincere scholars in the church’s history, lay no claim to apostolic succession, which to him is of the most vital ’importance in his church’s constitution. I say here and now, and in the light of the earliest and very latest writings on this sub ject—writings by scholarly men, and men who are experts in the channels of biblical research, that he cannot prove that the apostolic succession of which he boasts, has any existence in fact. Nay, I go further, and assert that for more than the first hundred years of the Christian dispensation, there never existed such an official in the Christian Church at all, that in any way corresponds to the office of a bishop as we understand it in the episcopacy. When after Penticost, the Christian church began to grow and extend, and by the missionary enterprise of the apostles and believing disciples, new centres of operation had to be formed, and certain officials appointed in these centres to assure order and government. In no instance did the appointment vary, but in every case presbyters and deacons were appointed to meet

the necessities of the growing church. Not only was this so, but the character of the church was shown in the manner in which these appointments took place. “There is Divine authority for saying,” says Professor Witherow, “ that the principles oi which the following facts are the realisation, were in practical operation in the Apostolic Church, (i) The office bearers were chosen by the people; (2) the office of bishop and elder are identical; (3) there was a plurality of elders in each church ; (4) ordination was the act of a presbytery—that is of a plurality of elders; - (5) there was the privilege of appeal to the assembly of elders, and the power of government was exercised by them in their associate capacity: (6) the only head of the church was the Lord Jesus Christ. From the foregoing, it will be apparent that the Apostolic Church was in no sense an episcopacy, but in its government and principles purely Presbyterian. An eminent Anglican Church dignitary and scholar says: “ In order to prove that episcopacy as it now exists, is necessary to the esse of a church, §it should be possible to show evidence that it was the universal custom of the apostles to consecrate a bishop over every church they founded. But so far is this from the case that there is no evidence in the writings of the apostles, and of the apostolic fathers that any apostle appointed a bishop to rule over any church. What the local vicar is teaching in relation to apostolic succession is what is taught in the Roman and Eastern churches, and also by some in the Anglican communion, involving : xst. That the Episcopacy as it now exists was instituted by Jesus Christ; 2nd. That without Episcopal ordination there can be no sacraments, no church ; 3rd. That the body of Christ is limited to those communities whose bishops can trace their descent from the twelve apostles, and that no others are members of Christ’s body. “But,” says Dr. Watt, “ evangelical Protestants reject the doctrine of apostolic succession, because that doctrine pre-supposes ||ie existence of a chain, an uninterrupted succession of diocesan bishops going back from the present day to the days of the apostles ; a fact which our growing acquaintance with the early history of the church absolutely discredits. But the view which is making way among scholars, and which will, we venture to predict, eventually hold the ground, is that the episcopate originated after the death of the apostles, and was developed out of the presidency of the congregational presbyter, and was an expansion and elevation of the presbyterate. ” This is the view held by learned Anglican scholars, such as Stanley, Lightfoot, Hort, Hatch, etc. This is the view held by Baur and Renan, who look at this question free from any dogmatic bias, either pro or con—as a question of purely literary criticism. The episcopate was formed, says Bishop Lightfoot, not out of the apostollic order by localisation, but out of the presbyterate by elevation and title, which was originally common to all, came to be appropriated to the chief among them.” i'his is the view which best accords with all the known facts of the case. It appears that in the second century the forces of anarchy, outside the church and within her, were threatening to disintegrate the fabric of her doctrine and discipline ; and a great movement began, originating in the East, and ultimately spreading to the West in the direction of centralising ecclesiastical power and hedging it in every, congregation on the one hand of the president of the Presbyters, so as to offer a solid bulwark against the menacing danger. But this did not take place till long after the apostles had passed from the scenes of their labours and fallen asleep in Jesus. Thus we find in the end of the second century Iraneus, himself, Bishop of Eyns, in Gaul, calling Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, with whom he had been familiar in his early life, presbyter ; and when addressing a letter of remonstrance to Victor, Bishop of Rome, he speaks of Anicetns, Pius. Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Sixtus, predecessors of Victor in the See of Rome, mentioning them by name as the the presbyters who went before them. And early in the fifth century we find Jerome expressly testifying: “That the churches originally, before divisions arose through the instigation of Satan, were governed by the common council of Presbyters, and not till a later period was one of the Presbyters placed at the head to watch over the church and suppress schisms.” Jerome traces the difference simply to ecclesiastical custom as. distinct from Divine institution. The historians Ifipsius and Danger agree that the first names on the lists of Popes are the names of Presbyters or chairmen of Presbyters. In the face of all this and much more of an equally convincing character that I could say, how is it possible for any man to hold apostolic succession as a doctrine of his. church ? There is an apostolic succession, certainly, but it is not of a physical or a material character, but consists of that spiritual unity and authority that comes directly from Christ himself, and is expressed in the familiar words of the Blessed Master when he prayed “That they all may be one; as thou Father art in me and I in thee; that they also may be one in us.” I pass on to the second point raised: “The Power of Priesthood.” In this part of his sermon the Anglican vicar introduces us to Sacerdotalism, a dogma that our Lord instituted in His church, a class of sacrificing priests who can, like the Aaronic priest, trace their descent by a regular line of spiritual ancestors through the

