Begg on the Use of the Organ, Chapter 4
James Dodson
[Page 86]
CHAPTER IV.
THE INNOVATORS IN THE SCOTTISH ESTABLISHMENT.—DR ROBERT LEE REVIEWED.
“Thy rowers have brought thee into great waters.”—Ezek. xxvii. 26.
THE old Moderate party, with the help of the civil courts, having obtained control of the Scottish Establishment at the Disruption, some have supposed that the peculiar ritualistic tendencies, which have been lately exhibited, are only natural. The Moderate party, as they chose to call themselves, were mainly the descendants of the old Episcopalian party, improperly incorporated with the Church of Scotland at the Revolution Settlement, and therefore it has been supposed that in manifesting Prelatic leanings now, they only betray their true nature and unaltered instincts—the restraining influence of a powerful Evangelical party having been removed from their Church Courts. Others sup-
[Page 87]
pose that the shape which matters are gradually taking is only the natural development of a worldly element in the Church; that when men have little spiritual life and no earnest gospel to preach to their hearers, they must still endeavour in some other way to attract and interest them. There may be a measure of truth in both of these allegations. What is certain, is that an active and bold ritualistic party has lately arisen in the Scottish Establishment, and been largely tolerated, if not encouraged, by the Church Courts. One of the leaders of this party is Dr Robert Lee, of Edinburgh, who rather inappropriately ministers and carries on his “innovations” in the Old Greyfriars Church, close to the scene of the signing of the Covenant, and within sight of the martyrs’ grave. He has published a bulky but rather heavy and unreadable volume,* in explanation and vindication of his proceedings. This volume is confined to “Worship,” has apparently been little read, and has certainly made
_____
* “The Reform of the Church of Scotland, in Worship, Government, and Doctrine.” By Robert Lee, D.D. Part I., Worship. Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas.
[Page 88]
little general impression. Probably on this account, the two companion volumes, on “Government” and “Doctrine,” have not yet seen the light. This we rather regret, for we should really like to see the full disclosure of the whole budget of Dr Lee’s coveted “reforms” in the Church. The present volume, if reduced to practice, would itself effect a very thorough and sweeping revolution in the Scotch Establishment; but it is somewhat curious and interesting to know that it embraces only an instalment of what its author would suggest in the way of change. By all means, therefore, let us know what the whole would amount to, and especially as Dr Lee does not seem to be hampered by any conscientious difficulties, or by any fear of consequences, in using “great plainness of speech” on the subject of which he treats.
He commences his lucubrations with a most delusive attempt to draw an analogy between the constant progress of things outward and the Christian Church. “Change,” exclaims he, “is the order of the universe, the normal condition of all things mundane and human.”—(P. 3.) But
[Page 89]
this is certainly not the case of God’s word, which “is settled in heaven, and endures through all generations;” nor of the Church of Christ, which is completely and finally described and limited by the volume of inspiration in its doctrine and ordinances, and is now, like Christ himself, “the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.” “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from these things, God will take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Instead of comparing men ought to contrast the movements in the social and political world with the glorious stability of the Christian system.
After running out this false analogy at some length, and thus producing an argument which has really no application, Dr Lee remarks:—“It is said that Melancthon proposed that every seven years there should be held some convention or other theological assembly—not to bring back, if possible, advancing opinion to the Augs-
[Page 90]
burg Confession, but to adapt the Confession to those modifications of opinion which were inevitable; so that the symbol might at all times represent the faith,” observe, reader, of what? not of the Bible, but “of the existing Church.” This is a sufficiently startling assertion, and not very like an opinion that any Reformer would express; but we recover our breath, and are immediately reassured by the announcement that Dr Lee is “not aware of any original authority on which it rests.” It may therefore be safely consigned to the limbo of unveracities. “Certainly,” however, exclaims our author again, “none of the Reformers imagined that their ideas were to become the standard according to which all succeeding Protestants were to think.”—(P. 5.) Admitted, but what avails it to Dr Lee when every Reformer thought that the unerring standard of religious belief in all ages was to be the unchangeable word of God. It is truly marvellous to find him (p. 6) quoting the lamentation of Lord Bacon over the fact that the Church of England had “received no alteration now for these five and forty years and more,” as
[Page 91]
a preface to his scheme for transferring some of the worst corruptions of that Church, after three centuries, to the purer Church of Scotland. It is also passing strange to find a reference to the Confession of 1560, and to the declaration of its framers, to the effect that if anything was found in that Confession inconsistent with the “Holy Scriptures,” (p. 7) its makers would be ready to alter it, as a reason why, to please newspaper editors and others, the Church should embark in a course of indefinite change, apart from any Scriptural requirement or authority.
