KIRK-SESSIONS PROHIBITED FROM INNOVATING IN WORSHIP.
James Dodson
Thus all ministers and elders are solemnly and specially bound not only not to introduce innovations in the worship of God, but firmly to resist them if attempted by others. An idea, however, has been broached that, whilst all ministers and
Page 73
elders individually are bound to resist innovations, the Kirk-session in its corporate capacity is entitled not only to fix the times of worship, but to regulate, and even to alter its nature, if they think proper. Were this true, uniformity of worship would be impossible. This view is, however, entirely novel, and subversive of Presbyterianism. The Kirk-session is entirely excluded from all legislative power in the Church. It is purely ministerial in its functions, and, whilst regulating the times of worship, is bound to carry out and enforce the laws of the Church as to worship itself. In the “Second Book of Discipline,” chap. vii., “Of the Eldership,” &c., it is said:—
“11. The power of thir particular elderships is to use diligent labours in the bounds committed to their charge, that the kirks be kept in good order, to inquire diligently of naughty and unruly persons, and to travail to bring them in the way again, either by admonition or threatening of God’s judgments, or by correction.
“12. It pertains to the eldership to take heed that the word of God be purely preached within their bounds, the sacraments rightly administered, the discipline rightly maintained, and the ecclesiastical goods incorruptly distributed.
“13. It belongs to this kind of Assembly to cause the ordinances made by the assemblies, provincial, national, and general, to be kept and put in execution; to make constitutions which concern to prepon in the Kirk for the decent order of these particular kirks (an old MS. has “Paroch Kirks”) where they govern, provided that they alter no rules made by the General or Provincial Assemblies, and that they make the provincial assemblies foreseen (aware) of these rules, that they shall make and abolish them that tend to the hurt of the same.”
Dr John Lee in his “History of the Church of Scotland,” vol. ii. p. 56, says—“These elderships corresponded to the Presbyteries. Such a court as
Page 74
a kirk session is not expressly mentioned, but there was likewise an Assembly of that nature in the principal towns.” This, however, although admitted, does not seem to affect the argument, except in the way of strengthening it. The court referred to was the lowest Church court, and it was expressly prohibited from altering any rules “made by the General or Provincial Assemblies.” If Presbyteries were referred to, and if even they were thus expressly restricted, much more must the rule apply to what we now call kirk-sessions, which are purely subordinate and ministerial, and never were allowed to take any part in the legislation of the Church.
From this it appears that kirk-sessions are not only not entitled to introduce innovations, but are bound in every way to observe and enforce the laws and constitution of the Church in regard to worship.
In Stewart of Pardovan’s Collections (1709), Book First, title XI. “Of Kirk-sessions,” sections 3 and 4, it is said:—
“The matters treated by them (the Kirk-sessions) are what concern Church discipline and the worship of God in that congregation; as what days of the week are meetest for assembling to public worship, and what hour on the Lord’s day before and afternoon; when it is seasonable for parochial fasts and thanksgivings; what times are fittest for catechising and visiting of families; how often and when the Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated. They are likewise to inquire into the knowledge and spiritual state of the members of the congregation, whom they are to admonish or encourage as they see cause, and to exclude from the Lord’s table all who are found ignorant and scandalous.”
Page 75
But it is added emphatically:—
“In the ordering of all which matters NOTHING IS TO BE DONE BY THEM BUT WHAT IS ACCORDING TO THE SETTLED ORDER AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH, and if there be any new or difficult emergency that causeth doubting or hesitation, the matter is to be referred to the Presbytery for their direction or authority.”
Were the power to innovate, which has been lately claimed for kirk-sessions—and sometimes, we fear, by ministers to cover their own backslidings—legitimate, the whole Reformation might be overturned, or even the churches turned into Mosques with impunity. Not only does no such power reside in kirk-sessions, the whole Church has no such power of alteration so long as it desires to retain the benefits of the Establishment. Nor can Dissenting Churches make such changes, except with the consent of all the parties interested, and except by apostatising from Scripture truth.