apostles to tne great High Priest Jesus Christ. Is there any foundation in Holy Scripture for the claim made for a Christian priesthood? A distinguished and learned Anglican divine replies in these words: “I answer emphatically that there is none whatever. For (1) all the passages which bear on the subject of the Christian ministry, without any exception, agree in proving that it was the organisation of the synagogue (with its deacons, presbyters and president) and not that of the temple which was perpetuated in the Christian Church. (2) The term sacredos is not once used in Scripture nor in any Christian writing in the first two centuries of the Christian era for a Minister of Christ. Neither “priest nor priesthood occur in any of St. Paul’s epistles. St. Peter calls all Christians a “ holy priesthood ” and' a “royal priesthood,” and St. John calls them “a kingdom” and “priests.” (3) Until the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), the Christians continued to revere the temple, priesthood and sacrifices of the old Dispensation, and did not as yet see they were done away |in Christ.” Bishop Gore, who is a strong advocate of sacerdotalism, acknowledges that the term priesthood is never applied to the Christian Ministry till the end of the second century. To claim, as the vicar does, the possession of power to give absolution after auricular confession made to him, is to admit the Roman doctrine of the confessional, a doctrine not only contrary to the principles and teachings of the Reformed Church, but contrary entirely to the Word of God. “In whom we have redemption through His Blood ; the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.” The Anglican vicar says : ‘ 1 The Christ in forming His church had given power, a channel by which this pardon could be conveyed through the priesthood.” I should like to know on what authority he ventures to make this statement. To me it is wholly unintelligible. I have shown that neither Christ or His apostles ever formed any such priesthood, and I say further that the idea of a priesthood of the ministry is a gross corruption of Christianity. Every believer in Christ is a member of the only priesthood Christianity knows and Christ is the only “ Mediator between God and man.” I make a quotation from the words of the late Dr. Arnold, a very eminent minister of the Anglican Church, and for many years headmaster of the Rugby school, and I use his words to show that within the Anglican Church itself there are men of distinction both as scholars and theologians who have no sympathy with such a dogma or those who support it. He says “ The dogma of a human priesthood in Christ’s Church, appointed to administer His sacraments, and thereby to mediate between God and man, from no reasonable or moral necessity, is a thing quite distinct from any exaggerated motions of the activity of government; it is not the excess of a benefi:ent truth, but it is from first .to last considering that it is addressed to Christians who have their Divine Priest and Mediator already, a mere error, and an error not merely speculative, but fraught with all manner of mischief, idolatrous and demoralising, destructive of Christ’s Church, injurious to Christ and His Spirit ; the worst and earliest form of anti-Christ.” Eet Dr Arnold’s solemn and weighty words be our answer to the vicar’s belief in a Christian priesthood. And now just a word or two on the third point “Belief in the Sacraments” and I am done. The vicar declares that the Sacraments are seven in number. This is just the doctrine of the Romish Church in relation to the sacraments, but it is not the doctrine or teaching of any Protestant Church in the world. In declaring that the sacraments are seven in number the vicar goes entirely against the 39 Articles of the Church of England, which every Churchman accepts as the constitution of his Church and the confession of his faith. Eet me read to you the 25th article of the-Church of England Constitution, “Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him. There are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Eord. Those five commonley called sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to counted tor sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures ; but yet have not like nature of sacraments, with baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. The sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And" in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation ; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation as Saint Paul saith.” Then the Anglican vicar says the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was the highest of all, because it was the receiving of the Real Presence of the risen Master. But what says article 28, dealing with the Sacrament of the the Lord’s Supper ? Here is what it says : ‘ 1 The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have

among themselves one to another ; but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death ; insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the bread which we break is partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) m the Supper of the Lord cannot ■be proved by Holy Writ ; but is repugnant to the plain word of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitious. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the means, whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper, is laith. The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.” That is what the Church oi England articles say, regarding the character of the elements used and the manner they are employed in the sacrament,. an article to which we could all heartily agree, but witn which the teaching of the vicar of Foxton is in sad contrast. I hold in my hand the catechism of the Church of England with an exposition thereon by the Rev. Dr. G. Bartle, at one time principal of Walton College, Liverpool, in which he says, referring to the Eucharist :