One object of the book is to justify the reading of written prayers in public—a different question, in some respects, from the imposition of a liturgy—a question into which of course we do not here enter, and also—although without any novelty in the way of argument—the use of instrumental music in worship. Into all the curious and quibbling details we do not enter; but the book is instructive, as indicating the spirit and policy in which the movement originates, and by which it is guided. It would be very hard to find in this somewhat dreary volume
[Page 92]
anything like a Scriptural principle announced, or any indication that the affairs of the Church ought to be strictly regulated by the Word of God. The whole discussion seems regulated by purely worldly and secular considerations, and probably there seldom has been a book on the subject of devotion less fragrant with the appearance of a devotional spirit, whatever the real spirit or the private devotions of Dr Lee himself may be. He is excessively alarmed by the weakness of the Scotch Establishment, and on this he founds a main argument for change. “That the Church of Scotland needs some important changes may seem to be demonstrated,” how? by the Bible? No; but observe—“by the undeniable fact that it has lost ground, and is continually losing ground, if not absolutely, yet relatively to other sects and to the numbers of the people.”—(P. 39.) Again—“Those who consider how rapid has been that progress of comparative decay, and how active are still the causes which have produced it, may well feel anxiety for the Church—even for its existence as an Establishment. We cannot dis-
[Page 93]
guise from ourselves the painful fact that the Kirk, even at this moment, maintains its position as the Church of the law by the sufferance of the English Church, which, with the eager co-operation of the Dissenters, could at once disestablish it.”—(P. 39.) The practical question, therefore, according to this view, very much is what is necessary to conciliate the Church of England to the support, or, at least, continued toleration of the Scotch Establishment? Dr Lee justly remarks that “Episcopacy (Prelacy?) is now very generally regarded by the Anglican clergy as of Divine authority, so that no society is indeed a Christian Church which repudiates or wants the three orders of the priesthood, or at least the Episcopal order.”—(P. 41.) What is to be done in such a case? Does any one suppose that conformity is the most likely way of escaping from the difficulty? Dr Lee does not say so, but after all, however, Dr Lee has discovered that the Church of England is a very improving body. “There is no denying,” our author says, “that of late years the Church of England has largely gained in popular sympathy
[Page 94]
and support. Besides the Conservatives, whose attachment to the institution is consistent and hereditary, a large portion of the Liberal party of all religious persuasions have had their former prejudices (!) softened, if not an attachment to it created, by the factiousness and intolerance of dissent on the one hand, and upon the other by the larger and more humane spirit which has begun of late years to characterise at least a number of the leading spirits in the Church. Such men persuade themselves that soon, if not already, the Anglican Church will afford the only refuge for those, whether clergy or laity, who are not prepared to give themselves up to absolute mental servitude, but are resolved to vindicate for themselves some freedom of inquiry and speech on theological doctrines, and who consider that a national Church should be comprehensive and liberal in its constitution—that it should brand nothing as heresy, except a denial of some one of those very few points which constitute the foundation and essence of the Christian religion as taught in the New Testament. The late decisions in the Court of Arches have served greatly to extend and
[Page 95]
deepen such feelings, however the straiter Churchmen may be scandalised by them.”—(Pp. 42, 43.) The italics are ours, but the passage is suggestive. Again: “Many suppose that the interests of the Established Churches in Great Britain are so bound up together that whatever strengthens or weakens one tends also to strengthen or weaken the other. It would rather appear that the opposite of this is nearer the truth. These two Churches, as now existing, are rather antagonists than allies, as indeed they have been at all times, when care for the temporalities was not the only form of clerical zeal. This at least is certain and obvious—that every accession of strength and influence gained by the Southern Establishment brings the Northern, while it continues in its present state, into greater peril.”—(P. 44.) Once more: “Now also, when by a more liberal interpretation of the law and other causes operating in the same direction, those influences are rendered more powerful, undoubtedly the result will be more and more unfavourable to Scotch Presbyterianism, and particularly to that of the Established Church;
[Page 96]
unless it shall in good time look its position boldly in the face, acknowledge honestly the real sources of its weakness, and set itself to remove these with a courage and zeal proportionate to the gravity of the danger.”—(Pp. 44, 45.) The italics again are ours; but in what direction does all this point? It seems to us amazingly suggestive. What is it that has really weakened the Scotch Establishment? Surely, beyond all doubt, the law of patronage and her own Erastian submission latterly to the civil courts. But for this the Presbyterianism of Scotland, representing still probably nine-tenths of the whole population would have been still cordially united. This, however, is not the source of weakness to which Dr Lee refers, and there is no repentance for the past or proposal to remedy this real and obvious evil, but the paramount influence of the Church of England is set prominently forth, and the necessity which now exists for conciliating that powerful body. The question simply is—How is this to be done? Of course, only by abandoning Presbyterianism altogether, and conforming to that Church in government, doctrine, and wor-
[Page 97]
ship, we would say. Besides, if it be true that “soon, if not already, the Anglican Church will afford the only refuge” against bigotry and intolerance, there is surely no great hardship in this; but certainly this result is the only logical conclusion from the previous line of reasoning. Dr Lee, however, does not fully and plainly finish his argument. It is a most lame and impotent conclusion from such statements as we have quoted to say, as Dr Lee does, that “these dangers do not appear to me to have much or almost anything to do, directly at least, with Episcopacy or Presbytery as forms of government.” How is this? The whole matter has mainly to do with forms of government. If a large portion of the English clergy believe that “no society is indeed a Christian Church which repudiates or wants the three orders,” surely this vital and essential defect of the Scotch Establishment cannot be covered by a poor attempt at prayer-book making, or the mere introduction of instrumental music into worship. History proves that Prelacy cares very little about the question of worship in comparison of the question of orders.
