{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_30675/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_30675","id":"gutenberg_30675","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30675","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Presbyterian Church -- Liturgy -- History","Public worship -- Presbyterian Church -- History"],"text":"Produced by Al Haines\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP\n\n\nITS SPIRIT\n\n  METHOD AND\n\n    HISTORY\n\n\n\n\nBY\n\nROBERT JOHNSTON, D.D.,\n\nLondon.\n\n\n\n\nTORONTO;\n\nTHE PUBLISHERS' SYNDICATE, LIMITED.\n\n\n1901\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nThe worship of the sanctuary is a living subject of discussion and\npractice in the Presbyterian Churches of the world at large, and,\nwithin late years, in that of the Canadian Dominion.  Many earnest\nminds are approaching the study of the subject from various\nstandpoints, each worthy of attentive consideration.  One regards it\nfrom the dogmatic position of scriptural precedent, or from the larger\none of Christian principle; the aesthetic mind comes to it with visions\nof order and beauty; the practical, with his view of the Church's needs\nin mission fields and in mixed congregations.  There is room in the\ndiscussion for the largest statement of lawful opinion, founded on\nconviction of absolute right, and on Christian expediency, and for the\nexercise of abundant charity.\n\nDr. Johnston gives no uncertain sound on the subject.  To his mind the\nduty of the Church, first and last, is to preserve spirituality of\nworship, and to discountenance everything that may tend to interfere\nwith the same.  But, while this spirit pervades his work, his method is\nhistorical, and thus preeminently fair and impartial in statement. The\npresentation of the argument in concrete or historical form invests it\nwith an interest which could hardly be commanded by either dogmatic or\npractical methods, while it excludes neither.\n\nDr. Johnston brings to his task ripe scholarship, including extensive\nknowledge of Church history and ecclesiology, his proficiency in which\nhe has recently vindicated in such a manner as to leave no room for\ndoubt. To this he adds the teaching of pastoral experience in mission\nfields, prior to his ordination, and, since then, in large and\ninfluential congregations; and, to crown the whole, heartfelt devotion\nto the Church of his fathers, and unswerving personal loyalty to its\nKing and Head.\n\nWith adoring thanks to the great Teacher of us all, who rewards\nprofessors in their declining years with the affectionate regard of\ntheir whilom best students, now become wise and strong men in the\nChurch's service, I cordially commend to all who may read these words,\nthis outcome of Dr. Johnston's Christian erudition and conscientious\nliterary labor.\n\n(signature of John Campbell)\n\nPRESBYTERIAN COLLEGE,\n\nMONTREAL, March, 1901.\n\n\n\n\nTO ONE WHO LOVED\n\nTHE HOUSE OF GOD ON EARTH,\n\nAND WORSHIPS NOW\n\nIN THE CITY WHEREIN IS NO TEMPLE--\n\nMY MOTHER.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE LAW AND THE LIBERTY OF PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE AGE OF KNOX: THE FORMATIVE PERIOD OF PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nKNOX'S BOOK OF COMMON ORDER.\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nA DIET OF PUBLIC WORSHIP IN THE TIME OF KNOX\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE PERIOD OF CONTROVERSY\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY AND THE DIRECTORY OF WORSHIP\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nLEGISLATION CONCERNING PUBLIC WORSHIP IN THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO\n  THE REVOLUTION\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nPRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP OUTSIDE OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH OF SCOTLAND\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nMODERN MOVEMENTS IN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHES RESPECTING PUBLIC WORSHIP\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n\n\n\n\"Inward truth of heart alone, is what the Lord requires.  Exercises\nsuperadded are to be approved, so far as they are subservient to Truth,\nuseful incitements, or marks of profession to attest our faith to men.\nNor do we reject things tending to the preservation of Order and\nDiscipline.  But when consciences are put under fetters, and bound by\nreligious obligations, in matters in which God willed them to be free,\nthen must we boldly protest in order that the worship of God be not\nvitiated by human fictions.\"--CALVIN.\n\n\n\n\nPREFATORY NOTE.\n\nThe purpose in the following pages is a simple one.  It is to discover\nthe trend of thought in connection with Public Worship within the\nPresbyterian Church, particularly in Scotland, during the course of her\nhistory since the Reformation.  The spirit of the Church in her\nstirring and formative periods, especially if that spirit is a constant\none, is pregnant with instruction.  Such a constant spirit is readily\ndiscovered by a study of the attitude of the Presbyterian Church\ntowards the subject of Public Worship during the course of her history,\nand to the writer it seems very evident that that spirit indicates an\nincreasing suspicion of liturgical forms in Worship, and a growing\nconfidence in, and desire for, the liberty of untrammeled approach to\nGod.\n\nWhether this spirit be the best or not, it is not the purpose of these\npages to discuss.  The great principle of the liberty of the Church in\nmatters of detail, is fully recognized, a principle ever to be\nsedulously guarded, but an appeal is made to the record of history for\nits evidence as to the historic attitude of the Presbyterian Church, on\na question which to-day is claiming the earnest attention of those who\ndesire for that Church fidelity to her Lord and efficiency in His work.\n\nMy indebtedness in the study of this subject to Dr. McCrie's Cunningham\nLectures on \"Scottish Presbyterian Worship,\" Brown's \"Life of John\nKnox,\" Sprott's \"Scottish Liturgies\" and Baird's \"Eutaxia,\" as well as\nto various Histories of the Reformation in Scotland, and for American\nChurch History to Moore's and Alexander's valuable digests, I gladly\nand with gratitude acknowledge.  An abundant and increasing literature\nupon the subject of Public Worship is an encouraging sign of the\nattention which the Church is giving to a matter so vital to its best\nlife.\n\nR. J.\n\nST. ANDREW'S MANSE,\n  LONDON, January, 1901.\n\n\n\n\nThe Law and the Liberty of Presbyterian Worship.\n\n\n\n\"While it is admitted that there is a form of government prescribed or\ninstituted in the New Testament, so far as its general principles or\nfeatures are concerned, there is a wide discretion allowed us by God in\nmatters of detail, which no man or set of men, which neither civil\nmagistrates nor ecclesiastical rulers can take from us.\"--HODGE.\n\n\n\nChapter I.\n\nThe Law and the Liberty of Presbyterian Worship.\n\n\"The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and\nNew Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and\nenjoy Him.\"--WESTMINSTER CATECHISM.\n\n\nThe Church of Christ, as a divine communion, exists in the world for a\ndefinite and appointed purpose.  This purpose may be declared to be\ntwofold, and may be described by the terms \"Witness\" and \"Worship.\"\n\nIt is the evident design of God that the visible Church should bear\nwitness to His existence and character, to His revelation and\nprovidence, and to His grace towards mankind, manifested in His Son,\nJesus Christ.  To Israel God said, \"Ye are my witnesses,\" and to His\ndisciples forming the nucleus of the New Testament Church, the risen\nSaviour said, \"Ye shall be witnesses unto Me.\"\n\nSide by side with this evident end of the Church's existence is the\nother one of Worship.  Not only from the individual heart does God\nrequire ascriptions of praise and expressions of confidence, but from\nthe organized congregation of His people, He desires to hear the voice\nof adoration, contrition, and supplication.  The cultivation of such\nworship, and the offering of it in a manner acceptable to God, is a\nwork worthy of the Church's most earnest care.\n\nIt is to be expected, therefore, that in the Word of God there shall be\nfound the principles of a cultus which, possessing Divine authority,\nshall carry with it the assurance of its sufficiency for the ends aimed\nat, and of its suitability to the requirements of the Church in every\nage.  That the word of God contains such principles clearly indicated,\nthe Presbyterian Church has always maintained, teaching uniformly and\nemphatically that Holy Scripture contains all that is necessary for the\nguidance of the Church, as well in matters of Polity and Worship, as in\nthose of Doctrine.  Divine worship, therefore, neither in its constant\nelements nor in its methods, is a matter of mere human device, nor is\nthe Church at liberty to devise or to adopt aught that is not\nexplicitly stated or implicitly contained in the Word of God for her\nguidance.\n\nThe essential parts of worship we are at no loss to discover, clearly\nindicated as they are in the history of the Apostolic Church.  Praise\nand Prayer, with the reading and exposition of Scripture, together with\nthe celebration of the Sacraments, are repeatedly referred to as those\nexercises in which the early Christians engaged.  With such worship,\nthough in more elaborate form, the Church had always been familiar, for\nas Christianity itself was in so many respects the fruit and outcome of\nJudaism, the expansion, into principles of world-wide and perpetual\napplication, of truths that had hitherto been national and local, so\nits worship and organization were, in large measure, the adaptation of\nfamiliar forms to those simpler and more comprehensive ones of the New\nTestament Church.  Throughout the successive periods of Israel's\nhistory, marked by patriarch, psalmist, and prophet, Divine worship had\ngrown from simple sacrifice at a family altar to an elaborate\ntemple-ritual, in which praise and prayer and the reading of the Law\noccupied a prominent place; to this were added in later times the\nexposition of the Law and the reading of the Prophets.  This service,\nelaborate with magnificent and imposing forms, continued in connection\nwith the Temple worship down to the time of our Saviour, while in the\nSynagogue a simpler service, combining all the essential parts of the\nformer with the exception of sacrifice, was developed during the period\nsubsequent to the Babylonian captivity, when, as is generally conceded,\nthe Synagogue with its service had its origin.  Apart then from the\nritual connected with sacrifice, which was wholly typical, the temple\nservice and the simpler worship of the Synagogue were identical in\ntheir different parts, although differing widely in form.\n\nNow, just as Christianity was itself not a substitute for the Jewish\nreligion but a development and enlargement of it, so Christian worship\nwas an outgrowth, with larger meaning and broader application, of the\nworship of God which for centuries had been conducted among the Jews.\nIt continued to comprise the essential elements of prayer and praise,\ntogether with the reading and exposition of the Divine message, a\nmessage which was enlarged in Apostolic times by the record concerning\nthe Christ who had come, and by the inspired writings of the Apostles\nof our Lord to the Church which they had been commissioned to plant and\nfoster, while associated with these was the administration of the\nSacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.  It has always been\nmaintained by the Presbyterian Church, that of these different elements\nof worship, none should be neglected, inasmuch as all of them have\nDivine sanction, and that to these nothing should be added, inasmuch as\nany addition made, could possess human sanction only, and would be a\ntransgression of the principle that Scripture and Scripture alone\ncontains authority for the government and practice of the Church of\nJesus Christ.\n\nIt follows that in the arrangement and adjustment of each of these\nvarious parts of worship, in their due relation to each other, and in\nthe determination of the methods that shall prevail in their\nperformance, the Church must be governed by an appreciation of the\npurpose for which they have been established, and of the ends which\nthey are expected to serve.  The object of public worship must ever be\nkept in view, and no forms, however attractive, are to be admitted by\nwhich that object may be hidden or obscured: on the other hand, order\nand seemliness demand a due attention, and it is an error, only less\nmischievous than the former, to have regard to the spirit of worship\nalone, and thus to neglect whatever suitable forms and methods may best\nsecure the orderly and appropriate performance of its every part.\n\nThe most commonly recognized purpose of public worship is the\ncultivation of the spiritual life of the worshipper, and this is\nattained by the employment of means intended to bring the soul into an\nattitude of response to its Lord.  It follows then that matters of\nform, attitude, and order in worship, should be so arranged and\nregulated that they may serve as aids to the securing of this end, and\nthat nothing should be permitted which may in any way interfere with\nthe development of this spirit of response on the part of those so\nengaged.  And when it is remembered how small a matter may interfere\nwith the worship of a congregation, and how easily disturbed and\ndistracted the hearts of men are by untoward circumstances or\nconditions, it will be seen that not only the forms of worship demand\nattention, but that the order of its different parts, the attitude of\nthe worshippers, and all matters of detail are worthy of careful\nthought and of earnest consideration.  But Christian worship has an\naltruistic aim also, and is intended to serve as a witness before the\nworld to those fundamental truths professed by the Christian Church.\nWith this end in view, it is evident that its forms should be such as\nshall most clearly and effectively set forth before the eyes of\nbeholders, those truths and principles which the Church holds as\nessential to Christian faith and practice.  To obscure such a public\ndeclaration of Christian belief, by hiding these truths beneath an\nelaborate adornment that disguises or completely conceals them, is to\nbe faithless to the commission of Jesus Christ to be a witness unto Him\nbefore the world; to neglect such witness-bearing, or by carelessness\nor inattention to detail, to render it in a manner so ineffective as to\ndisparage the truth in the eyes of beholders, is to be none the less\nunfaithful to that great commission.\n\nWith the twofold purpose of worship clearly kept in view as the\nfoundation for any discussion of this subject, it is also to be\nremembered that the Church of Christ is left free by her Divine King\nand Head, so to order matters of detail, under the guidance of the\nSpirit of Truth, and in harmony with the principles laid down in\nScripture, as may in accordance with varying ages and circumstances\nseem best for the attainment of the ends desired.  While Christian\nworship in its essential parts is prescribed by Scripture, the Church\nis free to amplify or develop these general outlines, provided only\nthat all be in harmony with the spirit of Revelation.  It is very\nevident that new conditions of a progressive civilization, the spirit\nof the times, or the particular circumstances of a community, may make\ndesirable a modification of a particular method of worship long\npractised; it is for the Church, relying ever on the guidance of the\nSpirit of Truth, to determine how such modification may, without\nviolation to the spirit of Scripture, be made.  For this reason it can\nnever be binding upon the Church to accept as final, the particular\nmethods of worship used and found suitable by men of another age or\nanother land; while such may be accepted as valuable for suggestions\ncontained, and as indicating the spirit that controlled good and great\nmen of another time, yet the Church can only accept them (in loyalty to\nthe Spirit Who abides in her, and Who is hers in every age) in so far\nas they prove themselves suitable to present times and conditions.  The\npresent possession by the Church, of the Holy Spirit as a guide into\nall truth, according to the promise of Christ to His disciples, is a\ndoctrine that no branch of the Church would readily surrender, and her\nright, under that guidance, to seek the good of the body of Christ on\nlines which, while consistent with the principles of Scripture, commend\nthemselves to her as more suitable to present conditions than former\nmethods, this right is one which she can part with only at the risk of\nendangering her usefulness to her own age.\n\nTo Presbyterians, therefore, thankful as they are for an historic past\nthat has in it so much to arouse gratitude to God and loyalty to the\nChurch they love, the citing of the practice of their forefathers in\nReformation times, or even that of the early fathers of the Church, can\nnever be a final argument for the acceptance of any particular method\nin worship.  Believing in a Church in which the Spirit of God as truly\ngoverns and guides to-day as He did in Reformation or post-Apostolic\ntimes, and in a Christian liberty of which neither the practice nor\nlegislation of holy men of the past can deprive them, they rightly\nrefuse to surrender their liberty or to retire from their\nresponsibility.\n\nIn the best and truest sense the Presbyterian Church is Apostolic, and\nher spiritual succession from the Apostles she cherishes with an\nunfaltering confidence.  While rejecting the ritual theory of the\nChurch, she has never been careless of the true succession of faith and\ndoctrine and practice from the time of the Apostles to the present day,\na succession to which she lays a not unworthy claim; and, claiming\nloyalty to Apostolic doctrine, polity and practice, she has ever been\njealous in asserting her Divine right, as an Apostolic Church, to the\ncontrolling presence and guiding wisdom of the Holy Spirit of God.\nUnder the guidance of that Spirit she has ever claimed, and still\nclaims, the right of administering the government and directing the\nworship which, in their essential principles, are set forth in\nScripture, neither superciliously regarding herself in any age as\nindependent of those who have gone before, and so disregarding the\nlegislation and practice of the fathers, nor, on the other hand,\nslavishly accepting such legislation and practice as binding upon the\nChurch for all time, and as excluding for ever any progress or change.