Some have posited that there is a strong similarity between “reduced episcopacy” and the practice of superintendency that existed in the early Church of Scotland during the 16th century. There does indeed seem to be strong evidence for this perspective amongst early Scottish Presbyterians:
In the First Book of Discipline, superintendents (there was that presided over each Scottish diocese as determined by the book of discipline) had power to plant churches, ordain ministers, and the general oversight of the churches within his bounds. (First Book of Discipline, “The Fifth Head – Concerning the Provision for the Ministers, and for the Distribution of the Rents and Possessions Justly Appertaining to the Kirk”)
“It was ordained that if ministers be disobedient to superintendents in any thing belonging to edification, they must be subject to correction.” (Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland, Part 1: 1560-1577 [Edinburgh, 1839], pg. 14)
“That punishment should be appointed for such as disobeyed or contemned the superintendents in their function.” (John Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland, Book III)
“Thirdly, Let no man be charged, in preaching of Christ Jesus, above that which one man may do; I mean that your bishoprics be so divided, that of everyone as they be now (for the most part) be made ten ; and so in every city and great towne there may be placed a godly learned man, with so many joined with him, for preaching and instruction. as shall be thought sufficient for the bounds committed to their charge. The utility whereof you shall understand, within few years, greatly to redound to the profit of the simple flock. For your proud prelates great dominions and charge (impossible by one man to be discharged) are no part of Christ's ministry, but are the maintenance of the tyranny first invented, and yet retained by the Roman Antichrist.” (John Knox, “The copie of an epistle sent by John Knox,” in The Works of John Knox, 5:518-19)
“The superintendents held their office during life, and their power was episcopal; for they did elect and ordain ministers, they presided in synods, and directed all church censures, and no excommunication was pronounced without their warrant.” (John Spottiswoode, History of the Church of Scotland [Edinburgh, 1851], 2:167)
“In the churches of the Protestants, Bishops and Archbishops are not really wanting, whom (changing the good Greek names into bad Latin names) they call Superintendents and General Superintendents; where neither the good Greek names nor bad Latin names take place, yet there also there use to be some principal persons, in whose hands almost all the authority doth rest.” (Jerome Zanchi, De religione christianae fides, 25.10-11)
On the other hand, we ought to recognize some important differences between the classic episcopacy and superintendents. When John Spottiswoode was elected as a superintendent in March 1561, the form and order of the election was careful to guard against any sort of usurpation of unjust dominion or tyranny in the superintendent’s office. The document is also devoid of any mentions of succession or a sacramental laying on of hands. (David George Mullan, Episcopacy in Scotland: The History of an Idea, 1560-1638 [Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd, 1986], pg. 25). Superintendents underwent frequent trials by general assemblies to ensure their faithfulness in their exercise (Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, 1:14)
Superintendents were held accountable to church courts and other ministers. In 1571, the General Assembly censured a superintendent “in so far as he consulted not with the Ministers and Elders touching things to be reformed.” (Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, 1:237)
A relevant debate with practical implications today is whether or not the Reformed Kirk of Scotland intended for superintendents to be a perpetual office, or one merely temporary for the purposes of strengthening the newly Reformed church in the nation. Thomas McCrie argued for the latter position in his biography of Andrew Melville. In modern times, James Kirk has provided some of the most precise scholarship on the question. Some of the Scottish commissioners at Westminster also argued in the negative:
“In the first constitution and infancy of our Church there were some visitors and superintendents for planting of churches, because breasts and hair of our churches were not grown, after the example of the apostles, who sent such to plant and visit churches, and appoint elders in congregations, Acts 8:14-16; 13:14-16; 14:23; Tit. 1:5-9; 21:17-18, but after the Church was planted there was no need of such.” (Samuel Rutherford, A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbytery in Scotland [London: John Bartlet, 1642], pg. 311)
“The Dutch superintendents are as like to English bishops as an emperor in the days of Fabius Maximus, when the senate ruled all, to an emperor in the days of Tiberius or Nero, when an absolute prince, I will not say a tyrant, did govern all at his pleasure. The name is one, but the things are essentially different, and so far distant as the East is from the West.” (Robert Baillie, An Historical Vindication of the Government of the Church of Scotland [London: Samuel Gellibrand, 1646], pg. 79)
David George Mullan has brought forward the following arguments in favor of viewing the Scottish superintendent as being intended to function as a more settled and continuing office in the Reformed Kirk (David George Mullan, Episcopacy in Scotland: The History of an Idea, 1560-1638, pgs. 19-33):
[1]. John Douglas complained that the church of Calder was being deprived of preaching since their minister was elected to be a Superintendent. The assembly replied that “The profit of many kirks was to be preferred to the profit of one particular, and that the kirk of Calder should either be occupied by himself, or be some other qualified person in his absence.” (Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland [Edinburgh, 1839], 1:18)
[2]. In the First Book of Discipline, superintendents were to nominate ministers if churches failed to do so within 40 days of a vacant pulpit/office. D.G. Mullan contends that this act would only apply to a more settled Reformed church, since the early Kirk of Scotland did not have as many available ministers (Episcopacy in Scotland, pg. 19). The discipline makes more sense in a context where superintendents were a fixed office in the kirk.