[Page 98]
From the time when the stool of Janet Geddes was hurled at the dean in the church at Edinburgh, and thus smote down the liturgy, the English Church abandoned very much the attempt to press its form of worship upon the Scottish people, even at the time when it still deluged the land with blood to force upon them the three orders of clergy. Nothing is likely to be gained in the direction of conciliating them, therefore, by Dr Lee’s scheme, except it be regarded simply as a means of familiarising the people of Scotland with the Prelatic system, with an ultimate view to its wholesale reception. We cannot say what Dr Lee means, but this is the only fair logical conclusion from his facts and arguments. Whatever the private opinion, moreover, of any Presbyterian minister may be on this subject, the time has not yet come for the safe avowal of such an opinion, even if it were entertained. Besides, men advance in their opinions and views by degrees, and there is an inexorable logic of events which forces them into consistency, and to the ultimate avowal of long-concealed purposes, whether they will or no. In
[Page 99]
the case of Archbishop Sharpe, of General Monk, and even of Dr Pusey, these peculiarities are strikingly illustrated, and we may live to see additional illustrations of the same kind in our own day.
That some of the ministers of the Established Church think that this is the direction towards which matters are tending, and that we have still heads itching for mitres, is certain. When the proposal to introduce an organ into the Established Church of Crieff was discussed in the Presbytery of Auchterarder, on the 5th of December last, the Rev. J. Cunningham of Glendevon, is reported, by the Strathearn Herald of December 9th, to have made a most manly and vigorous speech, saying, amongst other things:—
“Well may we say of this Church what the prophet Micah said of the Jewish Church in his day, ‘Her worst enemies are those of her own house.’ Were the movement in question one of progression and development, were it a step in the right direction, or if it had even the shadow of a sanction from the standards of the Church, or from the practice of primitive and apostolic
[Page 100]
times, why, sir, our lips would be sealed. But, Moderator, it is the very reverse of all this. It is a retrograde movement; it is a step in the wrong direction; it is a returning to the sensuous ritualism; to the beggarly elements and Popish rags which our venerated ancestors left behind them in the Church of Rome at the glorious Reformation. (Loud cheers, and cries of ‘Oh, oh!’) . . . And, sir, I cannot help accusing the brethren who are agitating in this direction, and Dr Cunningham among the rest, as guilty of following divisive courses. As they are so partial to the melody of this instrument, I think, instead of troubling the peace of our Israel, they should leave her pale, and join the sister Establishment south of the Tweed—(cheers and laughter)—where they would get whistling to their hearts’ content. (Great cheering, and roars of laughter.) To my mind, sir, this movement is just like the letting out of water. Concede the organ, and what next? The Prayer-Book, of course—(laughter)—the Liturgy—the Surplice—(laughter)—the Mitre—the Lawn Sleeve. (Loud laughter and applause.) In short, Moderator, the
[Page 101]
whole of this movement POINTS DUE SOUTH; and if I read aright the signs of the time, we are fast getting on the incline that leads to Episcopacy—(hear, hear)—and if the momentum increase in this ratio, it will either bring on a second disruption, or send us roaring to the platform of the Anglican Church—(loud applause and great laughter)—where Bishop Wordsworth will be delighted to welcome our arrival, and to hail us as brethren. (Continued cheers and laughter.)”
This we hold to be good sense as well as good theology, embodying the undoubted lessons of history and experience. Dr Lee, of course, we must suppose, is innocently blind to all this at the present stage; but if the movement advances, time will undoubtedly illustrate again the truth of Mr Cunningham’s assertions.
Two things are remarkable in Dr Lee’s speculations, although perhaps, after all, they are only natural. The one is the extent to which he would carry the mechanical theory of doing ministerial work. The other is the kind of jury whose verdict he would regard as conclusive in
[Page 102]
questions of ecclesiastical change. Prayers are to be read from a printed book. It is hinted that a few ministers might write sermons for the whole Church, of course, to be also read. Praise is to be done by means of instruments, or, as some one has said, “by machinery.” If “praying machines,” which exist in other parts of the world, were added, the mechanical programme of worship would be perfect. On the other hand, his appeal is not apparently to the Bible, or mainly to the devout and pious people of the country, as the judges of what is best to be done; but to the writers of “articles, reviews, and letters in the Scotch newspapers.” This may be a very competent class of men to settle questions of taste or literature, or even political and social problems; but many of them are very ill qualified to settle questions of Christian doctrine or worship.
The following extracts will illustrate Dr Lee’s opinions, however, on the subjects referred to:—
“It has appeared to some very wise men a prodigious waste of labour that many thousands of clergymen should expend every week a large
[Page 103]
portion of that time, which is so much needed for pastoral and other duties, in composing sermons each for himself, when some few men, eminently qualified, might be selected to produce discourses for the whole body, which would be incomparably superior, and which would tend far more to the edification and even the satisfaction of the hearers.”—Pp. 48, 49. Again he says:—
“There exists accordingly, at least among the more educated hearers in our churches, a general and deep dissatisfaction with the worship. This is indicated by many circumstances. During the last five or six years innumerable articles, reviews, letters, &c., have appeared in the Scottish newspapers. Excepting those few which are notoriously under clerical and sectarian influence, it is surprising how uniform the Scottish journals have been* in the opinions they have expressed on this subject.”—P. 49.
He goes on to state their objections to the prayers, &c., and he adds:—“This seems to ad-
_____
* If Dr Lee is not belied, he sometimes writes an article himself, and he may be partly referring here to his own “thunder.”
[Page 104]
mit of but one explanation, viz., that something is much amiss in the matter complained of.”—Pp. 49, 50.