\nThat spirit, at once of independence as regards man, and of dependence\nas regards God, has characterized Presbyterianism in its most vigorous\nand progressive periods; by that spirit must it still be characterized\nif, in succeeding ages, the work allotted to it is to be faithfully and\nwell performed.\n\nIf then the Church of one age is so independent of those who in other\ntimes have served her, it may be asked of what interest is her past\nhistory to us of to-day, and of what benefit to us is a knowledge of\nthe legislation and practice of the Church in other periods of her\nprogress?  Of much value in every way is such knowledge.  Those periods\nin particular, in which the Church has made notable progress, and in\nwhich her life has evidently been characterized by much of the Holy\nSpirit's presence and power, may well be studied, as times when those\nin authority were, indeed, led to wise measures, and guided to those\nmethods of administration and practice, which by their success approved\nthemselves as enjoying the Divine favor; the lamp of experience is one\nwhich wise men will never treat with indifference.  In studying the\nReformation period, therefore, a period marked by special activity and\nprogress within the Presbyterian Church, we do so, not so much to\ndiscover forms which we may adopt and imitate, as to discover the\nspirit which moved the leaders in the Church of that day, and the\nprinciples which governed them in formulating those regulations, and in\nadopting those practices, which proved suitable and successful in their\nown age.  To emulate the spirit of brave and wise men of the past is\nthe part of wisdom, to imitate their methods may be the extreme of\nfolly.\n\nAnother result, and one equally desirable, will be attained by a study\nof Presbyterian practice from Reformation times onward.  It will\ntranspire, as we follow the history of public worship, by what paths we\nhave arrived at our present position, and we shall discover whether\nthat position is the result of diligent and careful search after those\nmethods most in accord with Scripture principles, and so best suited to\nthe different periods through which in her progress the Church has\npassed, or whether it is due to a temporary neglect of such principles,\nand a disregard of the changing necessities of different ages.  We\nshall discover, in a word, whether we have advanced, in dependence upon\nthe Spirit of God and in recognition of our responsibilities, or\nwhether we have retrograded through self-trust and indifference.\n\n\n\n\nThe Age of Knox: the Formative Period of Presbyterian Worship.\n\n\n\n\"Among the great personages of the past it would be difficult to name\none who in the same degree has vitalized and dominated the collective\nenergies of his countrymen.\"--BROWN'S LIFE OF KNOX.\n\n\n\nChapter II.\n\nThe Age of Knox: the Formative Period of Presbyterian Worship.\n\n\nIt was in the year 1560 that the Reformed religion was officially\nrecognized by the Estates of the Realm of Scotland, as the faith of the\nnation.  This recognition consisted in the adoption by Parliament of\nthe first Scottish Confession, a formula drawn up by Knox and his\nbrethren at Parliament's request, and formally approved by that body as\n\"wholesome and sound doctrine grounded upon the infallible truth of\nGod's Word.\"  This year may, therefore, be regarded as the year of the\nbirth of the Church of Scotland, although previous to it the Reformed\nfaith had been preached, and its worship practised, in many parts of\nthe land where nobles and barons, who had themselves adopted it, held\nindividual or united sway.\n\nA glance at the condition of affairs in Scotland in the years\nimmediately prior to this event will be instructive.  In 1557, as a\nresult of Knox's rebuke of the Scottish nobles for their hesitancy in\nforwarding the Reformed faith, the \"Confederation of the Lords of the\nCongregation\" was formed, and its members subscribed to the first of\nthe five Covenants that played so important a part in the religious\nhistory of Scotland.  In this Covenant, those subscribing bound\nthemselves to \"maintain and further the blessed Word of God and His\ncongregation and to renounce the congregation of Satan with all the\nsuperstitions, abominations and idolatry thereof.\"  To the general\ndeclaration were appended two particular resolutions, in which was\nexpressed a determination to further the preaching of the Word, in the\nmeantime, in private houses, and to insist on the use of King Edward's\nPrayer Book in parishes under the control of subscribers to the\nCovenant.  By these same Protestant lords and commoners the first\nofficial order, authorizing for their own parishes a form of Reformed\nworship in Scotland, was issued in these terms:--\n\n\n\"It is ordained that the Common Prayers be read weekly on Sunday, and\nother festival days, publicly in the parish Kirks with the lessons of\nthe Old and New Testaments conform to the order of the Book of Common\nPrayer.\"\n\n\nIt is generally conceded, and the judgment is supported by the\nreferences to it in Scottish history, that this Book of Common Prayer\nthus authorized was the second Book of King Edward the Sixth.\n\nFrom the year 1557 until the arrival of Knox in Scotland in 1559 this\nwas the Book commonly used in parishes where the Reformed religion\nprevailed.  It disappeared, however, as so much else of a foreign\ncharacter disappeared, in the course of the national Reformation,\ngiving place to the Book prepared by Knox and then commonly known as\n\"The Book of Our Common Order\" but now frequently referred to as\n\"Knox's Liturgy.\"  This was originally the work of Knox and four\nassociate reformers living in exile in Frankfort-on-the-Main, and the\nhistory of its origin is interesting.  It had been required of the\nEnglish refugees living at Frankfort, as a condition of their being\nallowed to use for worship the French church of that town, that they\nshould adopt the Order of Worship of the French Reformed Church.  To\nthis requirement the majority agreed, but, some objecting, it was\nfinally determined that five of their number, of whom Knox was one,\nshould draw up a new order of service.  This work, undertaken in 1554,\nwas duly accomplished, but when completed it failed to find acceptance\nat the hands of those who had proposed it.  The draft of the new book\nwas therefore laid aside until 1556, and was then published for the use\nof the church at Geneva, of which Knox in the meantime had become the\nminister.\n\nThere is in connection with this Book, and the debates and disturbances\nattending its preparation, one instructive fact that should not be\nforgotten.  The English Prayer Book provided for responses by the\npeople and included the Litany, to both of which the French Reformed\nChurch objected, in accordance with the well-known opinions of their\ngreat leader Calvin, who held, as did also his disciple Knox, that in\npraise alone should the congregation audibly join in public worship.\nAmong the English refugees were some who desired the privilege of\nresponding in public worship according to the English fashion, and it\nwas the persistence in this matter of Cox, afterwards Bishop of Ely,\nand of some of his co-patriots, that led to Knox's removal to Geneva,\nand to the publication there of the Book of Geneva as an order for\npublic worship in the English congregation to which he ministered.  It\nis important that this should be remembered, for in speaking of the\nBook of Common Order as \"Knox's Liturgy,\" and thus giving to it a name\nby which it was never known in Knox's day, an impression has prevailed,\nand is still prevalent, that the book provided a form of worship\nliturgical in character, with a responsive service, while the fact is\nthat Knox made no provision for even so much as the saying of \"Amen\" by\nthe people, their part in prayer being the silent following in their\nhearts of the petitions uttered by the reader or the preacher for the\nday.\n\nThe first official recognition of this book in Scotland was in 1562,\nwhen an order of the General Assembly required that it should be\nuniformly used in the administration of the Sacraments, solemnization\nof marriage and burial of the dead.  At this time it was still in its\nGenevan form, and was called \"The Form of Prayers and Ministration of\nthe Sacraments, etc., used in the English congregation at Geneva; and\napproved by the famous and Godly-learned man, M. John Calvin.\"  Two\nyears later, in 1564, a Scottish edition appeared, in which were\nadditional prayers with the complete copy of the Psalter, and in this\nyear the General Assembly ordained that:\n\n\n\"Every Minister, Exhorter and Reader shall have one of the Psalm Books\nlately printed in Edinborough, and use the order contained therein in\nPrayers, Marriage and Ministration of the Sacraments.\"\n\n\nThis book was called \"The Form of Prayers and Ministration of the\nSacraments, etc., used in the English Church at Geneva approved and\nreceived by the Church of Scotland, whereunto besides that was in the\nformer books are also added sundry other Prayers with the whole Psalms\nof David in English Metre.\"  As the Psalms occupied by far the greater\npart of the book it came to be commonly known as \"The Psalm Book,\" and\nas such, with frequent additions, among which were several hymns and\ndoxologies, it continued to be the recognized Book of Common Order of\nthe Scottish Church down to the time of the Westminster Assembly.  It\ncannot be claimed, however, that this book ever secured a firm or\nlasting hold upon the affections of the Scottish people in general.\nIts authority was ecclesiastical only, inasmuch as the Estates of the\nRealm never gave to it the official sanction which they had repeatedly\ngranted to King Edward's Prayer Book.  One reason for this evident want\nof popularity may have been that, except in its Psalter department and\nin some of its minor parts, it was a book for the clergy only and not\nfor the people.  Even the Psalms in those days passed through new\neditions so rapidly, and were subjected to such serious changes, that\nthey never obtained the place in the affections of the people that\nlater versions have secured, and by 1645 The Book of Common Order\nappears to have fallen into such comparative neglect that no strong\nresistance was made to its abolition in favor of the Directory of\nWorship.\n\nThat it was held in esteem by the clergy, although not so revered as to\nbe looked upon as incapable of improvement, appears from the fact that\nin 1601 a proposal was made to revise it, together with the confession\nof faith, which had been prepared by Knox.  This work was committed to\nAlexander Henderson, the renowned minister of Leuchars and the valiant\nleader of the Church of Scotland in her resistance against the tyranny\nof Charles the First and his minister, Laud.  The revision, however,\nwas never accomplished, Henderson confessing, according to the\nhistorian, Baillie, that he could not take upon him \"either to\ndetermine some points controverted, or to set down other forms of\nprayer than we have in our Psalm Book, penned by our great and divine\nreformer.\"\n\nA book which held for so long a time its place of authority in the\nScottish Church, and which embodied during so important a period the\nlaw of the Church concerning worship, deserves particular study at the\nhands of those who are interested in the history of this important\nsubject, but inasmuch as the form of worship alone is under discussion,\nit will be necessary to refer only to those parts of it which bear on\nthis phase of the Church's practice.  Before doing so, however, it will\nbe instructive to notice what is too frequently overlooked, that the\nadoption of Knox's Book of Common Order by the Scottish Church\nindicates even in that age a desire for forms of worship less\nliturgical than those which were employed by other parts of the\nReformed Church.  It is to be remembered that those parishes in which\nthe Reformed religion prevailed had been accustomed to the use of the\nEnglish Book of Common Prayer with responsive services for the people,\nand with prayers from which the minister was not supposed to deviate.\nThis Book was set aside, and in its place was adopted an Order of\nworship in no part of which provision was made for responses, and in\nall of whose prayers the minister was not only allowed freedom, but was\nencouraged to exercise the same.  Such action on the part of men\naccustomed to make changes only after careful deliberation, clearly\nindicates an intelligent choice of a non-liturgical service as opposed\nto one of the opposite character.\n\nMore than this, the Scottish Book of Common Order is marked by an even\ngreater freedom from prescribed forms than is Calvin's original Book of\nGeneva from which Knox copied so largely.  For while both of them\nagreed in avoiding a responsive service, Knox seems to have been even\nless than Calvin in sympathy with prescribed forms of prayer from which\nno deviation was to be allowed.  There is nothing to indicate that Knox\nwould have agreed with the sentiment expressed in Calvin's letter to\nthe Protector Somerset, in which he says: \"As to what concerns a form\nof prayer and ecclesiastical rites, I highly approve of it, that there\nbe a certain form from which the ministers be not allowed to vary....\nTherefore there ought to be a stated form of prayer and administration\nof the Sacraments.\"  The form of Church prayers, as originally prepared\nby Calvin in keeping with his sentiments above expressed, do not\nprovide for any variation in certain parts of the service.  The\nScottish Book of Common Order, however, allows, in its every part, for\nthe operation of the free Spirit of God, and for other prayers to be\noffered by the minister than those there suggested.\n\nAt this period of its history, therefore, we find the Church of\nScotland more pronounced than any other section of the Reformed Church\nin its desire for freedom from prescribed forms in the worship of God.\nIndeed, we are probably not in error in judging that in different\ncircumstances, with an educated ministry in the Church and those\nappointed as leaders of worship who had received training for that\nimportant work, Knox would have felt even such a book as that which he\nprepared, to be both unnecessary and undesirable.\n\n\n\n\nKnox's Book of Common Order.\n\n\n\n\"The Book of Common Order is best described as a discretionary\nliturgy.\"--SPROTT.\n\n\n\nChapter III.\n\nKnox's Book of Common Order.\n\nThe Book of Common Order makes no reference to the reading of Scripture\nas a part of public worship, nor does it, after the fashion of many\nsimilar books, contain a table of Scriptures to be read during the\nyear.  This omission however, is amended by an ordinance found in the\nFirst Book of Discipline prepared by Knox in 1561, and adopted by the\nGeneral Assembly of that year, by which it is declared to be:\n\n\n\"A thing most expedient and necessary that every Kirk have a Bible in\nEnglish, and that the people be commanded to convene and hear the plain\nreading and interpretation of the Scripture as the Kirk shall appoint.\"\n\n\nIt was further enjoined by the same authority and at the same time that:\n\n\n\"Each Book of the Bible should be begun and read through in order to\nthe end, and that there should be no skipping and divigation from place\nto place of Scripture, be it in reading or be it in preaching.\"\n\n\nIt is evident, therefore, that it was the purpose of Knox that the\nwhole of Holy Scripture should be publicly read for edification, and\nthat it should be read as God's message to men and not as an exercise\nsubordinate to the preaching, or intended merely to throw light upon\nthe subject of the discourse.\n\nIn connection with the reading of Scripture and of the Prayers, mention\nis made, in this same Book of Discipline, of an Order of Church\nofficers who filled an important place in the Church of that time.  It\nwas ordained that where \"no ministers could be had presently\" the\nCommon Prayers and Scriptures should be read by the most suitable\npersons that could be selected.  These suitable persons came to be\nknown as \"Readers,\" and they form a distinct class of ecclesiastical\nofficers in the Reformation Church of Scotland.  The need of such an\nOrder was evident, for the Church found great difficulty in securing\nmen of the requisite gifts and graces for the office of the ministry.\nThe Readers therefore, formed an important and numerous order in the\nChurch for many years, numbering at one time no less than seven\nhundred, while at the same time there was less than half that number of\nordained ministers.  These men were not allowed to preach or to\nadminister the sacraments, and they formed only a temporary order\nrequired by the exigencies of the times, as is evident from the fact\nthat the General Assembly of 1581, in the hope that all parishes would\nsoon be supplied with ordained ministers, forbade any further\nappointment of Readers.\n\nIn the mind of Knox, these men were the successors to the _lectors_ of\nthe early Church, and corresponded in Scotland to the _docteurs_ of the\nSwiss Reformed Church, a Church whose organization he regarded as but\nlittle less than perfect.  Although they conducted a part of the\nservice in parishes where ministers regularly preached, yet in the\noriginal idea of the office the intention was that they should conduct\npublic worship, in its departments of prayer and praise and reading of\nthe Scriptures, only in parishes where a minister could not be secured.\nIt is necessary to understand their office and their position in the\nChurch, inasmuch as the existence of such an order has a bearing upon\nour appreciation of the form of public worship at this time adopted in\nScotland.\n\nIn the exercise of public prayer the greatest freedom was granted the\nminister by the Book of Common Order.  Calvin had prescribed a form of\nconfession, the uniform use of which he required, but the general\nconfession with which the service of the Book of Common Order opened,\nwas governed by this rubric:\n\n\n\"When the congregation is assembled at the hour appointed, the Minister\nuseth this confession, _or like in effect_, exhorting the people\ndiligently to examine themselves, following in their hearts the tenor\nof his words.\"\n\n\nSimilar liberty was also allowed the minister in the prayer which\nfollowed the singing of the Psalms and preceded the sermon; the rubric\ngoverning this directed that:\n\n\n\"This done, the people sing a Psalm all together in a plain tune; which\nended, the Minister prayeth for the assistance of God's Holy Spirit _as\nthe same shall move his heart_, and so proceedeth to the sermon, using\nafter the sermon this prayer following, _or such like_.