At the Westminster assembly, the debate on whether or not there was a distinct office of teacher lasted from November 14-November 21, 1643. The Scottish commissioners and the Independents were more in favor of such a view, while the English Presbyterians inclined against it. However, the Scottish view allowed that Doctors were not necessary for every congregation (Letters and Journal of Robert Baillie, 2:110).
Cornelius Burgess said “In some congregations it may be & some it must be, but the office ex natura sua doth not require it…If in a particular congregation, they are the same. But if in university, or where you will plant any to read a divinity lecture, then we acknowledge there is use of such an office in the church.” (Session 95, Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 2:312-313)
Stephen Marshall said “there is nothing that the one may do but the other may do for the substance of [the] office.” (Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 2:315)
The Independent divine Sidrach Simpson said “If one may be an officer who hath ability to exhort and not to teach, then they are distinct officers.” (Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 2:340).
As this discussion came to an end, the committee reported the following propositions which were agreed upon by the assembly as a means of accommodation between the slightly opposing views:
“1) That there be different gifts, and different exercises, according to the difference of those gifts in the ministers. 2) Those different gifts may be in and exercised by one and the same minister. 3) Where there be several ministers in the same congregation, they may be designed to several employments. 4) He that doth more excel in exposition, doctrine, and convincing them in application, and accordingly employed therein, may be called a teacher or doctor. 5) A teacher or doctor is of excellent use in schools or universities. 6) Where there is but one minister in a particular congregation, he is to perform, so far as he is able, the whole work of the ministry.” (Session 100, November 21, 1643, in George Gillespie, Notes of Debates and Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines [Edinburgh: Robert Ogle & Oliver & Boyd, 1846], pg. 4)
“On the basis of a recognition that men possessed different gifts, the Assembly made it permissible for a congregation having more than one minister to assign one or more of them to the specific task of teaching and to give to those who were so engaged the title of ‘teacher’ or ‘doctor.’” (Wayne R. Spear, Covenanted Uniformity in Religion: The Influence of the Scottish Commissioners on the Ecclesiology of the Westminster Assembly [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2013], pg. 103)
The distinct office of teacher had stronger precedent in the Church of Scotland. For example, see John Knox’s “Order of Geneva”:
“These Ministers are called Teachers or Doctors, [Eph. 4, 1 Cor. 12] whose office is to instruct and teach the faithful in sound doctrine… Therefore to term it by a word more usual in these days, we may call it the Order of Schools, wherein the highest degree, and moste annexed to the ministry and government of the Church, is the exposition of God's Word…. But because men cannot so well profit in that knowledge, except they be first instructed in the tongues and human sciences…it is necessary that…Scholes also be erected, and Colleges maintained, with just and sufficient stipends, wherein youth may be trained in the knowledge and fear of God, that in their ripe age they may prove worthy members of our Lord Jesus Christ, whether it be to rule in Civil policy, or to serve in the Spiritual ministry, or else to live in godly reverence and subjection.” (The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing [Edinburgh, 1855], 4:177)
The Scottish Second Book of Discipline refers to the office of teacher as one of the “four ordinary functions or offices in the Kirk of God.” (2.10).
“The Doctor being an officer, as said is, should assist the Pastor in the government of the Kirk, and concur with the other Elders, his brethren, in all assemblies.” (Second Book of Discipline, 6.5)
King James VI, in an attempt to counter the influence of Andrew Melville, severely limited the Doctor’s ruling abilities and excluded them from attendance at the General Assembly (Appendix to the Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland [n.p., 1845], pg. 935).
This changed when the General Assembly of 1638 recognized the Second Book of Discipline as the official polity of the Kirk of Scotland, and the ecclesiastical privileges of Teachers were restored. George Gillespie reaffirmed this view in his Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland.
At the Westminster Assembly, the Scots were willing to compromise on the issue of Teachers administering the sacraments, which was prohibited by the Second Book of Discipline. They did not protest when other members of the Assembly asserted such a right.
No comments:
Post a Comment