The idea of constituting some of the newspaper editors of Scotland into an ecclesiastical synod to reform the worship of the Church, is rather a good one, and reminds us of an incident which occurred in Paisley about thirty years ago. The then celebrated Captain Gordon was a candidate for the representation of that town in Parliament, and made a number of speeches not much relished by the multitude. Paisley has always been rather famous for its local and very “liberal” wits, and had at that time a rather celebrated one called Mr Parkhill. The Captain was expatiating at one of his meetings on the great blessings of our Scottish Sabbath, but unfortunately used as one of his arguments the fact that George IV., during his visit, had been so charmed with the observance of the Sabbath in Scotland. Mr Parkhill shouted from below the gallery, with irresistible drollery, to the immediate discomfiture of the orator, “Nae doot he was weel pleased, for he was a verra pious man.”
[Page 105]
Many editors are intelligent and excellent men, but something similar to Mr Parkhill’s remark may be said about the great anxiety professed by some of them to reform the worship of the Church. At the same period to which we have referred, the Rev. John Geddes was one of the ministers of Paisley, an able and eloquent preacher, having a crowded church. He was, on one occasion, at a dinner party amongst his people, and some of the brisk church reformers of those days happening to be present, they dwelt, like the “editors,” upon the undue prolongation of our Scotch Sabbath services, setting forth what an improvement it would be to cut them down to much shorter limits. The worthy minister, who saw they were hitting at him, took no immediate notice of the remarks, but bore with good humour for a time. By-and-bye he took out his watch, and intimating to the company that they had sat more than two hours and a-half at the dinner table, said, “Gentlemen, I see what you mean, long dinners and short sermons.” The blow struck with effect, and the critics were silenced for the rest of the night.
[Page 106]
We should really like to see, however, a meeting of this new General Assembly, so different from that of the old Reformers, which Dr Lee would convoke to consider the reform of the Church—an Assembly consisting of all the likeminded and “progressive” editors of Scotland. Some of the bagmen of whom Dr Marshall spoke as at their Sabbath dinners toasting the minister of the Barony “in a bottle of the best,” might safely be invited to join them; and probably, as the occasion would be rather solemn, they might tolerate one of the innovating ministers to act as chaplain to the meeting, which might appropriately be a dinner. The editor of the Scotsman would, of course, probably be called to the chair, and he would no doubt open the meeting with a speech condemning the present state of matters, ridiculing all who support it, approving of all the “innovations” and many more, and ending with an extract from his own journal of February 22, which proves what an apt pupil he is of his minister, Dr Lee, on the subject of simplifying the art of preaching, as follows:—“The remedy seems not far to seek: either let
[Page 107]
us be content with less preaching, or seek a better organisation of the preaching-power in the country. Is the amount of pulpit instruction pressed upon this generation absolutely called for? If it be thought impossible to diminish it with safety, then is it necessary that these forty thousand clergymen should not only be always preaching, but also making every sermon they preach? Might not a hundred of the most highly gifted among them make sermons for the whole nation, and be set apart for this very object? Were it but an understood thing that the local preachers were at liberty to use the efforts of such national preachers when their own productiveness ran short, we should have a better execution of pastoral duties, a fuller learning and wider culture in our local clergy, and a higher standard attained, because a longer time employed, in the original compositions by which they seek to promote the popular enlightenment. Nothing but a prejudice, which has neither excuse nor defence, stands in the way of so great a public benefit.” Great applause accompanies the conclusion of this oration, and the members
[Page 108]
generally proceed in a lively strain to advocate the new theory of Church Reform, the only question with some being whether ministers, Sabbaths, and churches are of any use at all. This question, however, is overruled as premature, especially in the presence of the chaplain; but one sagacious member, having an eye to business and a strong wish not to pay more than is necessary, insists that if all the worship is to be shortened, simplified, and done by machinery, it will be preposterous to pay such large salaries as at present to ministers. The work, he insisted, would soon be of such a kind that any man might accomplish it without special training. A common schoolmaster, if he could only read tolerably, might serve the purpose admirably for a small sum, say not more than £50 a year. The editors, in fact, themselves, or the bagmen, might take this as their Sabbath work or rather recreation, and not only add thus a little to their incomes, but save the country an enormous sum. Four-fifths of the resources of the Church Establishment, millions of unnecessary revenue, might thus be added to the public funds. The speaker sat
[Page 109]
down amidst loud applause, by moving a resolution to this effect. This issue of the mechanical theory was, in truth, greatly relished by these practical men, and was about to be resolved on unanimously, as an important financial discovery, when our clerical friend the chaplain in the corner, whose brows had gradually been lowering during this unexpected turn in the debate, asked liberty to address a few words to the meeting. With the greatest earnestness and gravity, he said—“Gentlemen, you are now, I am sorry to say, leaving the right course of enlightened Church Reform and improvement altogether; you are reforming a great deal too much; and I would beseech you to consider the matter again, for I think I can demonstrate that you are wrong. First—You altogether and unaccountably mistake the leading principle of the whole movement, which may be shortly stated thus, viz., that ministers are to get henceforth the maximum of pay for the minimum of work. Secondly—You show—begging very respectfully your pardon—a strange ignorance of history. Does not experience prove that in the Church of England, for
[Page 110]
example, the highest salaries are given, not to men who work most, but to the men who seldom or never preach at all? Have we also not been the very men who have been advocating at once easier work and larger pay in Scotland, and, despite of noisy malcontents, we hope still to succeed in this? Are we not—some of us at least already—living illustrations of this conjunction, and is not the Court of Teinds gradually coming to understand it? Did they not lately give twelve chalders additional to each of two hopeful brethren of our number—a thing previously unprecedented in Scotland? But above all, thirdly, my dear friends, although Scripture is seldom quoted by true men of progress, and although I am almost sorry to refer to it at all in this very enlightened meeting, yet I must call your attention to this, that your views are utterly unscriptural, for is it not said that ‘the dumb dogs that could not bark’ were also the ‘greedy dogs that never said it is enough’”—Isaiah lvi. 10, 11? This view did not convince the editors—it was reckoned rather unreasonable and extravagant; but the
[Page 111]
meeting, out of deference to the minister, broke up without any final deliverance, the whole question being adjourned till a future day.