\"\n\n\nAnd finally, as governing the whole order of worship, it is added:\n\n\n\"It shall not be necessary for the Minister daily to repeat all these\nthings before mentioned, but, beginning with some manner of confession,\nto proceed to the sermon, which ended _he either useth the prayer for\nall estates before mentioned or else prayeth as the Spirit of God shall\nmove his heart_, framing the same according to the time and matter\nwhich he hath entreated of.  And if there shall be at any time any\npresent plague, famine, pestilence, war, or such like, which be evident\ntokens of God's wrath, as it is our part to acknowledge our sins to be\nthe occasion thereof, so are we appointed by the Scriptures to give\nourselves to mourning, fasting and prayer as the means to turn away\nGod's heavy displeasure.  Therefore it shall be convenient that the\nMinister at such time do not only admonish the people thereof, but also\nuse some Form of Prayer, according as the present necessity requireth,\nto the which he may appoint, by a common consent, some several day\nafter the sermon, weekly to be observed.\"\n\n\nThe liberty allowed to the minister in this so important part of public\nworship is evident, and although many prayers are added as suitable for\nparticular times and occasions, and some, which are described as of\ncommon use under certain circumstances and by particular churches, yet\nnone of them are prescribed as the _only_ prayers proper for any\nparticular season or occasion.\n\nEven in the administration of the Lord's Supper, the directions which\naccompany the prayer which precedes the distribution of the bread and\nwine allows a similar latitude to the Minister.\n\n\n\"Then he taketh bread and giveth thanks, either in these words\nfollowing _or like in effect_.\"\n\n\nThe student of the life of the great Scottish Reformer does not need to\nbe told that the framer of the Book of Common Order was not himself\nbound by any particular form of prayer in public worship.  On the\noccasion of his memorable sermon after the death of the Regent Moray,\nhis prayer at its close was the passionate outburst of a burdened soul,\nimpossible to one restricted by prescribed forms, while his prayer,\nwhich is still preserved, on the occasion of a national thanksgiving,\nis an illustration of the perhaps not excellent way in which, in this\nexercise, he was accustomed to combine devotion and practical politics;\na part of it ran thus:\n\n\"And seeing that nothing is more odious in Thy presence, O Lord, than\nis ingratitude and violation of an oath and covenant made in Thy Name:\nand seeing that Thou hast made our confederates of England the\ninstruments by whom we are now set at liberty, to whom we in Thy Name\nhave promised mutual faith again; let us never fall to that unkindness,\nO Lord, that either we declare ourselves unthankful unto them, or\nprofaners of Thy Holy Name.\"\n\nIt is not surprising that one who allowed himself such liberty in\npublic prayer should lay no binding forms upon his brethren in the\nministry.\n\nIt remains only to be said, with regard to the restrictions of the Book\nof Common Order, that so far from providing any fixed form of prayer\nfor uniform, use, even the Lord's Prayer was not imposed in any part of\npublic worship.  It is added, together with the Creed, to the form of\nprayer called \"A Prayer for the Whole Estate of Christ's Church,\" but\nthis prayer is governed by the general rubric already quoted, which\npermits such variation as the minister, moved by the Spirit of God,\nshall deem desirable.  There is nothing to show that it was expected\nthat the Lord's Prayer should be used as an invariable part of public\nworship.\n\nWith these facts before us, whatever our judgment may be of the wisdom\nof Knox and of the Church of his day in the matter of a regulated\nservice, we cannot close our eyes to the evident conclusion that the\nReformer was wholly opposed to the bondage of form in prayer.  In this\npart of public worship he claimed for himself, and exercised under the\nguidance of the Spirit of God, the greatest freedom; and consistent\nwith this position he never sought to impose as a part of regular\npublic worship, the repetition by the minister of even that form of\nprayer which of all others has for its use Divine authority.  To\nwhatever in worship the Book of Common Order may lend its countenance,\nit assuredly gives no support to the imposition upon worshippers of\nprescribed forms of prayer.\n\nSide by side with that part of public worship already considered there\nhas always been associated the exercise of Praise.\n\nAlthough the Scottish Church conformed most closely to the Churches of\nFrance and Switzerland, yet it was impossible that it should not, to\nsome degree, be influenced by the spirit of the German Reformation.\nThis influence was especially marked in that which was a special\ncharacteristic of the German Church, a love for sacred song and a\ndelight in the same on the part of the people.\n\nThe Book of Common Order contained, as has been mentioned, in its early\neditions, the complete Psalter, and to this were added, subsequently, a\nfew Scripture Hymns, together with the Doxology _Gloria Patri_ in\ndifferent metres, so that it could be sung at the end of every Psalm.\nThis Doxology appears in Hart's edition of the Book of Common Order of\n1611, in six different metres, under the general head of \"Conclusions,\"\nand was evidently used regularly at the close of the Psalms sung in\npublic worship.  It was not until the beginning of the seventeenth\ncentury that there began to arise criticisms of the custom of singing\nthe Doxology, and it would, therefore, appear that during the formative\nperiod of the Scottish Church, which we are considering, it was\nregularly used, and occasioned no objection and aroused no opposition.\nThe Hymns which were printed with the Psalter were few in number, and\nwere chiefly free paraphrases of sections of Scripture.  They are \"The\nTen Commandments,\" \"The Lord's Prayer,\" \"_Veni Creator_,\" \"The Song of\nSimeon called _Nunc Dimittis_,\" \"The Twelve Articles of the Christian\nFaith,\" and \"The Song of Blessed Marie called _Magnificat_.\"  The\npurpose of the Hymns appears to have been the memorizing of Scripture\nand important doctrinal truths, and there is no evidence that they were\nemployed in public worship, although a place was not denied them in the\nBook of Common Order; in the Order for Public Worship mention is made\nof Psalms only, and in all the accounts, which have come down to us in\ncorrespondence or history, of the public services of that time, the\npeople are invariably spoken of as joining in a Psalm, while even in\nthe public processions, which were common on occasions of national\nrejoicing or thanksgiving, Psalms only are mentioned as being sung by\nthe people.\n\nThe singing was usually led by the Reader, but there is occasional\nmention in the records of the time of the \"Uptaker\" of the Psalms, who\nevidently performed the duties of a Precentor.\n\nThe Sacraments.--In the Confession of Faith, which forms the first part\nof the Book of Common Order, it is clearly stated that there are two\nSacraments only in the Christian Church, and that these are Baptism and\nThe Lord's Supper.  No subject in connection with the practice of the\nChurch created more discussion in Reformation times than the methods\nwhich were to be followed in the administration of the Sacraments.  The\nspirit of the Scottish reformers is indicated in the following\nsentence, which governed this matter:\n\n\n\"Neither must we in the administration of these Sacraments follow man's\nfancy, but as Christ himself hath ordained so must they be ministered,\nand by such as by ordinary vocation are thereunto called.\"\n\n\nIn accordance with this general regulation the Book of Common Order\nprescribes in detail \"The Manner of the Administration of the Lord's\nSupper.\"\n\nThe words of the opening rubric are as follows:\n\n\n\"The day when the Lord's Supper is ministered, which is commonly used\nonce a month, or so oft as the Congregation shall think expedient, the\nMinister useth to say as follows:\"\n\n\nHere follow the words of institution of the Supper from St. Paul's\nEpistle to the Corinthians, after which is added an exhortation in\nwhich flagrant sinners are warned not to draw near to the holy table,\nand timid saints are encouraged in wise and helpful words to approach\nwith repentance and faith.  This is the address which in later times\ncame to be known as \"Fencing the Table.\"  There are no words to\nindicate that any variation from the prescribed address was encouraged.\n\nThe address being finished\n\n\n\"The Minister comes down from the Pulpit and sitteth at the Table,\nevery man and woman in likewise taking their place as occasion best\nserveth: Then he taketh Bread and giveth thanks either in these words\nfollowing or _like in effect_.\"\n\n\nThis prayer is wholly one of praise and thanksgiving, there being an\nevident purpose in the omission of any invocation of the Holy Spirit\nand of words that might be regarded as a consecration of the bread and\nwine, and in the strict adherence to the example of our Lord, Who,\n\"when He had given thanks, took bread.\"\n\nThe manner of communing is then described:\n\n\n\"This done, the Minister breaketh the bread and delivereth it to the\npeople, to distribute and divide the same among themselves, according\nto our Saviour Christ's commandment, and likewise giveth the cup:\nDuring the which time some place of the Scriptures is read which doth\nlively set forth the death of Christ, to the intent that our eyes and\nsenses may not only be occupied in these outward signs of bread and\nwine, which are called the visible word, but that our hearts and minds\nalso may be fully fixed in the contemplation of the Lord's death, which\nis by this Holy Sacrament represented.  And after this action is done\nhe giveth thanks, saying:\"\n\n\nThe prayer of thanksgiving which follows is the only one in connection\nwith this service for which no alternative was allowed the minister.\nAn appropriate Psalm of thanksgiving followed the prayer, the Blessing\nwas invoked and the congregation dispersed.\n\nThe Communion, as is evident from the rubric quoted above, was received\nwhile the congregation was seated, and this practice the Presbyterians\nadhered to and defended as against the Episcopal practice of kneeling\nat this service, regarding the latter attitude as liable to be\ninterpreted as a rendering to the Sacrament of homage and adoration\nwhich should be reserved for God alone.\n\nThe service, it is evident, was marked by simplicity and by in almost\ntotal absence of prescribed form.  In a note \"to the reader,\" the\nauthor of the Book of Common Order explains that the object throughout\nis to set forth simply and effectively those signs which Christ hath\nordained \"to our spiritual use and comfort.\"\n\nHow often this Sacrament was to be observed was left to the judgment of\nindividual congregations, but frequent celebration was recommended.\nCalvin thought it proper that the Lord's Supper should be celebrated\nmonthly, but finding the people opposed to such frequent celebration he\nconsidered it unwise to insist upon his own views.  With his opinions\non this matter, those of Knox were quite in harmony.\n\nThe Sacrament of Baptism was likewise characterized in its\nadministration by similar simplicity, and yet it is evident that, in\nthis more than in any other part of public worship, the minister was\nrestricted to the forms provided both in prayer and in address.\n\nThe rubrics which govern the two prayers of the service and the address\nto the parents, make no mention of alternate or similar forms being\npermitted.  In this the Book of Common Order differs from the Book of\nGeneva, which allowed the minister liberty in these parts of the\nservice.  There would seem, therefore, to be an evident intention on\nthe part of the Scottish reformers in thus departing from their custom\nin other parts of worship.  It may be that inasmuch as Baptism is the\nSacrament of admission into the Church, it was deemed advisable that\nfor the instruction of those seeking membership therein, either for\nthemselves or for their children, the form of sound doctrine set forth\nat such a time should not be varied even in the manner of statement.\n\nThe Sacrament was administered in the Church \"on the day appointed to\nCommon Prayer and preaching,\" instruction being given that the child\nshould there be accompanied by the father and godfather; Knox himself\nhad, as godfather to one of his sons, Whittingham, who had been his\nchief assistant in compiling the Book of Common Order, and who had also\nbeen his helper and fellow-worker at Geneva.  The opinion of the Swiss\nreformers, as well as that of their Scotch followers, was in favor of\nthe presence of sponsors in addition to the parents at the baptism of\nchildren.  The parent having professed his desire to have his child\nbaptized in the Christian faith, was addressed by the minister, and\ncalled upon to profess his own faith and his purpose to instruct his\nchild in the same.  Having repeated the Creed, the minister proceeded\nto expound the same as setting forth the sum of Christian doctrine, a\nprescribed prayer followed, the child was baptized, and the prayer of\nthanksgiving, also prescribed, closed the service.\n\nThe Book of Common Order required that marriages should be celebrated\nin the Church and on the Lord's Day:\n\n\n\"The parties assemble at the beginning of the sermon and the Minister\nat time convenient saith as followeth:\"\n\n\nIn the forms of exhortation and admonition to the contracting parties\nno liberty to vary the address is allowed the minister, but in the one\nprayer which formed a part of the service, viz., the blessing at the\nclose of the ceremony it is ordered:\n\n\n\"The Minister commendeth them to God in this _or such like sort_.\"\n\n\nThe service ended with the singing of an appropriate Psalm.\n\nIn the service for burial of the dead it was ordered by the First Book\nof Discipline that neither singing, prayer, nor preaching should be\nengaged in, and this \"on account of prevailing superstition.\"  In this\nmatter, however, permission was granted to congregations to use their\ndiscretion; Knox, we know, preached a sermon after the burial of the\nRegent Moray, and the directions in the Book of Common Order clearly\nleave much to be determined by the circumstances of the case:\n\n\n\"The corpse is reverently brought to the grave accompanied with the\nCongregation without any further ceremonies: which being buried, the\nMinister, if he be present and required, goeth to the Church, if it be\nnot far off, and maketh some comfortable exhortation to the people\ntouching death and resurrection; then blesseth the people and so\ndismisseth them.\"\n\n\nThis is but one of many instances that show that the early reformers\naccorded to the Church, in matters not absolutely essential to the\npreservation of sound doctrine and Scriptural practice, the greatest\nliberty.  With regard to the administration of the Sacraments and the\npublic worship of God, they laid down well-defined regulations and\noutlines to which conformity was required; in matters that might be\nlooked upon as simply edifying and profitable, liberty was allowed to\nministers and congregations to determine according to their discretion,\nas Knox himself declared with respect to exercises of worship at\nburials:\n\n\n\"We are not so precise but that we are content that particular Kirks\nuse them in that behalf, with the consent of the ministry of the same\nas they will answer to God and Assembly of the Universal Kirk gathered\nwithin the realm.\"\n\n\nWe have thus presented in brief outline the contents of the Book of\nCommon Order, commonly used in Scotland from 1562 to 1645, in so far as\nits regulations refer to public worship and the administration of the\nSacraments.  The book is itself so simple and clear in its statements\nthat it is not difficult to discover the spirit of its compilers, and\ntheir understanding of what was required for the seemly and Scriptural\nobservance of the different parts of Divine worship.  The results of\nour survey may be summed up in a few words.\n\nThe Scottish Church gave a prominent place to prayer, to the reading of\nHoly Scripture, and to praise, in the public worship of God on the\nLord's Day.  Not in any sense do these exercises seem to have been\nregarded as subordinate in importance to the preaching of the Word; the\ncongregations assembled for Divine worship, of which preaching was one\nimportant part.  But even where there was no preaching, the people\nnevertheless came together for Divine worship, in which they were led,\nin the absence of any minister, by persons duly appointed for that\npurpose.\n\nThe service in public worship was not in any of its departments a\nresponsive one.  The only audible part shared by the people was in the\npraise; they did not respond in prayer even to the extent of uttering\nan audible \"Amen,\" nor did they join audibly in any general confession,\nin a declaration of faith as contained in the Apostles' Creed or in any\nother formulary, nor did they even repeat with the minister the Lord's\nPrayer when that model of prayer given by Christ to His disciples was\nused in public worship.\n\nLiberty under the guidance of the Holy Spirit marked the minister's use\nof the forms provided, and the privilege of extempore prayer was\nsacredly guarded, the example of Knox, as well as his precept,\nencouraging his brethren in the ministry to cultivate free and\nunrestricted prayer to God.  In this matter the Church declared her\nbelief in the Holy Ghost and in His presence with her, believing that\nthose who were divinely called to the work of the ministry were by the\nSpirit of God duly equipped for the performance of the important duties\nof that office.  Although forms of prayer were provided, these appear\nto have been intended mainly for the use of the Readers, who were not\nduly ordained to the ministerial office, and for the guidance of\nministers, but IN NO PART OF PUBLIC WORSHIP APART FROM THE SACRAMENTS\nWAS THE MINISTER CONFINED TO THE USE OF PRESCRIBED FORMS.  Even the\nReaders enjoyed a degree of liberty in this matter, a liberty which\nthey exercised, as is evident from an Order of Assembly passed in the\nreign of James forbidding Readers to offer extemporary prayers, but\nrequiring them to use the forms prescribed.