THE ORIGINAL WORSHIP OF THE SCOTTISH CHURCH.
James Dodson
Page 13
The Church of Scotland was established, and her Confession of Faith recognised by the Scottish Parliament, by an Act passed on the 24th of August 1560, being the first legislative recognition of the Reformation from Popery. By this Act certain “Acta of Parliament made in King James the First, Secund, Third, Fourth, and Fift times, Kings of Scotland for the tyme, and also in our Soveraine Ladies tyme, not agreeing with God’s Haly Word,” were annulled and declared to be “of nane availe, force, or effect, and decernis the said Acts and every ane of them to have nae effect nor strength in time to come, but the same to be abolished and extinguished for ever in so far as any of the foresaidis Acts are repugnant and contrairie to the Confession of Faith and Word of God foresaid ratyfied and approved be the Estates in this present Parliament.”
The Confession of Faith is then given at full length, as drawn up by John Knox and others, and is attested thus:—
“Thir Acts and Articles ar red in the face of Parliament and ratified be the three Estaitis.”
Corroboration of this attestation is found in Knox’s Works, vol. ii. p. 121, where he says,
“This our Confession was publicly read, first in audience of the Lords of the Articles, and after in audience of the whole Parliament, where were present not only such as professed Christ Jesus, but also a great number of the adversaries of our religion—such as the forenamed Bishops, and some other of the Temporal Estate who
Page 14
were commanded in God’s name to object if they could anything against that doctrine. Some of our ministers were present standing upon their feet ready to have answered, in case any would have defended the Papistry and impugned our affirmative, but seeing that no objection was made, there was a day appointed to voting in that and other heads. Our Confession was read, every Article by itself, over again, as they were written in order, and the votes of every man were required accordingly. Of the Temporal Estate only voted in the contrary the Earl of Athole, the Lords Somerville and Borthwick, and yet for their dissenting they produced no better reason but ‘We will believe as our fathers believed.’ The Bishops (Papistical we mean) spake nothing. The rest of the whole three Estates by their public votes affirmed the doctrine.”
The validity of the Acts of this Parliament was subsequently impugned, on the ground that it had not been summoned by Royal Authority; and evidently with the view of removing any doubt upon the subject, the Act in question was ratified and approved in the first Parliament of King James VI., held at Edinburgh on 15th December 1567, by Regent Murray. In this Parliament, Acts were also passed abolishing the spiritual and temporal power of the Pope, and the celebration of the Mass, and discharging the lieges from obedience to him or attendance upon the Mass.
These Acts were followed by the well-known Act, “Anent the true and Holy Kirk, and of them that are declared not to be of the same,” by which it is enacted that “only such persons as agree in doctrine and administration of the sacraments (as in the Reformed Kirkes of the Realme they are publicklie administrered, and according to the Confession of the Faith) shall be the only true and holy Kirk within the Realme.”
Page 15
It is again important to notice the principles laid down in regard to worship, as well as to government, doctrine, and discipline, by the early Reformers of Scotland. Their general principle was that the entire arrangements of the Church should be regulated by express Scripture warrant in opposition to the Romish theory, viz., that the Church was paramount in all such matters; or even to the prelatical theory, that “the Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, . . . and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written.” In accordance with this they insisted on the entire abolition of Popery, with all its peculiarities of doctrine and worship, the universal education of the people that they might be able to read the Word of God for themselves, and the establishment of a uniform pure doctrine and worship throughout the land.
The “First Book of Discipline” was drawn up by John Knox and others, and offered at their request “to the Great Council of Scotland,” “touching the reformation of religion, which heretofore in this realm (as in others) hath been utterly corrupted, . . . for common order and uniformity to be observed in this realm, concerning doctrine, administration of sacraments, &c.” Then the peculiar principle of the Scottish Reformation, and of the Church of Scotland, was most clearly laid down. They say, amongst other things, “most humbly requiring your honours, that as you look for participation with Christ Jesus, that neither ye admit anything which God’s plain Word shall not ap-
Page 16
prove, neither yet that ye shall reject such ordinances as equity, justice, and God’s Word do specify.” After stating that Christ Jesus is “only to be heard and followed by His sheep,” and that therefore the whole doctrine of Scripture should be preached, and all contrary doctrine abandoned, it is added, “By the contrary doctrine we understand whatsoever men by laws, councils, and constitutions have imposed upon the consciences of men, without the express commandment of God’s Word.” After enumerating a variety of Romish corruptions, they add, “which things, because in God’s Scriptures they neither have commandment nor assurance, we judge them utterly to be abolished from this realm.” Speaking again of the sacraments, it is declared that they are properly administered amongst other things, “when to them is nothing added, from them nothing diminished, and in their practice nothing changed besides the institution of the Lord Jesus and practice of His holy Apostles.”