“Before closing our exposition of the Catechism, it may not be improper to make one or two additional remarks relative to the eucharist, and we are induced to do so because of the growing misunderstanding in some quarters respecting it. If we sincerely believe that the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper are literally changed into the body and blood of Christ, we must as a natural consequence be struck with a solemn sense of the awful and visible presence of the diety, and believing in this objective presence, or that God is in the bread and wine, we proceed in the next place to worship those elements which we hesitate not both to eat and drink. By acting in such a manner, we really lay ourselves open to the imputation of ignorance, superstition, and idolatry, because we indicate a want of acquaintance with the true import of the sacramental language of the Hebrew Scriptures, the ignorance of which leads, in a great measure, to the superstition and idolatry that usually follow. When the scriptures speak on sacramental subjects, we almost invariably find that they call the sign by the name of the thing signified. In corroboration of this statement, we need only refer to the Book of Exodus, (ch. xii. 11,) where we thus read respecting the Pascual Lamb : “ It is the Lord’s Passover.” Here we have a specimen of sacramental language, by which the sign is designated by the name of the thing signified, for the Paschal lamb is called “the Lord’s Passover,” when in reality it was only the sign of the Lord’s Passover, or the token that God would pass over the houses of the Israelites. The Jews of our own days use exactly the same sort of language when they commemorate the Passover, for they take the unleavened bread into their hands and utter these words : “ This is the bread of affliction, which out fathers did eat in wilderness.” So also our Blessed Lord, when He said, “ This is my Body,” and “ This is my Blood,” spake in sacramental language alter the manner of the scriptures, and according to the custom of the lews, calling the signs by the names of the things signified. To assert then that the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper are transubstantiated, or changed into the real body and blood of Christ, is virtually the same as to affirm that the Paschal Lamb, which the people ate, was the act of the Lord passing over the houses of the Israelites. See what is said concerning Circumcision, in Genesis, Ch. xvii. Again, assuming that the bread which our Lord held tn His hand, was His natural body and the wine in the cup His natu ral blood, then we must be pre pared to lay aside the use of our reason, and believe the following particulars, which are not only glaring contradictions, but which involve impossibilities: —1. That Christ was put to death before He was put to death, for he was alive when He said of the bread “ This is my Body.” 2. That He was living and not living, dead and not dead, sacrificed, and not sacrificed at the same moment of time. 3. His body was broken when it was not broken, His blood poured out when it was not poured out, and that His apostles were actually eating His flesh, while He was in the act of instituting the eucharist. We know too, that the Jews were forbidden by the Mosaic law to eat blood, and, therefore, had the apostles of our Lord imagined for one moment that He was offering them His literal blood, they won d have been bound to reject it. Let us, in the last place, remember the words of our divine Master on another occasion when He declared that a man cannot be defiled by what he eats and drinks. Now, since that which enters into a man’s mouth cannot defile him, it must follow, by parity of reason, that it cannot sanctify him, and, therefore, J if the flesh and blood of Christ were received in a carnal manner, they would profit nothing. —Mark vii. 18 —23. These words afford an answer to the erroneous statements made by the Anglican vicar, and coming as they do with the authority of the church of which he is a minister, they present a sad commentary of the degration to which the truths of God’s Word are being subjected. But it. may be asked what is my purpose, and what is ■ my authority for thus criticising

the utterances of a minister of another denomination ? At first sight it may appear as though I overstep my duty and privilege Such is not the case however. For although I do not belong to his communion I yet am a member of the great reformed church of which his denomination is a section, and when doctrines are publicly declared, contrary to the principles and doctrines of that Protestantism which was so dearly purchased for us with the blood of the martyrs I, yes, and every man, who has a modicum of sense of the value of that Reformation must if he has a spark of . manliness within him, protest, and strongly and persistently until the Protestant faith and doctrine is preached in all its purity and preciousness from the pulpits of one common Protestant Church.