\n\nLastly, in the administration of the Sacraments honor was put upon them\nby the care that was observed in their public, reverent and frequent\nobservance.  Simplicity marked all the service connected with these\nholy ordinances, while, at the same time, whatever might appear to\nunduly exalt them to an unscriptural position in the thoughts of men,\nwas carefully avoided, as well in the prayers and exhortations used as\nin the manner of administration.  The Sacraments were regarded as helps\nto the spiritual life of God's elect, as \"medicine for the spiritually\nsick,\" and were never represented as holy mysteries into which only\ncertain of God's children should penetrate.\n\nIf these conclusions are just, it is very evident that those who to-day\nadvocate the introduction into Presbyterian worship of responses and\nprescribed forms can find no support for such a practice, however they\nmight limit it, in Knox's Book of Common Order, or in the practice of\nour Scottish ancestors in this so virile and vigorous period of the\nChurch's history.  Just as little support, too, can those find who\nwould impose upon the ministry of the Church the use of set forms from\nwhich no deviation is to be allowed either in the conduct of public\nworship or in the administration of the Sacraments.  The most that can\nbe argued from this ancient regulation of worship, which is much more\naccurately described as a Directory rather than as a Liturgy, is the\ndesirability of a uniform order of service for the whole Church, of a\ndue proportion of attention to each part of worship, and of the\nconformity by all ministers to a uniform method in the administration\nof the Sacraments.  The Book of Common Order clearly indicates the\nconviction of the Scottish reformers that all things in connection with\nthe worship of God should be done \"in seemly form and according to\norder,\" and it quite as clearly indicates their purpose to acknowledge\nand rely upon the operation of the free Spirit of God, in the exercise\nof that worship and in the performance of the public ordinances in the\nsanctuary.\n\n\n\n\nA Diet of Public Worship in the Time of Knox.\n\n\n\n\"What I have been to my country, albeit this unthankful age will not\nknow, yet the ages to come will be compelled to bear witness to the\ntruth.\"--JOHN KNOX.\n\n\n\nChapter IV.\n\nA Diet of Public Worship in the Time of Knox.\n\nA diet of worship on a Sabbath day in Scotland in the days of Knox, or\nin the period immediately succeeding his death, had for the people of\nthat time a profound interest.  It was a period of storm and upheaval,\nand the Church, with its worship and teaching, was the centre around\nwhich, in large measure, the struggles of the age gathered; and\nalthough for us these struggles are simple history, and the subjects of\ndebate are, many of them, forever laid aside, still it is of interest\nto learn how a service in connection with the public worship of the day\nproceeded in this formative period of Presbyterian practice, when order\nand method were less matters of indifference than they are now.\n\nHappily we are not left without abundant material for forming an\naccurate picture of a Sabbath-day service at that time, for in addition\nto the explicit directions contained in the Book of Common Order, there\nhave come down to us descriptions of public worship by participants\ntherein.\n\nAs early as seven o'clock a bell was rung to warn the people of the\napproach of the hour of worship, and this was followed an hour later by\nanother bell, which summoned the congregation to the place of prayer.\nIt was a congregation of all classes, for in Scotland the Reformed\ndoctrine made its way among the great and the lowly alike.  Writing in\n1641, a refutation of the charge made in England against the Scotch\nthat they \"had no certain rule or direction for their public worship,\nbut that every man, following his extemporary fancy, did preach or pray\nwhat seemed good in his own eyes,\" Alexander Henderson thus describes\nin his reply the congregation in a Scotch Church: \"When so many of all\nsorts, men and women, masters and servants, young and old, as shall\nmeet together, are assembled, the public worship beginneth.\"  In the\nearly days of Presbyterianism the rich and the poor met together,\nrealizing that the Lord was the Maker of them both.\n\nThe congregation assembled in a Church building that was plain in its\ninterior, the plainness being emphasized, and at times rendered\nunsightly, by reason of the removal of the statues and pictures which\nin pre-Reformation times had decorated the walls and pillars.  The\nbuilding was, however, as required by the Book of Discipline, rendered\ncomfortable and suitable for purposes of worship.  It was ordered,\n\"lest that the Word of God and ministration of the Sacraments by\nunseemliness of the place come into contempt,\" there should be made\n\"such preparation within as appertaineth as well to the majesty of the\nWord of God as unto the ease and commodity of the people.\"  Such wise\nwords indicate on the part of our Scottish ancestors an appreciation in\ntheir day of what is all too often even in these happier and more\nenlightened times, forgotten--the importance of having a Church\nbuilding in keeping with the greatness of the cause to which it has\nbeen dedicated, and at the same time suitable and convenient for the\npurposes of public worship.  The narrowness which would forbid beauty\nand artistic decoration and the pride which would sacrifice comfort and\nconvenience for the sake of appearance, were both avoided.  At one end\nof the building stood a pulpit, beside it, or within it, a basin or\nfont for use in the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism, and in\nthe part where formerly the altar had stood, tables were placed for use\nin the observance of the Lord's Supper; at the end of the Church\nopposite to the pulpit was placed a stool of repentance, an article\nfrequently in use in an age when Church discipline was vigorously\nadministered.  Pews were as yet unknown; some churches had permanent\ndesks or benches, to be occupied by men holding public positions, or by\nprominent members of influential guilds, the rest of the people stood\nthroughout the service, or sat upon stools which they brought with them\nto the Church.\n\nThe members of the congregation on entering the Church were expected to\nengage reverently in silent prayer, and at the hour appointed, the\nReader from his desk called upon all present to join in the Public\nWorship of God; he then proceeded to read the Prayer prescribed in the\nBook of Common Order, or, if he so desired, to offer one similar\nthereto in intent; in either case the prayer was a general confession,\nand was followed by a Psalm or Psalms announced by the Reader and sung\nby the whole congregation and ending with the _Gloria Patri_.  Next\ncame the reading of the Scriptures from the Old and New Testaments, the\nreading being continuous through whatever books had been selected.\nThis ended that part of public worship which was conducted by the\nReader, and occupied in all about one hour.\n\nOn the second ringing of the bell, the minister entered the pulpit,\nknelt in silent devotion, and then led the people in prayer \"as the\nSpirit moved his heart;\" this finished, he proceeded to the sermon, to\nwhich the people listened either standing or sitting, as opportunity\nafforded, with their heads covered, and occasionally, if moved thereto,\ngiving vent to their feelings by expressions of applause or\ndisapproval.  After the sermon the minister led the congregation in\nprayer for blessing upon the Word preached and for the general estate\nof Christ's Church: if the Lord's Prayer and the Apostles' Creed were\nemployed in the service (but this was optional with the minister) they\nwere repeated by the minister alone at the close of this prayer, and\nembodied in it; a Psalm was sung by the congregation and the\nBenediction was pronounced, or rather, the Blessing was invoked, for\nthe petitions were framed as supplications: \"The grace of the Lord\nJesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Ghost be\nwith us all: So be it.\"\n\nSuch was the course of an ordinary diet of worship.  If a marriage was\nto be celebrated the parties presented themselves in Church before the\nsermon; the ceremony having been performed, the parties remained,\naccording to regulation, until the close of the public worship.  If the\nSacrament of Baptism was to be administered the infant was presented\nfor the ordinance at the close of the sermon by the father, who was\nattended by one or more sponsors.  When the Lord's Supper was observed\n(which in some congregations was monthly) the tables were spread in\nthat part of the Church which had formerly been the chancel, and as\nmany communicants as could conveniently do so sat down together with\nthe minister.  These, when the tables had been served, gave place to\nothers.\n\nThe services throughout were marked by simplicity, reverence and\nfreedom from strict and unbending forms; liberty characterized their\nevery part, and room was left for the exercise of the guiding Spirit of\nGod, in a measure not enjoyed by Churches tied to the use of a\nprescribed worship; at the same time there was a recognized order and a\nreverent devotion in all parts of the worship which many non-liturgical\nChurches of this day may well covet.  It was a service simple yet\nimpressive, voluntary yet orderly, regulated and yet untrammeled.\n\n\n\n\nThe Period of Controversy, 1614-1645.\n\n\n\n\"They were splintered and torn, but no power could bend or melt them.\nThey dwelt, as pious men are apt to dwell, in suffering and sorrow on\nthe all-disposing power of Providence.  Their burden grew lighter as\nthey considered that God had so determined that they should bear\nit.\"--FROUDE.\n\n\n\nChapter V.\n\nThe Period of Controversy, 1614-1645.\n\nThe years from 1603, the date of James the Sixth's ascent to the united\nthrones of England and Scotland, until 1645 the year of the Westminster\nAssembly, cover one of the most exciting and interesting periods in\nScottish history.  Especially is this period of interest to the student\nof Scottish Church history, because of the influences both direct and\nindirect which the struggles of that time had upon the development of\nthe character and practice of the Presbyterian Church.\n\nThe Book of Common Order had received the authority of the General\nAssembly sitting in Edinburgh in 1564, and for nearly fifty years from\nthat date it was the unchallenged directory for worship and usage in\nthe Scottish Church.  Its use, though not universal, was general, and\nit was uniformly referred to, as well in civil as in ecclesiastical\ncourts, as comprising for the Church the law respecting public worship.\n\nThe first mention of any desire to modify or amend this book occurs in\n1601, in the records of the General Assembly, when a motion was made\nrespecting an improved version of the Bible, a revision of the Psalter\nand an amendment of \"sundry prayers in the Psalm-Book which should be\naltered in respect they are not convenient for the time.\"  The\nAssembly, however, declined to amend the prayers already in the Book,\nor to delete any of them, but ordained that:\n\n\n\"If any brother would have any prayers added, which are meet for the\ntime.... the same first to be tried and allowed by the Assembly.\"\n\n\nThe motion thus proposed, and the action of the General Assembly\nregarding it, is of interest in that it seems plainly to indicate that\nwhatever desire there was for change, this desire was not the result of\na movement in favor of a fuller liturgical service, nor on the other\nhand, of one which had for its object the entire removal of the form of\nworship at that time in use.  To this form, commonly employed, no\nobjection was offered, but owing to changing times and circumstances,\nit was regarded as desirable that the matter contained in the suggested\nforms of prayer should be so modified as to make them more applicable\nto the conditions of the age.\n\nJames the Sixth of Scotland ascended the throne of the united kingdoms\nin 1603, and many of his Presbyterian subjects cherished the hope that\nhis influence would be exerted to conform the practice and worship of\nthe Church of England to that of other Reformed Churches.  In this hope\nthey were destined to severe disappointment, as it very soon became\nevident that the aim of the royal theologian was to reduce to the forms\nand methods of Episcopacy, those of all the Churches within his realm.\nIn considering the subject of Presbyterian worship it will not be\nnecessary to enter fully into the history of the civil struggle between\nthe Church of Scotland and the Stuart Kings except in those phases of\nit which affected the worship of the Church; as these, however, are so\nclosely interwoven with questions of government it will be impossible\nalways to avoid reference to the latter or to keep the two absolutely\ndistinct.\n\nIn 1606 it was decided by the Scottish Parliament that the King was\n\"absolute, Prince, Judge and Governor over all persons, estates, and\ncauses, both spiritual and temporal, within the realm.\"  Four years\nlater the General Assembly, composed of commissioners named by the\nKing, met at Glasgow and issued a decree to the effect that the right\nof calling General Assemblies of the Church belonged to the Crown.\nThis, among other acts of this Assembly, was ratified by the Parliament\nof 1612, and James, having thus secured the position in the Church\nwhich he coveted, proceeded in his endeavors to mould it, as well in\nits worship as in its government and doctrine, to his own views.\n\nThe Church of Scotland was not allowed to remain long in ignorance of\nthe King's purpose.  Early in 1614 a royal order was sent to the\nnorthern kingdom requiring all ministers to celebrate Holy Communion on\nEaster Day, the 24th of April, and this was followed in 1616 by a\nproposal from the King to the General Assembly that \"a liturgy and form\nof divine service should be prepared\" for the use of the Scottish\nChurch.  The Assembly (formed as indicated above) with ready\nacquiescence heartily thanked His Majesty for his royal care of the\nChurch and ordained:\n\n\n\"That a uniform order of Liturgy or divine service be set down to be\nread in all Kirks on the ordinary days of prayer and every Sabbath day\nbefore the sermon, to the end the common people may be acquainted\ntherewith, and by custom may learn to serve God rightly.  And to this\nintent the Assembly has appointed ... to revise the Book of Common\nPrayer contained in the Psalm Book, and to set down a common form of\nordinary service to be used in all times hereafter.\"\n\n\nThe work thus authorized of revising the Book of Common Order was at\nonce undertaken by those appointed thereto, but although a draft was\nmade and much labor was expended upon it during a term of several\nyears, the book in its revised form was never introduced into the\nScottish Church.  By the time it had received its final revision at the\nhands of the King and his Scotch advisors in London, such events had\ntranspired, and such a spirit of opposition had been aroused in\nScotland by other measures, that it was deemed wise to withhold it, and\nthe death of James occurring in 1625, while it was still unpublished,\nthe book in its revised form was retained by Spottiswoode, Bishop of\nSt. Andrew's, and appears to have been forgotten for years, even by its\nmost active promoters.  From correspondence in the time of Charles\nFirst, however, it appears that James had not relinquished his aim of\nimposing the new book upon the Scottish Church, and it is probable that\nhis death alone prevented the attempt being made to carry out his\ncherished purpose.\n\nMuch of the voluminous correspondence, which at this time passed\nbetween James and the leaders of the Scottish Church, is still extant\nand it serves to indicate some of the anticipated changes in the forms\nof worship.\n\nIn the regular worship appointed for the Lord's Day there was to be\nintroduced a liturgy which was to be used before the sermon; the Ten\nCommandments were to be read, and after each of them the people were to\nbe instructed to respond, or, as the rubric directed:\n\n\n\"After every Commandment they ask mercy of God for their transgression\nof the same in this manner,--Lord have mercy upon us and incline our\nhearts to keep this law.\"\n\n\nThere was also an evident purpose to leave less to the discretion of\nthe minister, and to restrict him more closely to the use of provided\nforms in prayer, as well as to regulate more particularly the reading\nof the Scriptures.  A table of Scripture lessons was to be prepared\nshowing the passages proper to be read on each day; prayers were also\nprovided for worship upon saints' days and festivals, in the use of\nwhich there was to be no option, and the privilege of extempore prayer\nin any part of public worship was to be taken from the minister, in\nlarge measure if not entirely.  That this intention was cherished seems\nevident from a discussion in which Spottiswoode engaged with one Hog,\nminister at Dysart.  Hog had defended an action complained of, by\nsaying that his prayer on the occasion referred to had been in\nconformity with Knox's Book of Common Order; in reply Spottiswoode\ndeclared that \"In a short time that Book of Discipline would be\ndischarged and ministers tied to set forms.\"\n\nThe Book was regarded by all as a compromise between the Book of Common\nOrder and the English Prayer Book, and appears to have excited no\nenthusiasm, even among its promoters; it was too subversive of Scottish\ncustom to please those who were loyal to the old usage, and it was not\nsufficiently liturgical to suit James and his like-minded counsellors.\n\nIt has been stated that the transpiring of certain events had delayed\nthe publication of this Liturgy; these events were connected with the\nhistoric \"Articles of Perth.\"  These \"Articles\" were orders, first of\nthe General Assembly of 1618, sitting at Perth and acting under royal\ninstruction, and afterwards of the Parliament which confirmed them in\n1621, enjoining\n\nKneeling at the Communion;\n\nPrivate Communion in cases of sickness;\n\nPrivate Baptism \"upon a great and reasonable cause;\"\n\nEpiscopal Confirmation;\n\nThe observance of the festivals of Christmas, Good Friday, Easter Day,\nAscension Day and Whitsunday.\n\nThe Five Articles were passed in Assembly in spite of vigorous\nopposition on the part of a minority that, nevertheless, represented\nthe most intense feeling of a very large section of the Scottish\npeople.  