There can be no doubt that these principles were intended to apply to the abolition of the whole peculiarities of Romish worship, including instrumental music, which in fact took place, and to the restoration of the simple singing of praise practised in the primitive Church, which formed so peculiar a feature of the Reformation. The idea of the Scottish reformers was that, following the example of the synagogue and not of the temple, vocal music was the only form of praise in the primitive Church, and this they restored. Bingham in his
Page 17
“Antiquities of the Christian Church,” the first volume of which was published in 1708, after discussing this subject at some length, says (vol. 4, pp. 436-7, London: 1840):—
“From all this it is as clear as the sun at noonday that the people generally had a share in the psalmody of the ancient Church, and that this was not an exercise strictly confined to the canonical singers, or any particular order in the Church; but that men, women, and children were all allowed to bear a part in it under the direction and conduct of precentors, or those who presided in this and all other offices in the Church.”
Again, he says in another place:—
“From the first and apostolic age, singing was always a part of divine service, in which the whole body of the Church joined together, which is a thing so evident, that though Cabassutius denies it, and in his spite to the Reformed Churches, where it is generally practised, calls it only a Protestant whim; yet Cardinal Bona has more than once not only confessed, but solidly proved it to have been the primitive practice.”—vol. ii., p. 383.
The introduction of instrumental music into the Church did not take place till the seventh or eighth century, and was one of the last corruptions of the Church of Rome. This was fully demonstrated, both from Popish and Protestant authors, in the discussion which took place in the Presbytery of Glasgow on the subject, recently reprinted (Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, pp. 109–123). Even the celebrated Popish author, Thomas Aquinas, as there quoted, says, “In the old law God was praised both with musical instruments and human voices. But the Church does not use musical instruments to praise God lest she should seem to Judaize.”
Page 18
Passing on to the “Second Book of Discipline, agreed upon by the General Assembly, 1578,” and inserted in the Registers of Assembly, 1581, it is said—
“This power and policy of the Kirk should lean on the Word immediately as the only ground thereof, and should be taken from the pure fountains of the Scriptures, the Kirk hearing the voice of Christ, the only Spiritual King, and being ruled by His laws” (chap. i. s. 7).
In speaking again of the division of the rents and patrimony of the Church into four parts, it is added—
“One thereof to be assigned to the pastor for his entertainment and hospitality. Another to the elders, deacons, and other officers of the Kirk, as clerks of assemblies, takers up of the psalms, beadles, and keepers of the Kirk, so far as is necessary joining therewith also the doctors of schools, to help the ancient foundations where need requires” (chap. 12, s. 12).
From this it appears that the only officer in connection with the psalmody was “the taker up of the psalms.” Not only is no organist mentioned, but from the sum proposed to be set apart, and by which so many objects were to be secured, it is impossible that such expensive adjuncts to the worship of God as an organ and organist could have existed, or been contemplated.
By Act of the twelfth Parliament of James VI., held at Edinburgh on 5th June 1592, commonly known as the Charter of the Church, the general
Page 19
principles of the “Second Book of Discipline” are confirmed by law, provision is made for the internal regulation and discipline of the Church by Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, and the General Assembly; and for honestly sustaining the holy ministry.
The grand object the Reformers had in view was to substitute for the Popish Church in Scotland a Scriptural institution, freed from the superstitions and idolatries which debased the government of the Church, her creed, and the previous worship. The Popish Church had been recognised by the State in various Acts of Parliament; it had acquired wide tracts of land, and accumulated masses of wealth by appealing to the superstitious of the people. Its priests had managed to absorb the administration of what was called the Consistorial Law of the country, which embraced the distribution and management of the estates of all persons deceasing, and the settlement of all questions relating to the law of marriage and divorce. Its claims to temporal and spiritual power had become insufferably galling to the people, and it had ultimately lost all influence over them either morally or spiritually. The new Church based its claims on grounds the very opposite to those which were maintained by the other. The divine authority in the Scriptures was declared to be paramount; and whilst there was uniformity of worship in both cases, what was pomp and show in the one was to be superseded by purity and simplicity in the other. The people rose to the support of the Re-
Page 20
formers; altars, images, and other peculiarities of Romanism were removed. In a word, they expelled, in the language of the “Book of the Universal Kirk,” all “the dregs of the late superstition.”
In the Assembly 1565, according to the “Book of the Universal Kirk” (p. 35), there is the following statement, inter alia, in “Answers of the Kirk:”—“Our religion has God the Father, His only Son Jesus Christ our Lord, His Holy Spirit speaking in His prophets and Apostles, for authors thereof, and their doctrine and practice for the ground of the same . . . the Jews have far greater defence of their ceremonies (than the Romanists), whether it be antiquitie of tyme, consent of people, authoritie of princes,” &c.
The religion professed by the Romanists, as in the Jewish Church in our Saviour’s time, had got choked up by the mass of traditions and of rites and ceremonies which had grown around it in the course of ages, and the task undertaken by the Reformers was, amongst other things, to clear away this superincumbent mass, and to restore to the Church the doctrines which the Apostles promulgated, and the worship they instituted under her great Head. There can be no doubt that in some of the cathedrals and abbeys at the Reformation there were organs used in the celebration of worship, and that these were pulled down and removed at that time.
