GENERAL SUMMARY.
James Dodson
The following important matters are involved in the present inquiry, and may be thus indicated.
1. After all these facts and details, can there be any doubt that a Scriptural principle of worship was established in Scotland after a struggle, as well as a Creed and form of Church Government,
Page 101
and that this excluded a Liturgy and the use of Instrumental Music in worship? To allege that no form of worship was established at the Revolution, or that there is no essential difference between Prelatic and Presbyterian worship, is to deny not only history, but the whole events embraced in the preceding period, with all that is distinctive on this subject, both in the history and principles of the Westminster Standards and of the Scottish Church. Let the contrary be proved if any man can.
2. Can the laws and practice of the Established Church of Scotland, as fixed and defined by the Acts of Parliament referred to, be abrogated or modified, without civil legislative sanction, so as to admit of the Church Courts making or sanctioning such changes in the worship as the use of a Liturgy or of instrumental music? If so, it would be impossible to set limits to this power of change, or to defend such an Establishment in consistency with our Scottish history and principles, or with civil and religious liberty.
3. Is not “uniformity of worship” provided for by the avowed constitution of the Presbyterian Church? Is this, or the Presbyterian worship, as defined by the Westminster Standards, consistent with allowing the various congregations, by majorities or otherwise, to make changes in the public worship of God? Here the question is raised both for the Established and unestablished Presbyterian Churches, both as against Prelacy
Page 102
and Congregationalism, and it is extremely important in all aspects. It is certain that substantial uniformity of worship prevailed over the whole country, and was deemed essential till recently.
4. Supposing innovations tolerated, what are Ministers, faithful to their ordination vows, to do when sent by their Presbyteries to officiate in innovating congregations? Are they to conform to the changes, or not? to follow congregational backsliding or to keep their own solemn vows? And in either case, is this Presbyterian liberty and uniformity?
5. Keeping in view the stringent terms of the formulas which all the office-bearers of the Churches are required to subscribe, and which pledge them all to maintain “uniformity of worship,” can it be doubted that this forms a solemn obligation in the sight of God, and constitutes a contract which should be enforced? If not, it would be interesting to know what the use is of binding men down by such formulas and vows. It can only teach the people a lesson of practical dishonesty, and that in connection with the most sacred of all subjects. It is a singular abuse of the word “liberty,” to employ it in connection with a claim of right to violate vows solemnly and voluntarily undertaken, and of the word “progress,” to identify it with perjury.
6. Could the General Assembly decree the introduction of instrumental music, or other similar
Page 103
innovation, in such way as to prevent any parishioner from objecting? Could they ultimately, or in any case, require heritors to tolerate or maintain instruments of music in the parish churches in Scotland? Can a majority in a non-established congregation, with or without the authority of the supreme Court, alter the form of worship in defiance of a minority, and where not only there is no power of this kind reserved in the original constitution, but where all office-bearers are bound to maintain uniformity of worship, and to follow “no divisive courses?” We should like to see both of these questions tried by the parties respectively aggrieved, and we have no doubt it would be found that if men desire such changes they must erect new Churches of their own for that purpose.
These questions go to the very root of the Presbyterian system of worship, as one that can be practically defended and maintained, and they have a most important bearing on the future of Scotland and of the Presbyterian Church throughout the world. If the principles of Presbyterian worship, as asserted by John Knox and by the Westminster Divines, are to be abandoned, either in theory, or in practice, there are no principles of Presbyterian worship at all, and it is difficult to see what the end must be. The matter, therefore, is well worthy of the immediate and earnest consideration of Christian and patriotic men.
PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE, HANSON AND CO.
EDINBURGH AND LONDON