The first of these Five Articles, that were subversive of so\nmuch for which the reformers had struggled and had at last secured,\nreestablished a practice that could only be regarded by the Church as\nRomish in its tendency, and wholly unscriptural.  It excited the most\nviolent opposition, and secured for itself, even after its approval by\nParliament, determined resistance on the part of the people.\n\nPrevious to this, in 1617, James had by his childish flaunting of the\nservice of the Church of England in the face of the Scottish subjects,\non the occasion of his visit to Edinburgh, estranged the sympathies of\nmany who had previously been not unkindly disposed toward his projects,\nand aroused among the people in general, a deeper and more widespread\nopposition to his scheme of reform than had hitherto made itself\nmanifest.  Some months before his visit he had given orders for the\nre-fitting of the Royal Chapel at Holyrood, and for the introduction of\nan organ, the preparation of stalls for choristers, and the setting up\nwithin the Chapel of statues of the Apostles and Evangelists.  The\norgan and choristers the Scotch could abide, but the proposal of\n\"images\" aroused such an outburst of opposition on the part of the\npeople that James, being advised of it, made a happy excuse of the\nstatues not being yet ready, and withdrew his order for the forwarding\nof them to Scotland.  The services in Holyrood Chapel, however, during\nthe visit of His Majesty to Edinburgh, were all after the Episcopal\nform, \"with singing of choristers, surplices, and playing on organs,\"\nand when a clergyman of the Church of England officiated at the\ncelebration of the Lord's Supper, the majority of those present\nreceived it kneeling.  All this, as may be imagined, had its effect\nupon James's Scottish subjects, but that effect was the opposite of\nwhat he had hoped for.  Instead of inspiring a love for an elaborate\nliturgy, or developing a sympathy between the two kingdoms in matters\nof worship, the result was to antagonize the spirit of the Scots, as\nwell against the proposed changes as against the King, who, with\nchildish pleasure in what he deemed proper, sought to enforce his will\nupon the conscience of the people from whom he had sprung, and among\nwhom he had been educated.  The loyalty of the Scots to the Stuarts is\nproverbial, but though ready to die for their king, to acknowledge him\nas lord of the conscience they could not be persuaded.  A spirit of\nopposition stronger than that which had before existed was developed\nagainst any liturgy in Church worship, and the seeds were sown which\nwere afterwards to bear fruit in the harvest of the Revolution of 1688.\nThis opposition, it may be argued, was not the outcome of a calm\nconsideration of the questions involved, but was an indirect result of\nthe national anger at the attempt of the King to coerce the consciences\nof his subjects.  In any event, so strong was the opposition to any\nchange in the religious worship of the land, that James ceased his\nactive endeavors to carry out his will, and in a message to his\nScottish subjects in 1624 assured them of his desire \"by gentle and\nfair means rather to reclaim them from their unsettled and\nevil-grounded opinions, nor by severity and rigor of justice to inflict\nthat punishment which their misbehavior and contempt merits.\"\n\nWe now come to a period marked by a still more vigorous assault upon\nthe liberties of the Church of Scotland, and by a correspondingly\nvigorous opposition thereto on the part of the Scottish people.\nWilliam Laud, who afterwards became Archbishop of Canterbury, began to\nexert his influence upon the religious life of both England and\nScotland during the closing years of James's reign, but it was in the\nreign of Charles the First, who succeeded his father in 1625, that he\ncame before the world in his sudden and so unfortunate greatness.\nHistory has left but little doubt in the mind of the careful student\nthat Laud's deliberate purpose and persistent influence, both in\nEngland and in Scotland, were towards a revival of Romanism within the\nChurch of which he was a prelate, or at least towards the creation of a\nhigh Anglicanism which would differ but little from the Romish system.\nAdroitly, and frequently concealing his real purpose, he labored to\nthis end, and it is not too much to say that the vigorous and, at last,\nsuccessful opposition to his plans in Scotland, saved the English\nChurch from radical changes which it is clear he was prepared to\nintroduce in the southern Kingdom when his desires for Scotland had\nbeen effected.  England owes to Scotland the preservation of her\nProtestantism on two occasions: first, in the days of Knox, when the\nwork of the sturdy Reformer prevented what must have taken place had a\nCatholic Scotland been prepared to join with Spain in the overthrow of\nProtestant England, and again when Scottish opposition effectively\nnipped in the bud Laud's plans for a Romish movement in both Kingdoms.\n\nThe history of the movement under Laud it is only possible briefly to\nsummarize.  In 1629 Charles revived the subject, to which his father\nhad devoted so much attention, of an improved service in the Church of\nScotland, and wrote to the Scottish Bishops ordering them to press\nforward the matter of an improved liturgy with all earnestness.  As a\nresult, the draft of the Book of Common Prayer prepared in the reign of\nJames was again brought to light and forwarded to Charles, and this\nwould probably have been accepted and authorized for use but for Laud's\ninfluence.  It however was too bald and simple to suit the ritualistic\nArchbishop, who persuaded the King that it would be entirely preferable\nto introduce into Scotland the English Prayer Book without change.\nCorrespondence upon the matter was continued until 1633, when Charles,\naccompanied by Laud, visited Scotland for the purpose of being crowned,\nand also \"to finish the important business of the Liturgy.\"\n\nDuring his stay in Scotland Charles followed the example of his father\nin parading before the people upon every possible occasion the ritual\nof the Church of England, conduct on his part which served only to stir\nup further and more deeply-seated opposition.  Soon after his return to\nEngland he dispatched instructions to the Scottish Bishops requiring\nthem to decide upon a form of liturgy and to proceed with its\npreparation.  His message was in these terms:\n\n\n\"Considering that there is nothing more defective in that Church than\nthe want of a Book of Common Prayer and uniform service to be kept in\nall the Churches thereof ... we are hereby pleased to authorize you ...\nto condescend upon a form of Church service to be used therein.\"\n\n\nSuch a form was accordingly prepared, forwarded to London for the\nKing's approval, and, after revision by Laud, who was commanded by His\nMajesty to give to the Bishops of Scotland his best assistance in this\nwork, it was duly published in 1637, and ordered to be read in all\nChurches of Scotland on the 23rd of July of that year.  The book\nappeared, stamped with the royal approval, elaborately illuminated and\nillustrated, and bearing this title, \"The Book of Common Prayer and\nAdministration of the Sacraments, and other parts of Divine Service,\nfor the use of the Church of Scotland.\"  A royal order accompanied it,\nin which civil authorities were enjoined to\n\n\n\"Command and charge all our subjects, both ecclesiastical and civil, to\nconform themselves to the public form of worship, which is the only\nform of worship which we (having taken counsel of our clergy) think fit\nto be used in God's public worship in this our kingdom.\"\n\n\nThe introduction of this Service Book, as it was called, into public\nworship in St. Giles, Edinburgh, on the day appointed, was the signal\nfor an outburst of popular indignation that was as fire to the heather\nin the land.  On that occasion the Archbishop of St. Andrew's was\npresent with the Bishop of Edinburgh, but when the Dean rose to read\nthe new service, even the presence of such dignitaries was not\nsufficient to restrain the pent-up feelings of the congregation.  Such\na clamor arose as made it impossible for the Dean to proceed, books and\nother missiles were freely thrown, and a stool, hurled by the\ntraditional Jenny Geddes, narrowly missed the Dean's head, whereupon\nthat dignitary fled precipitately, followed by the more forcible than\nelegant ejaculation of the wrathful woman, \"Out thou false thief; dost\nthou say mass at my lug?\"  The riot in Edinburgh was the signal for\nsimilar manifestations of popular feeling throughout the land, the\nnational spirit was aroused, and the stately fabric which Charles and\nLaud, supported by a prelatic party in Scotland, had been laboriously\nrearing for years, was overthrown in a day.\n\nThis feeling of opposition on the part of the people to the\nintroduction of a liturgy into the Church of Scotland, found due and\nofficial expression in the following year.  The General Assembly\nmeeting at Glasgow repudiated Laud's Liturgy and appealed repeatedly to\nthe Book of Common Order as containing the Law of the Church respecting\nworship.  In his eloquent closing address the Moderator, Alexander\nHenderson, said: \"and now we are quit of the Service Book, which was a\nbook of service and slavery indeed, the Book of Canons which tied us in\nspiritual bondage, the Book of Ordination which was a yoke put upon the\nnecks of faithful ministers, and the High Commission which was a guard\nto keep us all under that slavery.\"  The people also in formal manner\nexpressed their mind on the matter and in the Solemn League and\nCovenant, signed in Gray friars Churchyard, asserted their purpose to\ndefend, even unto death, the true religion, and to \"labor by all means\nlawful to recover the purity and liberty of the Gospel as it was\nestablished and professed before the late innovations.\"  Charles at\nfirst determined upon extreme measures, and preparations were made to\nforce \"the stubborn Kirk of Scotland to bow,\" but wiser measures\nprevailed, and the desires of the Church of Scotland were for the time\ngranted.\n\nThe Book of Common Order, thus reaffirmed as the law of the Church\nrespecting worship, continued in use during the years following the\nGlasgow Assembly of 1638, years which for Scotland were comparatively\npeaceful, by reason of the troubles fast thickening around the English\nthrone.\n\nThis interesting chapter of Scottish history which we have thus briefly\nreviewed, is of value to us in the present discussion only in so far\nas, from the facts presented, we are able to understand the spirit that\ncharacterized the Church of Scotland at this period, and the principles\nthat guided them in their attitude toward the subject of public\nworship.  What this spirit and those principles were it is not\ndifficult to discover.  The facts themselves are plain; not only did\nthe Church in its regularly constituted courts oppose the introduction\nof new forms and the elaboration of the Church service, but the people\nresisted by every means in their power, and at last went the length of\nresisting by force of arms, the attempt to impose upon them the new\nService Book.\n\nIt is asserted that the chief, if not the only cause of this resistance\nwas, first, an element of patriotism which in Scotland opposed\nuniformly any measure which seemed to subordinate the national customs\nto those of England, and secondly, the righteous and conscientious\nobjection of Presbyterians to having imposed upon them by any external\nauthority, a form of worship and Church government which their own\necclesiastical authorities had not approved, and which they themselves\nhad not voluntarily accepted.  The objection, in a word, is said to\nhave been not to a liturgy as such, but to a _foreign_ liturgy and to\none _imposed_.\n\nIt cannot be denied that these were important elements in the\nopposition of the Scottish people to the projects of Charles.  Many of\nthem, for one or other of these reasons, opposed the King's command,\nwho had no conscientious scruples with regard either to the form or\nsubstance of Laud's liturgy.  Too much is claimed, however, when the\nassertion is made that there was no real objection among the people to\nthe introduction of an elaborated service such as that which was\nproposed.  The liberty of free prayer so dear to the Scottish reformers\nwas, if not entirely denied, largely encroached upon; a responsive\nservice, to which, in common with the great leaders of Geneva, Knox and\nMelville had been so uniformly opposed, was introduced; and\nparticularly in the service for the administration of the Sacrament of\nthe Lord's Supper, forms of words were employed which seemed to teach\ndoctrines rejected by the reformers.  Here then was abundant ground for\nopposition to Laud's liturgy when judged on its merits, and this ground\nthe stern theologians of that day were not likely to overlook.\n\nNor is it to be forgotten that in the many supplications which from\ntime to time were presented to the King both from Church and State\nagainst the introduction of the Service Book, the anti-English plea\nnever found a place, but uniformly, reference was made in strong terms\nto the unscriptural form of worship suggested for adoption by the\nScottish people, together with a protest against the arrogant\nimposition upon them of a form of service not desired.  Persistently in\nthese supplications the subscribers expressed their desire that there\nshould be no change in the form of worship to which they had been\naccustomed, and prayed for a continuance of the liberty hitherto\nenjoyed.  In a complaint laid before the Privy Council the Service Book\nand Canons are described as \"containing the seeds of divers\nsuperstitions, idolatry and false doctrine,\" and as being \"subversive\nof the discipline established in the Church.\"  The Earl of Rothes in an\naddress spoke thus: \"Who pressed that form of service contrary to the\nlaws of God and this kingdom?  Who dared in their conventicles contrive\na form of God's public worship contrary to that established by the\ngeneral consent of this Church and State?\"  And that the _form_ of\nworship ever held a prominent place in the discussions of the time,\nappears from a letter supposed to have been written by Alexander\nHenderson, in which he defends the Presbyterian Church against a charge\nof disorder and neglect of seemly procedure in worship; he says, \"The\nform of prayers, administration of the Sacraments, etc., which are set\ndown before their Psalm Book, and to which the ministers are to conform\nthemselves, is a sufficient witness; for although they be not tied to\nset forms and words, yet are they not left at random, but for\ntestifying their consent and keeping unity they have their Directory\nand prescribed Order.\"\n\nWhile it is true, therefore, that the high-handed conduct of the King\nin forcing upon an unwilling people a form of service already\ndistasteful because of its foreign associations, was doubtless an\nimportant element in arousing the vigorous opposition with which it was\nmet, nevertheless, there is abundant evidence to show that apart from\nany such consideration, the spirit of the Church of Scotland was\nentirely hostile to the introduction of further forms, to the\nelaboration of their simple service, and to the imposition upon their\nministers of prescribed prayers from which in public worship they would\nnot be allowed to depart.\n\n\n\n\nThe Westminster Assembly and the Directory of Worship.\n\n\n\nIf the Assembly's Directory increased liberty, it also augmented\nresponsibility.  If it took away the support of set and prescribed\nforms on which the indolent might lean and even sleep, this was done to\nthe avowed intent that those who conducted public services might the\nmore industriously prepare for them; and thereunto the more diligently\nstir up the gifts of God within them.--REV. EUGENE DANIEL.\n\n\n\nChapter VI.\n\nThe Westminster Assembly and the Directory of Worship.\n\nPrior to the year 1638 the Church of Scotland, in its struggle to\npreserve its form of worship, had to contend with the advocates of\nprelacy and ritualism, but now opposition to the established practice\narose from another quarter.\n\nIn connection with every great reform there are apt to arise\nextravagant movements, the promoters of which see only one side of\nconfessedly important truths, and so carry to undue excess some phase\nof reform which, in properly balanced measure, would have been\nrighteous and desirable.  So it was in the period of the Reformation.\nAmong the several sectaries which had their origin in the Reformed\nChurch was a company called Brownists, an extreme section of the\nIndependents, who took their name from their founder, one Robert\nBrowne, an Englishman and a preacher, although a rejecter of ordination\nand a protester against the necessity of any official license for the\nwork of the ministry.  It was a part of their creed to object to any\nregulation of public worship, and even to many of the simplest\nceremonies which had hitherto been retained by the Reformed Churches.\nIn Scotland they opposed, as they had done elsewhere, all reading of\nprayers, and, in particular, the kneeling of the minister for private\ndevotions on entering the pulpit, the repeating of the Lord's Prayer in\nany part of the public service, and the singing of the _Gloria Patri_\nat the end of the Psalm.  The movement, let it be said, although it\ntook an extreme form, had its spring in the deep disgust and shame felt\nby many pious souls at the laxity and formality which characterized\nreligious life in England during the earlier part of the Stuart period.\n\nThe unwise policy of Charles in seeking to force upon the Scottish\nChurch a liturgical service, had produced in the minds of many its\nnatural result, creating extreme views in opposition to all prescribed\nforms of worship.  The Brownists, therefore, found in Scotland a large\nfollowing, and a rapidly increasing section of the Church began\ngradually to depart even from the forms and suggestions of the Book of\nCommon Order, and to adopt a still less restricted form of service.\nAgainst these irregularities the General Assemblies of 1639 and 1640\nlegislated, and yet in such terms as seem to indicate that already the\nmind of the Church at large was being prepared for change.  It was\nordained by the first of the Assemblies referred to that\n\n\n\"No novation in worship should be suddenly enacted, but that Synods,\nPresbyteries and Kirks should be advised with before the Assembly\nshould authorize any change.\"\n\n\nThe desire for greater freedom in worship continued to increase, until\nin 1643 the General Assembly appointed a committee with instructions to\nprepare, and have in readiness for the next Assembly, a Directory for\nDivine Worship in the Church of Scotland.  