But to return to Dr Lee’s book. Apart from sweeping proposals of change, the spirit in which he writes, both in regard to the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, as connected with his own personal proceedings in introducing his liturgy and organ, is sufficiently remarkable. In regard to the Church courts of the Established Church, it is natural to ask why he did not, before making any changes, first ask the permission of his ecclesiastical superiors? This question is all the more natural, considering the solemn ordination engagements of Presbyterian ministers. To this Dr Lee boldly replies:—
“To ask permission in such cases, which was certainly unusual and appeared unnecessary, was also the surest way to defeat the end in view, for experience has shown that the permission would not be granted, while to proceed without obtaining it, if once asked, would be disrespectful and indecorous.
“Besides, we felt that we were not warranted
[Page 112]
to thrust the Church Courts into what might prove to be an embarrassing position, compelling them to give a decision that might appear to violate old traditions, or to obstruct the present interests of the Church; either to offend a great and increasing number of enlightened people by refusing the permission sought, or to give umbrage to a perhaps greater number of narrow-minded but well-meaning people by granting it.”—(Pp. 37, 38.)
In any other Presbyterian Church this would seem the very hardihood and even sublimity of ecclesiastical insubordination, fitted, if winked at, to bring all Church government into contempt. Either the Established Church, we should say, secretly connives at Dr Lee’s proceedings, or is reduced to a condition of the most pitiable and contemptible weakness, which might even excite the compassion of its worst enemies. But this is not all. Here is a more remarkable illustration:—
“Many overtures have been laid before the Assembly to allow the private dispensation of the communion in certain cases; but the venerable
[Page 113]
Court has hitherto declined to entertain them—though the tenor of the last discussion on the subject rendered it evident that no fault would be found with any minister who should do so—at least in urgent cases—as I myself have since done oftener than once.”—(P. 30.)
It is rather good, after all, to find the Doctor keeping an eye upon the temper of the Assembly to see how much in the way of “innovation” may be safely ventured upon, and doing certain things contrary to the whole spirit and past practice of the Presbyterian Church, and which “the venerable Assembly has hitherto declined to entertain,” after making the discovery not that they are lawful, but “that no fault would be found with any minister who should do so.” Our readers will probably be reminded of what Goldsmith says of the clever schoolboys, in the “Deserted Village,” watching the face of the master for the purpose of regulating their own conduct—
“Well had the boding idlers learned to trace
The day’s disaster in his morning face.”
This needs no comment; but unless the Estab-
[Page 114]
lished Church shall soon exhibit a fresh vigour, of which her feeble and halting proceedings of late have been totally destitute, no redress of any kind is to be expected from that quarter. The whole ecclesiastical organisation, although having considerable influence, is, as a means of arresting evil, dwindling down to a weak and disjointed congregationalism, and will soon become as when “there was no king in Israel, and every man did what was right in his own eyes.” How different all this from the stern and even tyrannical principles of ecclesiastical despotism announced and acted upon by Principal Robertson and subsequent Moderate leaders, when the object was to destroy evangelism, support patronage, and to crush out the liberties of the people of Scotland*—may be seen in the Appendix.
Principal Robertson held that all insubordination was utterly inconsistent with the very existence of government, especially with ecclesiastical government, and most of all with Presbyterian government—on the ground that the more free
_____
* See manifesto of the Moderate party, from Morren’s “Annals of the Church of Scotland,” Appendix, No. I.
[Page 115]
any system is, the central authority must be maintained with all the more vigour, if the system is to be maintained at all. The contrast of all this to the loose practices allowed and views at present maintained by the same party—always saving and excepting the venerable Dr Hill—when another object is to be gained, is very striking. One bold act of discipline, if there is still virtue and will enough to perform it, would go far, in our opinion, to settle the whole matter.
The idea which Dr Lee has, however, of his entire immunity from civil control, is even more remarkable than his cool indifference to ecclesiastical interference and authority. Hear what he says on this aspect of the question:—
“Even yet, if we were wise and courageous, we might be safe and even prosperous. I feel persuaded that, without running any risks or needing to go to Parliament, by virtue of the powers which we ourselves constitutionally possess, we have the means of reforming everything in the Church that obstructs its prosperity. Unlike the clergy of the English Establishment, we have virtually all our affairs in our own
[Page 116]
hand, and if we use our powers temperately and wisely, we shall meet only with applause and encouragement from all those at least whose approbation is valuable in itself or of consequence to us.”—(P. 46.)