[3]. The 1566 General Assembly affirmed almost the entirety of the Second Helvetic Confession. This confession included an affirmation of the parity of ministers. Considering that superintendents expressed their approval for it (with the exception of things about holy days and feasts), it would appear that the Scottish church saw no inconsistency between the practice of superintendency and an affirmation of the equality of ministers (David G. Mullan, Episcopacy in Scotland, pgs. 24-25).
[4]. The 1568 General Assembly said “That none have place nor power to vote, except superintendents, commissioners appointed for visiting kirks, ministers brought with them presented as persons able to reason, and having knowledge to judge.” (Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland [Edinburgh, 1839], 1:124)
[5]. Superintendents had various duties that imply it was a permanent office, rather than simply a temporary measure for church planting. They were to communicate the decrees of the general assembly to their respective dioceses, examine books relating to theology before their publication, as well as the regulation of ministers’ stipends (Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland, 1:14, 34-35, 164).
[6]. Superintendents had authority to take trial of erring ministers and pronounce a sentence of excommunication against insubordinate elders (David G. Mullan, Episcopacy in Scotland, pg. 27).
On the other hand, there is a historical argument to be made for viewing the superintendent as a temporary measure within the Scottish church (James Kirk, Patterns of Reform: Continuity and Change in the Reformation Kirk [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989], pgs. 154-232):
[1]. “The reasons adduced in the Book of Discipline, as it finally took shape, for appointing superintendent ministers were purely practical, not theological, and indicate, incidentally, that no differentiation among protestant preachers had previously emerged. Besides, the basis for the distinction was located in the geographical areas for their ministry.” (James Kirk, Patterns of Reform, pg. 161)
[2]. Kirk emphasizes the pastoral role of the superintendent (which is not disputed by those who advocate for either its continuation or for a moderate episcopacy), and notes that “the one formula for inaugurating ministers and superintendents offers testimony of how their functions differed neither in their essential nature nor in their authorisation by the church. Their shared task was to serve congregations through their ministry of the Word and sacraments.” (James Kirk, Patterns of Reform, pg. 163)
[3]. Though excommunication was pronounced by superintendents in many cases, James Kirk (Patterns of Reform, pg. 185) points out that the 1565 General Assembly distinguished between “towns where order is established” where the kirk session was primarily responsible for handling matters of excommunication, and areas in which the superintendent “with advice of the next reformed kirk” might pronounce such sentences (Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland, 1:74-75). However, Kirk neglects to mention that this same assembly decreed that in the case fo settled and fixed parishes, if the offender professes sincere repentance, then the superintendent and kirks without a superintendent are to be involved in practicing a more lenient discipline and trial of the accused person’s repentance. If the offender is stubborn and obstinate, the superintendent (together with the kirk) should pronounce excommunication against him.
Defenders of King James VI’s Five Articles of Perth also believed in the precedence of the moderator or superintendent:
“By Divine Law, it is necessary for a society or college of pastors to have a President and Moderator who, instructed by public authority, convenes the others, exercises ecclesiastical judgments with them, ordains clerics, moderates assemblies, visits churches, pronounces sentences, and ensures their execution according to his office, to whom the others are subject in the Lord and are bound to obey, conducting themselves properly in their protection…It is consistent with Divine Law, after the Apostles, for all communities to have common Moderators, so that each diocesan college of pastors is led by one Moderator rather than several. This is dictated by the very reason for maintaining order and peace and avoiding confusion.” (John Forbes, Irenicum amatoribus veritatis et pacis in Ecclesia Scoticana [Aberdeen: E. Rabanus, 1629], Book II, ch. 11)
No comments:
Post a Comment