This was a distinct\nconcession to that section of the Church which was opposed to even the\nsimplest forms of an optional liturgy.  The work, however, was\nsuperseded by a similar undertaking on a larger scale, in virtue of an\ninvitation from the members of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster\nto the Church of Scotland to join with them in the preparation, among\nother standards, of a Directory of Worship for the use of the Churches\nof both England and Scotland.  The invitation was accepted with\nreadiness, and \"certain ministers of good word, and representative\nelders highly approved of by their brethren,\" were elected to represent\nthe Scottish Church in this great work.  These men were Baillie,\nHenderson, Rutherford, Gillespie and Douglas, ministers, with Johnston,\nof Warriston, and Lords Cassilis and Maitland as lay representatives;\nArgyle, Balmerinoch and Loudon were afterwards added.  The work was\nduly prosecuted at Westminster, and, although the Scotch Commissioners\nwith reluctance relinquished their Book of Common Order, yet for the\nsake of the uniformity in worship which they hoped to see established\nthroughout England, Scotland and Ireland, they joined heartily in the\nwork, and carried it when completed to the Assembly of the Church of\nScotland, by which it was duly examined, slightly amended in the\ndirections concerning baptism and marriage, and finally, unanimously\napproved in all its parts, and adopted.  The terms in which the\nAssembly expressed its approval of this work are unreserved:\n\n\n\"The General Assembly, having most seriously considered, revised and\nexamined the Directory aforementioned, after several public readings of\nit, after much deliberation, both publicly and in private committees,\nafter full liberty given to all to object against it, and earnest\ninvitations of all who have any scruples about it, to make known the\nsame, that they might be satisfied, doth unanimously, and without a\ncontrary voice, agree to and approve the following Directory in all the\nheads thereof, together with the preface set before it; and doth\nrequire, decern and ordain that, according to the plain tenor and\nmeaning thereof and the intent of the preface, it be carefully and\nuniformly observed and practised by all the ministers and others within\nthis Kingdom whom it doth concern.\"\n\n\nThe Scottish Parliament likewise gave its approval of the Directory,\nwhich was accordingly in due time prepared for publication, and issued\nunder the title, \"A Directory for the Public Worship of God throughout\nthe three kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland; with an Act of the\nGeneral Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland for establishing and observing\nthis present Directory;\" and thus the Westminster Directory became the\nprimary authority on matters of worship and administration of the\nSacraments within the Church of Scotland.\n\nIts use, however, during the years immediately following its adoption\nappears to have been by no means general, many still adhering to the\nmethod of the Book of Common Order, others inclining towards an even\ngreater freedom than seemed to them to be permitted by the Directory.\nThese latter belonged to that section of the Church afterwards known as\nProtesters, and whose opposition to the use of the Lord's Prayer and\nthe Creed, as well ay to prescribed forms of prayer, was most\npronounced.  Events soon occurred which exerted a strong influence in\nfavor of absolute liberty in worship, and which effectively\nstrengthened the Protesters in the position which they had assumed.\n\nIn 1651 there took place at Scone the unhappy crowning of Charles the\nSecond by the Scots.  This act placed Scotland in open opposition to\nCromwell, and as a result the land was brought under his iron-handed\nrule during the remaining years of the Protectorate.  The effect of\nthis on the worship of the Church was to introduce into Scotland the\nmethods of worship approved by the Independents, to whom those parties\nin Scotland which were opposed to all prescribed forms or regulation of\nworship, now attached themselves.  Worship after the Presbyterian form\nwas not disallowed, but the preachers of Cromwell's army, with the\napproval of an increasing party in the Scottish Church, forced\nthemselves into the pulpits of the land and conducted worship in a\nmanner approved of by themselves.  In these services preaching occupied\nthe most prominent place, and to worship, as such, but scant attention\nwas given, so that in 1653 the ministers of the city of Edinburgh,\nfinding complaints among the people that in the services of the Sabbath\nday there was no reading of Scripture nor singing of Psalms, took steps\nto have these parts of worship resumed.  While the public worship of\nthe Church of Scotland during the period of the Commonwealth cannot be\nsaid to have had any general uniformity, it is evident that the\ninfluence of Independency upon it was toward the curtailment of form\nand the granting of absolute liberty to every preacher to conduct\nworship in whatever way seemed good to himself.  It was the swing of\nthe pendulum to the opposite extreme from the enforced order of Laud's\nLiturgy.  It is doubtful if this erratic period would have left any\npermanent effect upon the religious life and worship of Scotland, had\nit not been for the formation of a party in sympathy with the political\nprinciples of the Protector.  This party, being forced into political\nopposition to the supporters of royalty, naturally found themselves,\nthrough their associations, prejudiced in favor of the religious\nprinciples and practices of those with whom they stood allied in the\nstate; and thus it was that a strong party favoring absolute liberty in\nmatters of worship arose in the Scottish Church.\n\nThe restoration of Charles the Second in 1660 brought with it the\ndisavowal on his part of the Covenant to which he had subscribed, and\nthe open rejection of the Presbyterian principles to which he had been\nso readily loyal in the day of his distress.  Episcopacy was restored\nas the form of Church government for Scotland, and bishops were\nconsecrated; but it was left to time and the gradual power of imitation\nto secure the introduction of a ritual into the worship of the Church.\nCharles the Second and his minion, Sharp, did not deem it wise to\nundertake a work in which Charles the First and Laud had so signally\nfailed, the work of imposing a ritual of worship upon the Scottish\nChurch; Episcopal government had been imposed, Episcopal worship it was\nhoped would follow.  In both of his aims, however, though sought by\nsuch different methods, Charles was doomed to disappointment.  As\nimpotent as was the royal command, though backed by every form of\ndeprivation of right and of cruel persecution, to secure the acceptance\nby Scotland of an Episcopal Church, so impotent was the service,\nconducted by royal hirelings and conforming curates, to inspire the\npeople with any love for formal worship.  It was, further, in\ncomparatively few of the Churches of Scotland that any attempt was made\nto introduce the service of the English Prayer Book.  In the now\nEpiscopal Churches of the land, a form of worship which gave a place to\nthe Lord's Prayer, the Gloria Patri, the Apostles' Creed, and the\nDecalogue, was regarded as satisfactory.  Public worship, therefore, at\nthis time may be said to have been simply a return to the method\nsuggested, but not required, in the time of Knox; but even these\nhistoric Scottish forms, by reason of their association with an\nenforced Episcopacy, became increasingly distasteful to that large body\nof the Scots who refused to conform to the Church by law established,\nand who, as a result, were driven to the moors and the hill-sides,\nthere to worship God as conscience prompted.\n\nThe Protesters, the party to which the majority of the Covenanters\nbelonged, had always been opposed to anything savoring of ritual in\nworship.  But their opposition was intensified and deepened during the\ntwenty-eight years of the \"killing time,\" as they saw the worship of\nthe party from which their persecutors arose, characterized chiefly by\nthe acceptance of those forms against which they had entered their\nprotest in former days.  Even in the case of those whose consciences\npermitted them to conform to the established religion of the land and\nto wait on the ministry of the conforming clergy, there was developed,\nthrough sympathy with their persecuted countrymen, hunted on the hills\nand tracked to their hiding places like quarry, a suspicion of even the\nforms of a religion that permitted such cruelties.  And thus it was\nthat when the deliverer alike for England and Scotland arrived from the\n\"hollow land,\" where behind their dykes the conquerors of the Spaniards\nhad won for themselves the privilege of religious liberty, Scotland was\nprepared to join in the welcome given to William of Orange, and to hail\nwith delight the prospect of a restored Presbyterianism and its\ninherent liberty.  Most heartily, therefore, was it that the leaders in\nScotland, alike in Church and State, subscribed to the request\npresented to William, \"That Presbyterian government be restored and\nre-established as it was at the beginning of our Reformation from\nPopery, and renewed in the year 1638, continuing until 1660.\"\n\n\n\n\nLegislation concerning Public Worship in the Period subsequent to the\nRevolution of 1688.\n\n\n\n\"Religion shall rise from its ruins; and its oppressed state at present\nshould not only excite us to pray, but encourage us to hope, for its\nspeedy revival.\"--DR. WITHERSPOON.\n\n\n\nChapter VII.\n\nLegislation concerning Public Worship in the Period subsequent to the\nRevolution of 1688.\n\nIn 1689 the first Parliament under William and Mary was held, and their\nMajesties promised to establish by law \"that form of Church government\nwhich is most agreeable to the inclinations of the people.\"  In\naccordance with this promise the Confession of Faith, adopted in 1645,\nwas in the following year declared to be for Scotland \"the public and\navowed confession of this Church,\" and an Order was issued summoning a\nGeneral Assembly, the first since the forcible dissolution of the\nAssembly of 1653 by Cromwell's dragoons.  No Act was passed at this\ntime concerning public worship, nor was the authority of the Directory\naffirmed, but, whether by intention or through neglect, it was left to\nthe Church to adjust matters pertaining to this subject, without formal\ninstruction from Parliament.  Considering, however, that the\ncontrolling party in the Church was the one that had suffered\npersecution, and whose well-known feelings on the subject of worship\nhad been intensified by long and severe suffering, it is not to be\nwondered at if the changes and adjustments effected in church worship\nand discipline should in large measure bear the stamp of their extreme\nopinions.  So far as legislation is concerned, however, moderation and\nfairness marked all the proceedings of the Church, for in the Assembly\nof 1690, which was largely composed of those whose sympathies were with\nthe Protesters, no action whatever was taken for the regulation of\npublic worship, the only Act having any reference thereto being one\nwhich forbade private administration of the Sacraments.  But although\nthe form of worship was not affected by legislation, it is evident from\ncontemporary writings that the spirit of the Protesters survived, and\nexerted itself in fostering, in many parts of the land, a sentiment\neven more hostile to everything that might savor of even the simplest\nritual.\n\nThe references of the Assemblies that followed the Revolution show that\nthe Directory of Worship as adopted by the Westminster Divines, and\nafterwards by the Church and Parliament of Scotland, was at this time\nregarded as the authority in matters of worship, and it was to worship,\nas so regulated, that the Act of 1693 referred.  This Act pertaining to\n\"The Uniformity of Worship\" ordained:\n\n\n\"That uniformity of worship and of the administration of all public\nordinances within this Church be observed by all the said ministers and\npreachers as the same are at present performed and allowed therein, or\nshall be hereafter declared by the authority of the same, and that no\nminister or preacher be admitted or continued hereafter unless that he\nsubscribe to observe, and do actually observe, the aforesaid\nuniformity.\"\n\n\nThe General Assembly, in the following year, in accordance with this\ncivil legislation, prepared a form for subscription in which the\nsubscribing minister promised to \"observe uniformity of worship and of\nthe administration of all public ordinances within this Church, as the\nsame are at present performed and allowed.\"  In the same year reference\nis made in an \"Act anent Lecturing\" to the \"Custom introduced and\nestablished by the Directory.\"\n\nIt is evident, therefore, that at this period the Directory was\nregarded by the Church as the authority, and the only authority, in\nmatters pertaining to worship.  In spite of Acts requiring uniformity,\nhowever, there were still within the Church those who sought to\nintroduce changes, some of these desiring the introduction of an\nimposed ritual, others regarding absolute congregational liberty in\nmatters of worship as desirable.  As a result of divergent views and\npractices there was passed by the Assembly of 1697 the Barrier Act, for\nthe purpose of\n\n\n\"Preventing any sudden alteration or innovation or other prejudice to\nthe Church in either doctrine or worship or discipline or government\nthereof, now happily established.\"\n\n\nThis was the formal and particular enactment of the principle laid down\ntwo generations earlier, when in 1639 the Church, disturbed by the\nBrownists, had ordained that \"no novation in worship should be suddenly\nenacted.\"\n\nOne other Act of Assembly in this period must be quoted as showing the\nfeeling in Scotland at this time with regard to ritual in the Church.\nIt resulted from a determined effort on the part of some Episcopalians\nto introduce, wherever possible, the English Book of Common Prayer into\nthe services of the Church in Scotland.  The Assembly accordingly\nenacted that:\n\n\n\"The purity of religion and particularly of Divine Worship ... is a\nsignal blessing to the Church of God-- ... and that any attempts made\nfor the introduction of innovations in the worship of God therein have\nbeen of fatal and dangerous consequence ... that such innovations are\ndangerous to this Church and manifestly contrary to our known principle\n(which is, that nothing is to be admitted in the worship of God but\nwhat is prescribed in the Holy Scripture) and against the good and\nlaudable laws made since the late happy Revolution for establishing and\nsecuring the same in her doctrine, worship, discipline and government.\"\nTherefore the Church required \"all the ministers of this Church ... to\nrepresent to their people the evil thereof and seriously to exhort them\nto beware of them, and to deal with all such as do or practise the same\nin order to their recovery and reformation.\"\n\n\nThe above enactment leaves no room for doubt as to the opinion\nprevailing in the Church of Scotland at the beginning of the eighteenth\ncentury respecting ritual in the public worship of God.  At the same\ntime it is very evident that a desire prevailed in the Church for a\nseemly and uniform order of service in public worship and an Act of the\nAssembly of 1705\n\n\n\"Seriously recommends to all ministers and others within this national\nChurch the due observance of the Directory for public worship of God\napproven by the General Assembly held in the year 1645.\"\n\n\nThis deliverance may be taken as representing the spirit of all\nlegislation of the Church respecting worship up to the middle of the\npresent century.  Whenever, in response to overtures from subordinate\ncourts, or inspired by special requirements of the times, deliverances\nconcerning any part of worship were prepared by the Assembly, they\nuniformly directed the Church to the observance of the regulation of\nthis department of Divine service as provided for in the Westminster\nDirectory.\n\nIt cannot be claimed, however, that due regard was accorded the\nDirectory throughout the whole Church.  The last half of the eighteenth\ncentury was a time of spiritual coldness in Scotland; not only did\nevangelical piety languish but there existed at the same time a\ncorresponding want of interest in the worship of the Church.  Praise\nwas neglected, and little effort was made to secure suitable singing of\nthe Psalms; at times the reading of Scripture was entirely omitted,\nprayers were brief and meagre, the sermon was regarded as in itself\nsufficient for the whole service, and all other parts of public worship\nwere looked upon either as preliminaries or subordinate exercises, not\ncalling for any particular preparation or attention.  It was a time\nwhen spiritual life was low, and the outward expression of that life\nexhibited a corresponding want of vigor.  The evil, therefore, from\nwhich the Church suffered at this period was not an excess of attention\nto worship, but a neglect of it; not a too great elaboration of forms,\nbut an almost total disregard of them, even of such as are helpful to\nthe development of the spiritual life of the worshipper.  And thus it\ncame to pass that the struggle of more than a century against the use\nof prescribed forms of worship resulted in a condition more extreme\nthan had been either anticipated or desired, for not only were such\nforms abandoned, but worship itself was neglected and disregarded.\n\nIn reviewing the period subsequent to the rejection of Laud's Liturgy\nand up to the time of the First Secession within the Church of\nScotland, some features that mark the general trend of the spirit of\nPresbyterianism with regard to worship are clearly manifest.\n\nFirst, in the rapid growth of the sect of the Brownists and their\nsympathizers, a growth that had been rendered the easier by the\narbitrary acts of Charles and Laud in a preceding period, we find a\nclear indication of the spread of opinions strongly opposed to the use\nof prescribed forms of prayer and, indeed, of any ritual in the\nexercises of public worship.  It may be urged, as has already been\nremarked, that this opposition was not the result of an unprejudiced\nconsideration of the subject on its merits, but that it was rather an\noutcome of the spirit which had been aroused by the persecutions\nthrough which the Stuarts had endeavored to force a ritual upon the\nChurch of Scotland.  