He quotes also the following as one of his mottoes:—“From this Act (1690) it would appear that while the State has fixed the Church’s faith, it has not fixed the Church’s worship. The Church may adopt any form of worship she pleases, without violating any Act of Parliament. She must ever believe, as the Westminster divines believed, but she may worship in a surplice or without a surplice, with a liturgy or without a liturgy: in this she is free.”—Cunningham’s Church of Scotland, vol. ii., p. 286.
Our innovators here appeal to a very different tribunal from the present comparatively passive General Assembly of the Established Church, and one which, we trust, will sift these startling claims, viz., the people of Scotland, who hold rights dearly purchased by the blood of their ancestors under the Revolution settlement, and who may well be jealous of the Prelatic tenden-
[Page 117]
cies of the present day. It is here admitted that the Established Church has no latitude in regard to doctrine. “She must ever believe as the Westminster divines believed.” This sounds rather curiously after some of the late exhibitions of the brotherhood, and may furnish a hint in regard to an effectual way of checking them; but if any one will read Dr Porteous’s paper,* he will find that any attempt to alter the worship in the Established Church without an Act of Parliament is equally illegal, and we give in the Appendix† the opinion of the late Mr Reddie, an eminent lawyer and Town-Clerk of Glasgow, to the effect that to introduce an organ into our churches is not within the power of any minister.
From whatever motive the attempt springs and is tolerated, it is clearly at variance with the ordination vows of every minister of the Established Church, and with the whole spirit and design of the Revolution settlement. Not only, therefore, are important theological and ecclesiastical questions involved, but important civil
_____
* Proceedings of Glasgow Presbytery, 1808.
[Page 118]
questions also. How often did we hear from this party during the late Veto and Chapel Act discussions, that the Established Church was “a mere creature of statute,” not entitled to alter or vary its constitution in one iota without an Act of Parliament. Such an Act of Parliament has not been obtained in the present instance. The alterations in the worship of the Established Church are totally unsanctioned and unwarranted, and we have no more doubt that by tolerating the recent changes—if the Assembly shall tolerate them—the Church shall forfeit her rights to the temporalities by which her ministers are supported, than we should doubt the right of one bound to pay stipend to refuse and interdict the collection of it, if the parish minister turned his church into a mosque or temple of Juggernaut, became Mahometan or Hindoo, and was tolerated by the Assembly in so doing. The principle is the same, and the question is simply one of degree, especially as the claim is that the Church may legally adopt “any form of worship she pleases.” The matter is one of vast prospective importance, and cannot too soon be brought to
[Page 119]
an issue. A powerful combination of the people of Scotland should immediately be organised for self-protection, and to see that justice is done in this matter* before the evil acquires too great a magnitude.
If the old Covenanting spirit is alive in Scotland, as we believe it is in no small measure, now is the time for it to rally and resist. The obvious drift of the present movement, avowed or unavowed, whether understood or not by all the parties engaged, is to overturn Presbyterianism and join the Established Churches of the three kingdoms, with a view to mutual support and to the crushing of dissent. It is the old game in new circumstances. Meantime these Established Churches are gradually becoming more corrupt; and a scheme is even hopefully
_____
* We are glad to see the admirable and faithful pamphlets of Dr Hill, who is thoroughly consistent in opposition to these innovations, but they may be of no avail. It is pawky in one of the leading innovators to profess great anxiety to increase the stipends of the clergy, at the very time when he is taking the best course to overturn the Establishment altogether. This, however, was the very policy adopted at the commencement of the reign of rampant Moderatism of old.
[Page 120]
afloat in the South for uniting the Church of England with the corrupt Greek and Roman Churches, thus completely upsetting, crushing, and repudiating the Reformation itself. Had the old Establishment in Scotland, with all its defections, remained unaltered, it might not only have been quietly tolerated, but some might have thought it useful in staying the manifestly restless and wayward spirit abroad, more or less even in dissenting churches. But if it is to become only more and more corrupt—an abettor of mischief and a moral nuisance threatening the freedom and Christianity of the country—the sooner it is dealt with by a combination of good and true men over the whole kingdom, organized under a new “solemn league and covenant,” the better. The question of the right of ministers to act as they are doing—in other words, the obligations of stipend-payers and Town Councils to semi-prelatical ministers—should at once be tried by interdict. This course ought to be taken wherever the worship has been altered, or men have avowed with impunity doctrines inconsis-
[Page 121]
tent with the Westminster Confession of Faith. Failing in this, a determined and united effort should be made to sweep away the Established Church altogether. Unwilling as many may be to adopt this course, it may soon be the only means left of saving ourselves and our children from moral disaster and probable persecution.
Before passing from the subject of this chapter, it may be interesting to some of our readers to know that an able American minister in Boston published, last year, a treatise on the organ question,* with the following pointed “dedication”:—“To the Rev. Robert Lee, D.D., Edinburgh. Rev. Sir,—You have done much, probably more than any other man, to introduce organs into the Presbyterian Church; and to you this little book is inscribed by the Author.—Boston, A.D. 1865.” This little work contains a good deal of valuable information on the question, and
_____
* “The Organ and other Musical Instruments, as noted in the Holy Scriptures,” by Alex. Blaikie, D.D., Author of “The Schools,” “A Catechism on Praise,” “The Philosophy of Sectarianism,” &c., &c. Boston: Published by Lee & Shepard.