It is matter of history that organs, which had no existence in the primitive Church, were intro-
Page 21
duced into the Churches in Scotland in the reign of James I., which began in the year 1424. He is said to have been one of the most learned men of the age in which he lived, and had a great genius for poetry and music. “Under his patronage the national music was much improved, and organs were by him introduced into the cathedrals and abbeys of Scotland, and choir service brought to such a degree of perfection as to fall little short of that established in any country in Europe.” And speaking of this, Calderwood says—“He brought into divine service a new kind of chanting and music, wherein he was expert himself. They placed a great deal of religion in curious singing in those days. The organs were not known in Scotland before his time.”
It was held essential that the worship of the Reformation should not be one of unmeaning rites and ceremonies, but an intelligent exercise of mind and heart, as appointed in Scripture. John Knox, who was the leader of the Reformation, and who was purging the Church on the one hand, and attending to her temporal interests, by getting her Confession ratified and her ministers provided for, on the other, clearly draws this distinction, and announces and defends at length this principle of express Divine appointment as the only true rule of worship. “All worshipping, honouring, or service invented by the brain of man,” says he, “in the religion of God, without His own express command, is idolatry.” In defending this proposition, he says, amongst other things:—
Page 22
“Disobedience to God’s voice is not only when man doeth wickedly contrary to the precepts of God, but also when of good zeal or good intent, as we commonly speak, man doeth anything to the honour or service of God, not commanded by the express word of God, as in this matter plainly may be espied. . . . And that is principal idolatry when our own inventions we defend to be righteous in the sight of God, because we think them good, laudable, and pleasant. We may not think us so free nor wise that we may do unto God and unto His honour what we think expedient. No! the contrary is commanded by God, saying, ‘Unto my word shall ye add nothing; nothing shall ye diminish therefrom, that ye may observe the precepts of the Lord your God,’ which words are not to be understood of the Decalogue and moral law only but of statutes, rites, and ceremonies; for equal obedience of all His laws requireth God.”
Again he says:—
“I would ask if that Jesus Christ be not King and Head of His Kirk? This will no man deny. If He be King, then must He do the office of a king, which is not only to guide, rule, and defend his subjects, but also to make and statute laws, which laws only are his subjects bound to obey, and not the laws of any foreign princes. Then, it becometh the Kirk of Jesus Christ to advert what He speaketh, to receive and embrace His laws, and where He maketh end of speaking or law-giving, here to rest. So that all the power of the Kirk is subject to God’s word. And that is most evident by the commandment given of God unto Joshua, His chosen captain and leader of His people, in these words, ‘Be strong and valiant, that you may do according to the holy law which my servant Moses commanded unto thee. Decline not from it, neither to the right hand nor to the left,’ &c. ‘Let not the book of the law depart from thy mouth, but meditate in it both day and night, that thou may keep and do in all things according to that which is written therein,’ &c. Here was it not permitted to Joshua to alter one jot, ceremony, or statute in all the law of God, nor yet to add thereunto, but diligently to observe that which was commanded. No less obedience requireth God of us, than He did of Joshua His servant. For He will have the religion ordained by His only Son Jesus Christ most strictly observed, and not to be violated in any part.”—Knox’s Works, vol. iii. pp. 35–42.
Page 23
There is a passage in a treatise by Knox entitled, “A declaration of the true nature and object of prayer” (edition of his works by David Laing, vol. iii., p. 102-3), which illustrates the fact that Knox regarded the use of musical instruments in worship as inconsistent with the theory of worship now alone sanctioned. It is as follows, the spelling being modernised:—
“Appointed places to pray in may not be neglected. But public and common prayers should be used in place appointed for the Assembly, from whence whosoever negligently abstracteth themselves is in nowise excusable. I mean not that to absent from that place is sin, because that place is more holy than another, for the whole earth created by God is equally holy. But the promise made that ‘wheresoever two or three be gathered together in my name, there shall I be in the midst of them,’ condemneth all such as contemneth the congregation gathered in His name. But mark well, by the word ‘gathered,’ I mean not to hear piping, singing, or playing, nor to patter on beads or books whereof they have no understanding, nor to commit idolatry, honouring that for God which is no God indeed. For with such will I neither join myself in common prayer, nor in receiving external sacraments, for in so doing I should affirm their superstition and abominable idolatry, which I by God’s grace never will do, neither counsel others to do to the end.”
A period of strife and confusion followed the original establishment of the Presbyterian Church and its simple worship. Prelacy was set up, and considerable innovations were introduced into the worship of the Church.
Remarking on some observations by Dr Cumming on the subject of early Presbyterian worship and the “Book of Common Order,” Mr Laing, (Knox’s Works, vol. vi. p. 283), says—
“In no instance do we find Knox himself using set forms of prayer, but that this Book was sanctioned and partly pre-
Page 24
pared by him is undeniable. The Presbyterian forms of worship were totally unlike those of the English Church, by endeavouring to adhere more closely to Scripture, and to avoid anything approaching to Popish ceremonial worship. Thus there was not only this freedom of extemporary prayer to which Dr Cumming alludes, but there was neither kneeling during prayer, nor while receiving the sacrament—there were no responses or collects for particular days—the frequent repetition of the Lord’s Prayer was avoided, and the Litany and the use of the Creed rejected. Congregational singing also was universally adopted, in place of the chanting and choral anthems and instrumental music retained in the English service.”