This may be granted, and yet it is not to be\nforgotten that many of those who held these views were among the\nexcellent of their age, men who did not hesitate to bear persecution\nand to endure hardness as good soldiers of Christ for conscience' sake,\nand who, while doubtless influenced by the sentiments of those who\nstood to them either in the relation of friends or foes, were not men\nto allow prejudice to blind both reason and conscience alike.  They had\nfound a ritualistic worship associated with practices which they could\nnot but judge to be ungodly and unjust, and engaged in by men who made\nmuch of form, but little of truth and charity and justice.  It is not\nsurprising, therefore, that in their desire for a revived spiritual\nlife in the Church they should consider such a life to be most\neffectively forwarded by a departure from those forms that had been\nassociated with the decay of true religion in their midst.\n\nBut, in the second place, this sentiment in favor of absolute freedom\nfrom form was not confined to sectaries or their sympathizers in the\nChurch, it made itself manifest among the leaders of religion in the\nland and in the Church courts.  The proposal of the General Assembly of\n1643 to prepare a Directory of Worship, and the subsequent action of\nthe Scottish Church in uniting with the Westminster Divines in the\npreparation of that Directory, clearly indicate that the Church had\nchanged its attitude since the day in which the Assembly refused to\nalter any of the prayers in the Book of Common Order.  The adoption of\nthe Directory by the Scottish Church was in a measure an endorsation of\nthe views of those who were opposed to the use of prescribed forms, and\nwhile it is true that the Scotch Commissioners would have preferred the\nretention of parts of the Book of Common Order, it is surely\ninstructive that even these men were prepared to abandon all forms for\nworship and to accept simply a regulative Directory.  The enthusiastic\nendorsation accorded the Directory, both by Parliament and by the\nAssembly, is a further indication that the spirit of the Church of\nScotland had undergone whatever slight change was necessary to make it\nfavorable to a simple regulation of public worship, unhampered by\nanything that had even the appearance of a ritual.\n\nThe introduction of the Directory into Scotland, it is true, effected a\nvery slight change in the method of conducting public worship.  Indeed,\na comparison of the order of service as laid down in the Directory with\nthat prescribed by the Book of Common Order shows the order of Worship\nto be the same in both.  And thus it was that Baillie, in addressing\nthe Assembly, and expressing his satisfaction at what had been\naccomplished, declared it to be a most remarkable distinction \"that the\npractice of the Church of Scotland set down in a most wholesome, pious\nand prudent Directory, should come in the place of a Liturgy in all the\nthree Dominions.\"  By the adoption of the Directory all the substance\nof the worship of the Church of Scotland was retained with the order\nlikewise of its different parts, but the suggested forms were\nsurrendered, and even prayers, which owing to the circumstances of an\nearlier age had been retained and submitted for discretional use, were\nlaid aside.  No mention was made in the Directory of the use of the\nGloria, nor did the creed find a place either in public worship or in\nthe administration of the Sacraments, but the Lord's Prayer was\nmentioned as being \"not only a pattern of prayer, but itself a\ncomprehensive prayer,\" and a recommendation was accordingly made that\nit should be \"used in the prayers of the Church.\"\n\nIt is evident, therefore, that the spirit of the Presbyterian Church\nwas still strongly in favor of worship regulated in its order and\nproviding for all the different spiritual exercises authorized by\nScripture, but which at the same time should be free from any imposed\nforms from which worshippers should not be allowed to deviate.  Of the\nopinion of the Church of Scotland at this time on the dire effects\nproduced by the use of a ritual in the cultivation of formality among\nthe people, and in the encouragement of a lifeless ministry in the\nChurch, there can be no question, as the adoption of the terms of the\npreface to the Directory clearly shows.  With the experience of the\nEnglish Church of that age before them as an object lesson of the evil\neffects of ritualistic worship, the Presbyterian Church was not\nunwilling to abandon the use of all imposed forms, and to give itself\nrather to the cultivation and development of a truly spiritual worship.\n\nAnd finally, the spirit thus planted and fostered in Scotland, was\nintensified during the persecutions which followed the restoration of\nCharles the Second.  So firmly was this opposition to an imposed form\nof worship implanted in the hearts of Presbyterians that, alike at the\nRevolution and again at the time when the terms from the \"Act of Union\"\nbetween England and Scotland were under consideration the most earnest\nrepresentations were made, to the end that there should be no change in\nthe worship of the Scottish Church, but that the freedom in this\nmatter, so prized and so dearly won, should be secured to the people of\nScotland.\n\nThe Church of Scotland then, it may safely be said, moved ever in the\ndirection of securing greater liberty in worship, rather than towards\nan increase of ritual and an imposition of form.  Every succeeding\nperiod in her history, whether we judge from the general spirit\ncharacterizing the people or from the official acts of the Parliament\nand the Church, shows a growing distaste for a liturgical worship and\nan increasing appreciation of liberty in all matters pertaining to the\napproach of the soul to God.  The Church of Scotland rejected, on the\none hand, the extreme positions of sectaries who condemned alike a\ncombined system of Church government, the celebration of marriage in\nthe Church, the use in worship of the Lord's Prayer and all regulations\neven of the order of Divine worship, and on the other hand it resisted\nsuccessfully the strongest Anglican influences which would have\ndeprived it of the liberty it prized and would have circumscribed that\nliberty by a ritual.  It retained dignity and order, while it rejected\nboth the license of extravagance and the bondage of form.\n\n\n\n\nPresbyterian Worship Outside of the Established Church of Scotland.\n\n\n\nWhether they were right or wrong ... no man of fairness will fail to\nallow that the record of the Seceders all through the period of\ndecadence was a noble one, a record of splendid service to the cause of\nChrist and the historic Church of Scotland.--M'CRIE.\n\n\n\nChapter VIII.\n\nPresbyterian Worship Outside of the Established Church of Scotland.\n\nNo review of Presbyterian Worship would be complete which failed to\nconsider the spirit which has characterized those large sections of the\nChurch which exist in Scotland outside of the Establishment, and those\nalso which have been planted and fostered in the New World.\n\nIn 1733 the first Secession Church was formed, when Ebenezer Erskine,\nWilliam Wilson, Alexander Moncrieff, and James Fisher, protesting\nagainst what they regarded as the unjust treatment accorded them by the\nprevailing party in the Church, were declared to be no longer members\nof the Church of Scotland.  This Secession Church enjoyed a rapid\ngrowth, and soon came to form a very influential section in the\nPresbyterianism of the land.  Its principles and practices with regard\nto worship show that same suspicion of a ritual and partiality for a\nfree form of worship which has always characterized the Presbyterian\nChurch in the days of her greatest vigor.  In 1736 this Church\npublished its judicial testimony, in which it declared its loyalty to\nthe Directory of Worship as the same was approved by the Assembly of\n1645.  Some years later one section of this Church, known as the\nAntiburgher, published a condemnation of the corruptions of worship as\nwitnessed in England and Wales, and at a subsequent period a further\nmanifesto, in which the reading by ministers of their sermons in the\npublic ministry of the Word was condemned, as was also \"the conduct of\nthose adult persons who, in ordinary circumstances, either in public,\nin private, or in secret, restrict themselves to set forms of prayer,\nwhether these be read or repeated.\"  The same manifesto, in a part\ntreating of Psalmody, claimed for the Psalms Divine authority, as\nsuitable for the service of praise, in the Christian as well as in the\nOld Testament dispensation, but acknowledged that, in addition to\nthese, \"others contained in the New Testament itself may be sung in the\nordinance of Praise.\"\n\nSimilar to this position was that of the United Associate Synod, which,\nformed in 1820, published, seven years later, its views on the subject\nof worship.  It condemned \"the conduct of adult persons who restricted\nthemselves to set forms of prayer, whether read or whether repeated;\"\nit acknowledged also that other parts of Scripture besides the Psalms\nwere suitable for praise, and, with regard to the use of the Lord's\nPrayer in public worship, a matter which had caused much discussion\nwithin the Church in earlier times, it asserted that:\n\n\n\"As Scripture Doxologies and the Divinely-approved petition of saints\nmay be warrantably adopted in our devotional exercises, both public and\npersonal, so may the Lord's Prayer be used by itself or in connection\nwith other supplications.\"\n\n\nOther manifestos were published from time to time by different bodies\nas separations or unions took place, for the early part of the past\ncentury was a period of frequent divisions and of more happy unions.\nBut while differences existed with regard to the use of paraphrases and\nhuman hymns in the service of praise, on the general subject of\nsimplicity of worship and absence of prescribed forms, the manifestos\nprevious to the middle of the century were a unit.  As late indeed as\n1872, in a deliverance of the United Presbyterian Church upon the\nsubject of instrumental music in public worship, this jealousy of\nsimplicity in worship hitherto enjoyed is evident.  To a consideration\nof that subject this Church had been led by the example of the\nEstablished Church in securing to its congregations liberty of action\nin the matter.  The United Presbyterian Synod, in a deliverance in\nwhich it declined to pronounce judgment upon the introduction of\ninstrumental music in Divine service, proceeded to urge upon the courts\nof the Church, and upon individual ministers, the duty of guarding\nanxiously the simplicity of worship in the sanctuary.  Not until recent\nyears has any considerable section of the Presbyterian Church shown a\ntendency to return to the bondage of a ritual.\n\nThe views of the bodies above referred to will be differently estimated\nby different men.  Some will be inclined to regard the Secessionists as\nnarrow in spirit and severe in their simplicity, and as often failing\nto exhibit a due regard for the beauty of holiness that should\ncharacterize Divine worship.  It will surely, however, indicate on the\npart of those who read their history a want of appreciation if they\nfail to recognize the sturdy spiritual life which, forming, as it ever\ndoes, the truest foundation for right views of religion, marked these\nmen of whom an eminent leader in the religious life of Scotland has\nsaid \"they stood for Truth and Light in days when the battle went sore\nagainst them both; and as long as Truth and Light are maintained in\nScotland it will not be forgotten that a great share of the honor of\nhaving carried them safe through some of our darkest days, was given by\nGod to the Seceders.\"\n\nThe period of the disruption in Scotland was one of such struggle\nconcerning great and fundamental principles of Church government, that\nthe Free Church, during the first quarter of a century of its existence\nas a separate communion, had little time to devote to a consideration\nof the subject of worship; with the work of organization at home, and\nafterwards in seeking to carry forward evangelization abroad it was\nfully occupied.  It was for the Free Church, as also for the\nEstablished Church, a period of revival and of new life, and at such a\ntime men think but little of form and method, finding spiritual\nsatisfaction in the voluntary and spontaneous worship which such an\noccasion develops.  The practice, however, of the Free Church in\nworship, and its uniform tendency, was decidedly un-liturgical; freedom\nfrom prescribed forms in prayer and an absence of ritual marked its\nservices during the half-century of its existence as a separate\ncommunion.  So emphatic was its devotion to absolute liberty on the\npart of the worshippers that it was the last of the great Presbyterian\nbodies in Scotland to take any steps towards a further control of\npublic worship other than that which is provided in the Directory.\n\nAbout the year 1885 the Presbyterian Churches of England and of\nAustralia appointed committees to consider the matter of a uniform\norder and method of public worship, and these in each case devoted\ntheir efforts to the revision of the Westminster Directory, and in\nneither has anything more liturgical been suggested than the repetition\nof the Creed and the Lord's Prayer by the people.  The orders of\nservice recommended are more lengthy than that of the Westminster\nDirectory, but are similar in their general character.  The hesitation\nshown in accepting even such slight changes as were suggested and the\nvigorous debates which resulted, furnish abundant evidence that the\nspirit of both of these Churches is still strong in favor of voluntary\nand untrammeled worship.\n\nIt is but right that in reviewing public worship outside of the\nEstablished Church, reference should be made to the practice of those\nlarge sections of the Presbyterian Church which, originating in\nScotland, have grown strong in other lands.\n\nThe Presbyterian Church of the United States of America has exhibited\nin the main the same spirit that has characterized Presbyterian bodies\nacross the sea.  In 1788 the Synod of New York and Philadelphia adopted\namong other symbols the Westminster Directory for the Worship of God,\nabbreviating it somewhat, but changing its instructions in no material\nrespect.  There has been but little legislation by this Church\nconcerning this subject.  In 1874 the General Assembly declared the\npractice of a responsive service in the public worship of the sanctuary\nto be without warrant in the New Testament, and to be unwise and\nimpolitic in view of its inevitable tendency to destroy uniformity in\nthe form already accepted.  It further urged upon sessions of Churches\nto preserve in act and spirit the simplicity indicated in the\nDirectory.  This judgment of the American Church with regard to the\ninfluence of a liturgy in public worship is not materially different\nfrom that of the framers of the Directory as it is set forth in their\nstrongly-worded preface.  In 1876 the Assembly declined to send down to\npresbyteries an overture declaring that responsive readings are a\npermissible part of worship in the sanctuary, although it declined at\nthe same time to recommend sessions to make the question a subject of\nChurch discipline.  Six years afterwards it again refused to \"prepare\nand publish a Book of Forms for public and social worship and for\nspecial occasions which shall be the authorized service-book of the\nChurch to be used whenever a prescribed formula may be desired;\" the\nreason given for such refusal, however, was the inexpediency of such a\nstep in view of \"the liberty that belongs to each minister to avail\nhimself of the Calvinistic or other ancient devotional forms of the\nReformed Churches, so far as may seem to him for edification.\"  This\nexplanation clearly indicates that, while the American Church is in\nsympathy with the necessity on the part of ministers, of a due and\norderly discharge of all public services, yet it is unwilling to lay\nitself open to the charge of even suggesting the imposition of forms\nupon the Church for use on stated occasions.  An optional liturgy has\nnot been without its advocates among the leaders in this influential\nsection of the Church.  Such eminent and wise men as Drs. Charles and\nA. A. Hodge and Dr. Ashbel Green confessed themselves as in favor of\nthe introduction of such forms for optional use, and Dr. Baird in his\n\"Eutaxia\" and other writers have argued vigorously from the example of\nsister churches of the continent of Europe for a return to the practice\nwhich they regarded as historically Presbyterian.  As yet, however, the\nChurch has preferred liberty to even suggested restriction.\n\nThe results in this Church, it cannot be denied, are not all that could\nbe desired.  The Directory is but little studied by ministers, and has\nby many been practically set aside.  Frequently each congregation in\nthe matter of worship is a law unto itself.  Responsive readings have\nbeen introduced in some places, and choir responses after prayer in\nothers; in some congregations the people join in the repetition of the\nCreed and the Lord's Prayer, while in others neither of these is heard;\nin one the collection has become a formal offertory; in another it\naffords an opportunity for the rendition of a musical selection by the\nchoir.  Worship in this great Church is at the present time\ncharacterized by the absence of a desirable uniformity, which it was\none evident purpose of the Directory to secure, and in some of its\ncongregations by the use of symbolism that occasionally becomes\nextravagant, and which is calculated to appeal entirely to the\nimagination, the result frequently being a service not attaining to\nthat dignity which an authorized liturgy fosters, while it sacrifices\nthat simplicity in which Presbyterians have been accustomed to glory.\n\nThe United Presbyterian Church in America, the result of so many happy\nunions, has always regarded simplicity in worship as an end earnestly\nto be desired, and worthy of all serious effort to secure.  Its\ninfluence has, therefore, been uniformly in favor of that avoidance of\nforms against which the Seceders of Scotland, whom it represents on\nthis continent, so often protested.\n\nThe Presbyterian Church, South--that Church whose history has been\ncharacterized by a loyalty so unswerving to the doctrinal standards of\nPresbyterianism, by a spirit so wisely aggressive in evangelistic and\nmissionary effort, and by a ministry so scholarly and eloquent, has, in\nthe matter of public worship, shown as constant a fidelity to the\nWestminster Directory as in doctrine it has shown to the Confession of\nFaith.  