[Page 122]
the author thus states the scriptural argument:—
“By the instruction of Heaven, David and Solomon appointed twenty-four courses of the sons of Aaron there, who were divided by lot; and also twenty-four companies of Levites, who were led by Asaph, Heman, Jeduthan, their sons and their brethren, having cymbals, psalteries, harps, trumpets, and (it may be) other instruments of music. (1 Chron. xxiii. 26, 30; 2 Chron. v. 12–14; xxix. 25, 26; xxxv. 4.)
“These continued in the temple service of Jehovah so long as ‘the first tabernacle was yet standing,’ and no longer; for so soon as the way into the holiest of all was made manifest, (Heb. ix. 8,) the ‘bondage’ (beloved by every Jew) of these ‘weak and beggarly elements’ was in the worship of God forever done away. He, ‘in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,’ took the whole ‘hand-writing of ordinances out of the way, nailing it to his cross.’ Instruments of music in the worship of God had there fulfilled their mission, in common
[Page 123]
with the blood of bulls, of goats, and the ashes of heifers, and they finished their course when Jesus died.
“No blast of ‘rams’ horns,’ nor other ‘things without life-giving sound,’ had any longer a place with acceptance in the worship of Jehovah. The ceremonial, sensual, and ritual in his worship there, forever ceased to be appointed by and acceptable to God, when He who ‘spake as never man spake’ exclaimed, ‘It is finished.’ Yet he has not ‘left himself without witness’ in this vastly important matter.
“He, whose ‘glory’ it is to ‘conceal a thing,’ has not taught us when his synagogue originated, as he has done the date of the building and destruction of his temple; but He, in whom is the wisdom of God, made it His custom (Luke iv. 16; Matt. xiii. 54) to enter the synagogue for worship on the Sabbath, and has selected it as the form or model of His Church, from His death till the end of time, commanding His people everywhere (Heb. x. 25) to ‘see that they forsake not the synagogueing of themselves together.’
[Page 124]
“Into this, (the synagogue,) bullocks, heifers, altars, vestments, rams, ashes, doves, incense, and instruments of music, were never by His authority brought, neither before nor after ‘the veil of the temple was rent in twain.’
“He commands His gospel to be preached to every creature; thus making disciples to Him of all nations, and then teaching them to observe all things whatsoever He has commanded. For nearly one thousand eight hundred years His temple has been blotted from the earth, and Jerusalem is ‘trodden down of the Gentiles;’ but in all places where He records His name, He comes and blesses His people. The Christian synagogue has become His house of prayer to all nations. Ezek. xi. 16.
“In common with all other ceremonial appointments of the law, the things which were Jewish and typical in their character, written concerning Jesus of Nazareth in the Book of Psalms, are fulfilled; but till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle of what is moral, figurative, and spiritual, in their design and contents, cannot be obliterated.
[Page 125]
“These were sung, as the fruit of all true believers’ lips, in giving thanks to His name with grace in the Christian heart, making melody to the Lord, in all the churches of the saints, during the days of the apostles. They established in complete perfection the whole worship of Jehovah, and ‘set in order all that was wanting’ in the Christian Church, ‘the house of God,’ which is ‘the Church of the living God,’ whilst in Divine revelation we find no warrant, neither direct nor inferential, for the use of instrumental music of any kind.
“As no Jew can now trace his genealogy back by any written or credible record to the close of the Old Testament, and this, while he can prove himself to be a Jew; and while we know the fact that instruments of music were used in the temple at Jerusalem; so now ‘the shopar (Ex. xix. 16, &c.) is the only instrument preserved to the present day in the religious services of the Jews.’ It is still blown (at least occasionally) ‘at their New Year’s festival,’ as directed, Num. xxix. 1. (Engel, p. 293.) In argument, then, we have the advocates of these
[Page 126]
Jewish ‘weak and beggarly elements’ and inventions, thus reasoning—‘David used instruments, and they were used in the Old Testament; they are mentioned in the Bible, so we can use them.’ Such persons would not, however, think it according to their ‘tastes’ to dance before the Lord as David did, and they have no exclusive affection for ‘David’s Psalms.’
“To place His seal of condemnation on these ‘shadows of good things to come,’ after they had served their purpose, God has caused the form of every instrument (the shopar excepted) to perish from the knowledge of man, so that all about their structure is at best conjecture, and any attempt to reproduce* them and pretend to serve God with them, or with any such human invention, is destitute of any scriptural authority, and as purely a human device as are beads and holy water.”
The following curious passage is also instructive, and may well warn our Scottish churches,
_____
* “There are no representations of Hebrew musical instruments now, the correctness of which is indisputable.” (Engel, p. 280.)
[Page 127]
amidst the rage for theatrical music in the Church, and other novelties, which is now beginning to prevail:—
“I. ‘The Presbyterian form of worship admits of none of the gorgeous compositions which are heard in the Romish Church,’ (‘Progress of Music,’ p. 26; London, 1846,) because it is formed entirely on the model of the synagogue, can never be identified with Prelacy, which, so far as it rests on Scripture, takes its forms and usages, in these matters, from the temple service, its holy places, persons, and things. They are distinct species, and can never become one.
“II. Wherever Presbyterians employ organs, they abandon, in so far, their identity. They cease (in the manner of praise) to be Presbyterians.
“III. The playing of organs in churches, not Episcopal in other matters, follows the introduction and use of uninspired poetry, vulgarly called hymns.
“IV. Hence, as the descendants of the Puritans in New England abandoned the Psalms for
[Page 128]
‘imitations’ of them, and for human poetry, excluded the office of ruling elder, forsook the doctrine of the Pilgrims, and fell extensively into Socinianism and Universalism, so from Prelacy these eventually adopted the organ. To compete with ‘Unitarians’ in gratifying the ‘tastes’ of the people, the ‘Orthodox Congregationalists’ have, since about A.D., 1827, pursued the same course. The Baptists, in like manner, find that, in connection with ‘Winchell’s Watts,’ they must let their uncovenanted ‘children rejoice at the sound of the organ,’ while the fear of losing their youth constrained the followers of the sagacious Wesley to allow Stoddard to introduce it into Bromfield Street Methodist Episcopal Church, Boston. From New England it has been carried by hymnologists to the West, and since A.D. 1845, among Presbyterians, the assembly of the ‘Old School party’ have directed, that, if the sessions allow it, it may be domiciled in their churches.* This permission the ‘New School
_____
* The subject is again exciting interest, and able works are being published in America in favour of confining the
[Page 129]
party’ have also accepted with alacrity, and with the others, where they can afford it, they play praise.
“V. All proper Presbyterians are consequently content to ‘sing psalms’ to God, and to avoid all worshipping of him in ways not appointed in his Word. They believe that he ‘is a jealous God,’ that he has inspired the Old Testament precisely as much as the New one, and that when he says ‘sing psalms’ and ‘sweet psalms,’ we do not know that he will accept of anything else.
“VI. A large amount of the strength of Popery arises from the influence of this instrument, and just as the use of it prevails in churches called Protestant, so Papal Prelacy ‘gains no harm nor loss.’ For above twelve hundred years, it has been a valuable arrow in her quiver.
_____
[continued from p. 128] praise of the sanctuary to inspired compositions. An able treatise, amongst others, on the subject, prepared by a committee of American ministers, was reprinted in Belfast by James Johnston in 1861. It is entitled “The True Psalmody.” It strongly advocates the exclusive use of inspired praise in the public worship of God, and has cordial recommendatory prefaces by Drs Cooke, Edgar, and Houston.
[Page 130]
“VII. The use of this instrument, and hiring choirs, often and usually, if not always, pervert the design of public worship in the manner of praise. On this point, proof ample might be adduced both from American and European writers. I cite two paragraphs, in point, from the Musical Pioneer (N. Y.) for June, 1865:—
“‘In the country churches, where the members of the choir are usually members of the congregation, it is a rare thing for any individual of the singers to leave before the service is over; but among the singers in city churches, in the fashionable well-paid quartette, it is a frequent practice. In Episcopal churches particularly, where, in the morning service, no hymn is sung after the sermon, it is almost the rule for the choir to sneak out, one after the other, as soon as the text is given out. The soprano will first gather up her skirts, perhaps bend her head a little so as to avoid the notice of the congregation, and step gingerly out of the organ loft, not unfrequently, however, sweeping down a few books, or upsetting a
[Page 131]
chair, in spite of all her care. The basso, having no skirts to impede his progress, darts out a few minutes after, and makes no noise till he gets on the stairs, where, unless he takes the trouble to slide down on the balusters, his heavy boots are heard tramping down like the rumbling of distant thunder. The alto and tenor follow, unless, indeed, they prefer to remain and have a quiet little flirtation together during sermon time. The organist, having to play the concluding voluntary, groans inwardly because he is thus debarred the privilege of flight, but consoles himself and supports the tedium of “the preached word” by stealing out to a neighbouring bar-room—there are plenty of these accessible on Sunday, by back doors, to the initiated—where he can snatch a sherry cobbler or a glass of lager, and be back in time to play the congregation out. This is what church musicians think is fulfilling their whole duty.
“‘And how seldom is it, even during the time they are in the house of prayer, that these singers pay the least attention to the service!
[Page 132]
From frivolous gossip, from piquant and amusing and often unkind criticisms of other singers, or of each other, they jump up, scuffle round to find their places in their books, and, without thinking for a moment of the holy words they are to use, join in ascriptions of praise, which, under the circumstances, are really simple mockery. “We praise Thee, O God, we acknowledge Thee to be the Lord,” they sing with meaningless disregard of the import of those noble phrases. “They praise Him with their lips, but their heart is far from Him.” From mere thoughtlessness, Sunday after Sunday, they break that commandment which says, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” They forget that the Lord will not hold them guiltless that take His name in vain.’
“VIII. The Protestant churches should receive, observe, keep pure and entire, all such religious worship as God has appointed in His word; sing psalms to Him with grace; prepare for that conflict with ‘the man of sin’ which is drawing on; honour God by observing His own
[Page 133]
appointments; sustain their own souls by waiting on Him in His own ways; and hear what ‘the faithful and true witness’ says to the churches: ‘Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.’”
It is interesting to hear this faithful warning voice from the other side of the Atlantic, and we hope it will not be lost upon the people of Scotland. No one can have visited America without deploring the extent to which the power of worship is marred by human inventions, as well as the immense expense incurred by this “will worship;” and Scotland had better be wise in time, and resist the beginnings of evil.*
_____
* See Appendix, No. III.