There have been attempts made to introduce changes looking\ntowards the adoption of optional liturgical forms, but these have been\nfew, and they have been rejected in such a way as to leave no room for\ndoubt as to the mind of the Church in this matter.\n\nThe Directory has been ably revised, but it still remains a Directory,\nsuggestive and eminently suitable to present requirements of the\nChurch.  Serious and persevering attention has been given to the praise\nservice, and no less than three Hymnals have received and now enjoy the\nChurch's _imprimatur_.  Public worship in Divine service has retained a\nmuch greater uniformity among the Presbyterians of the Southern States\nthan among their brethren in the North, and there has been less\nyielding to the popular demand for those features in worship that\nappeal to the imagination, and which so often serve to entertain rather\nthan to edify.\n\nThe Presbyterian Church in Canada, owing to the ties that bind it to\nthe Churches of the Old Land, has closely followed their practice, and\nits method in worship has been characterized by a similar spirit.  No\nauthoritative or mandatory formulas have been imposed upon it, nor does\nit seem likely that such would be received should they be proposed.\nReverence and dignity have in general characterized its public\nservices, and yet in recent years those changes which have gradually\nbeen introduced into the worship of the Church in that part of the\nAmerican Republic lying contiguous to the Dominion have made their\nappearance in Presbyterian worship in Canada.  The chief result has\nbeen, as in that Church also, an unfortunate want of uniformity in this\npart of divine service.  There has always been a constant and due\nregard paid to all parts of worship provided for in the Directory, and\nthe neglect of any of these parts cannot be seriously charged against\nany considerable part of the Church, but congregations have frequently\nconsidered themselves at liberty to change their order and to vary them\nas circumstances seem to demand.  It is this feature as much as any\nthat has in recent years led to an agitation for the improvement of\npublic worship, and that is calling the earnest attention of the Church\nto a matter of supreme importance.\n\nUntil very recently then, all branches of the Presbyterian Church in\nthe British Empire and those bodies in the United States whose\nstandards have been those of Westminster, have refused to recognize the\nneed for any other formula of worship than that, or such as that,\nprovided in the Directory.  And where any considerable desire for\nchange and improvement has been found, it has expressed itself usually\nas favorable to a revised Directory rather than as desirous of the\nadoption by the Church of a liturgy, however simple.\n\nThose great sections of the Church which have been most active in the\nwork of Home and Foreign Evangelization, a work that has especially\nclaimed attention during this century, have found the simple worship of\nour fathers well suited to the cultivation of the spiritual life that\nmust of necessity lie behind all such efforts, and to the development\nof the reverent and devotional spirit so characteristic of an\naggressive Christianity.  The Church has been true to the traditions\nand principles so loyally maintained in the days of her heroic\nstruggles in the past, and along these lines she has found in her\npublic worship blessing and inspiration for her peaceful toils, even as\nour fathers in their day found in similar worship strength and revived\ncourage with which to meet their difficulties and to endure persecution.\n\n\n\n\nModern Movements in Presbyterian Churches Respecting Public Worship.\n\n\n\n\"All who desire to manifest an intelligent appreciation of what is\ndistinctive in Presbyterian ritual would do well to guard against\nattaching undue importance, or adhering too tenaciously, to details of\na past or present usage, as if these constituted the essentials from\nwhich there must never be the smallest deviation, of which there may\nnever be the slightest modification or adaptation to altered\nacquirements and circumstances.\"--McCRIE.\n\n\n\nChapter IX.\n\nModern Movements in Presbyterian Churches Respecting Public Worship.\n\nThe earliest indication of any general desire in Scotland for a more\nelaborate service than that in general use in the Church at the time of\nthe Revolution was seen in the proposal to enlarge the Psalmody and to\nimprove the Service of Praise.  As early as 1713 the General Assembly\nof the Church of Scotland called the attention of congregations to the\nnecessity that existed for a more decent performance of the public\npraise of God, in a recommendation that was exceedingly desirable and\nnecessary if the accounts of the service of praise at that time are to\nbe believed.  This was followed, not long afterward, by the\nintroduction of paraphrases, styled \"Songs of Scripture,\" and later of\nhymns, and finally of instrumental music.  In this matter of the\nimprovement of worship in the department of praise, the Secession\nChurches in several cases were more forward than the Established\nChurch, the revived interest in religion and worship which had been in\na measure the cause of their existence lending itself to such measures.\nIn all sections of the Church the conflict concerning praise in worship\nwas for a long period prosecuted with an energy that frequently arose\nto bitterness.  The vexed questions of hymn-singing and the use of\ninstruments in Churches being settled, there followed, or perhaps it\nmay be said there arose out of these, the further question of the\nelaboration and improvement of other parts of worship.\n\nIn 1858 the Assembly of the Church of Scotland recommended to\ncongregations that were without a minister, the use in worship of a\nbook prepared by its authority, in which were embodied the prayers of\nthe Book of Common Order, together with much material from the\nDirectory of Worship.  This action on the part of the Church was\nregarded by some as indicating the existence of a spirit which\nwarranted the formation of \"The Church Service Society.\"  This Society\nwas formed by certain ministers of the Established Church who were\nstrongly impressed with the desirability of the adoption by the Church\nof certain authorized forms of prayer for public worship, and of the\nuse of prescribed forms in the administration of the Sacraments.  By\nthe publication of its constitution, in which it announced its object\nas \"The Study of the Liturgies ancient and modern of the Christian\nChurch, with a view to the preparation and ultimate publication of\ncertain forms of prayer for public worship, and services for the\nadministration of the Sacraments, the celebration of Marriage, the\nBurial of the Dead,\" etc., it very early aroused vigorous opposition on\nthe part of many who saw in its organization an evident intention to\nintroduce into the Church a liturgical service.  Such a purpose the\nSociety emphatically disavowed, and insisted that there was no desire\non the part of its members to encroach upon the simplicity of\nPresbyterian worship, but claimed rather the desire to redeem the same\nfrom lifelessness and lack of a devotional spirit with which they\ndeclared it is so likely to be characterized.  So effectively have the\nfears of those who first uttered their objections been allayed, that\nthe Society is said to comprise in its membership, at the present time,\nmore than one-third of the ordained ministers of the Established\nChurch.  The results of this Society's labors have been published in a\nvolume which is now in its seventh edition.  It is a book of more than\n400 pages, and is entitled, \"Euchologion--A Book of Common Order.\"  Its\ncontents seem to harmonize more with the views which were charged\nagainst the originators of the Society at its commencement than with\nthe defence which was put forward in its behalf at that time.  Although\nwidely used it has no official sanction of the Church, and, therefore,\nit is not necessary to enter into any close analysis of its contents.\nBriefly, however, it may be said, it is a liturgy much more closely\napproximating to the English Book of Common Prayer than to Knox's Book\nof Common Order, or to the ritual of any of the Reformed Churches of\nthe Continent, with which its projectors declare themselves to be more\nin sympathy than with the Episcopal Communion of England.\n\nThe first part comprises, in addition to prescribed daily Scripture\nreadings and readings for every Sunday of the year, the Order of Divine\nService for morning and evening for the five several Sundays of the\nmonth; in this Order are contained special forms of prayer, responses\nto be used by the congregation, the Lord's Prayer, to be repeated by\nminister and congregation together, and the Apostles' Creed, which is\nto be either said or sung.\n\nIn the second part, which contains \"additional materials for daily and\nother services,\" the first place is given to the Litany, which is an\nexact transcript of that of the Church of England with the exception of\na change in one petition, rendered necessary by the difference in the\nforms of government in the two Churches.  A number of \"prayers for\nspecial graces,\" \"collects\" and \"prayers for special seasons\" and\n\"additional forms of service\" are added.  The \"prayers for special\nseasons\" have regard to \"our Lord's advent,\" \"the Incarnation,\" \"Palm\nSunday,\" \"the descent of the Holy Ghost,\" etc.\n\nThe last section of the book provides forms of service for the\nadministration of the Sacraments, visitation of the sick, marriage,\nburial, ordination, etc.  In the form for the visitation of the sick a\nresponsive service is provided, as also in the order for Holy\nCommunion.  On the whole it is probably not too much to assert that\n\"Euchologion--a Book of Common Order,\" issued by the Church Service\nSociety, is decidedly more liturgical in form than was the unfortunate\nLaud's Liturgy, which raised against itself and its projectors such a\nvigorous protest on the part of the Church of Scotland.\n\nFollowing the organization of the Society referred to, came one in\nconnection with the United Presbyterian Church called \"The United\nPresbyterian Devotional Association,\" having for its object \"to promote\nthe edifying conduct of the devotional services of the Church.\"  This\nSociety declares its willingness to profit from the worship of other\nChurches besides the Presbyterian, but at the same time asserts its\nloyalty to the principles and history of Presbyterianism.  The forms\npublished in its book, \"Presbyterian Forms of Service,\" are not\nintended to be used liturgically, but the purpose is that they should\nfurnish examples and serve as illustrations of the reverent and seemly\nconduct of public worship.\n\nThe latest book to be issued on these lines is \"A New Directory for the\nPublic Worship of God\"; this name is further enlarged by the following\ndescription, which provides a sufficient index to its contents:\n\"Founded on the Book of Common Order (1560-64) and the Westminster\nDirectory (1643-45) and prepared by the Public Worship Association in\nConnection with the Free Church of Scotland.\"\n\nThis book follows in general the form and method of the Directory,\ncarefully avoiding the provision of even an optional liturgy.  The form\nwhich it has assumed, that of a simple Directory of Worship, was\nadopted after long discussion in the \"Association\" on these four\nquestions, \"The desirableness of an optional liturgy as distinguished\nfrom a Directory of Public Worship;\" \"The Desirableness of a Responsive\nService,\" such a service to include the use by the people with the\nminister of the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the Beatitudes, the\nCommandments, etc.; \"The desirableness of the Collect form of prayer\nand of Responses in general,\" and \"The desirableness of the celebration\nof the Christian year.\"\n\nAfter long and exhaustive debate on the above questions the book has\nbeen issued in its present form as a simple Directory of Worship,\nresponses and the celebration of the Christian year and even an\noptional liturgy having been rejected as undesirable.  Orders of\nservice are suggested, as well for public worship as for the\nadministration of the Sacraments and for special services, and\nsuggestions at great length are offered concerning what should find a\nplace in the prayers of Invocation, Thanksgiving, Confession, Petition,\nIntercession and Illumination.  A few historic prayers of eminent\nsaints of God are included as examples, and large quotations are made\nfor the same purpose from Knox's Book of Common Order and from\nHermann's \"Consultation,\" and from this last source \"A Litany for\nSpecial Days of Prayer\" is added in an Appendix.  If the Euchologion\nindicates a strong tendency on the part of the \"Church Service Society\"\ntowards the introduction of a responsive and liturgical service into\npublic worship, the New Directory of Public Worship indicates just as\nstrongly a tendency within the \"Public Worship Association\" to avoid\nthe introduction of even optional forms and to retain the simplicity\nthat has for three centuries characterized Presbyterian worship.\n\nThe attempts to revise the Directory of Worship in order to modify and\nadapt it to present-day requirements made recently by the Presbyterian\nChurch of England, and by the Federated Churches of Australia and\nTasmania, have already been referred to.  That these Churches have\nconfined their efforts to a revision of the Directory, and have in this\nasserted their approval of a Directory of Worship rather than of a\nliturgy, is in itself an instructive fact.\n\nIn the revised Directory of the Presbyterian Church of England some\nchanges are made in the direction of securing for the people a larger\npart in audible worship.  The repetition of the Creed is permitted, and\nwhere used is to be repeated by the minister and people together; it is\nrecommended as seemly that the people after every prayer should audibly\nsay Amen, and the Lord's Prayer, which should be uniformly used, is to\nbe said by all.\n\nThe work of revision by the Churches of Australia and Tasmania\nintroduces fewer changes.  In the administration of \"The Lord's Supper\"\nit is recommended that at the close of the Consecration Prayer the\nminister recite the \"Apostles Creed\" as a brief summary of Christian\nFaith, and when the Lord's Prayer is used, as advised before or after\nthe prayer of intercession, the people may be invited to join audibly\nor to add _Amen_.\n\nWorthy of more extended notice than the limits of this chapter will\npermit is \"The Book of Church Order\" of the Presbyterian Church in the\nUnited States.  As early as 1864 a proposal was made in Assembly to\nrevise the Westminster Directory of Worship for the purpose not only of\nrendering it more suitable to the requirements of the time, but in\norder also to so modify and improve it as to increase its\nsuggestiveness and helpfulness to ministers.  The work was undertaken\nby a committee appointed in 1879, and in 1894 this committee presented\nits formal report, which was adopted, and the revised Directory was\nordered to be published.  It contains sixteen chapters, treating of all\nthe matters treated in the original Directory, and containing in\naddition suggestive chapters on \"Sabbath Schools,\" \"Prayer Meetings,\"\n\"Secret and Family Worship,\" and \"The Admission of Persons to Sealing\nOrdinances.\"\n\nRespecting the public reading of Holy Scripture the revised Directory\ndeclares it to be \"a part of the public worship of God,\" and that \"it\nought to be performed by the minister or some other authorized person.\"\nOf public prayer, after indicating its different parts, and suggesting\nthe place that it should occupy in the service, the mind of the Church\nis thus expressed: \"But we think it necessary to observe that, although\nwe do not approve, as is well known, of confining ministers to set or\nfixed forms of prayer for public worship, yet it is the indispensable\nduty of every minister, previously to his entering on his office, to\nprepare and qualify himself for this part of his duty, as well as for\npreaching.\"  In the chapters on the administration of baptism and the\nLord's Supper particular directions are given, and questions suitable\nto be asked of the parents of children presented for baptism are\nsuggested, while in the directions for the admission of persons to\nsealing ordinances, an important distinction is drawn between the\nreception of baptized children of the Church and that of those who, on\nconfession of their faith, are at that time first received.  To the\nDirectory there are added optional forms for use at a marriage service\nand at a funeral service.  The book is not elaborate, and may be\nthought by many to be far from comprehensive as a Directory, but it is\nsuggestive and helpful, and, while true to the principles of\nPresbyterian worship, it gives no evidence of disregard for the beauty\nand appropriateness that should characterize the public services of the\nChurch.  Among books of Church order it is well worth study by those\nwho desire in worship to combine simplicity with dignity.\n\nIt is evident from these recent and simultaneous movements in so many\nbranches of the Presbyterian Church, that there exists a feeling on the\npart of many that there is need of improvement in the important\ndepartment of worship in our public services.  It is probable that\nthere will be found few to deny this, or to confess absolute\nsatisfaction with the worship of the Church to-day.  The question on\nwhich many will hold widely divergent opinions is as to the means to be\nadopted for its improvement.  Some there are, as in the Church Service\nSociety, who advocate a prescribed liturgy for at least certain parts\nof public worship; others, who desire a liturgy, but who are content to\nleave to congregations or to ministers freedom to use it or to\ndisregard it; still others are loyal to the spirit of the age which\nproduced the Westminster Directory, while they are at the same time\nwilling to revise that work, which was found so serviceable to the\nChurch for so long a period, and so to render it more suitable to the\ndemands of our own age.\n\nIf a judgment may be formed from the movements that have just been\nreviewed, it is probable that at least for some time to come, the\nPresbyterian Church will continue to walk in the paths that have become\nfamiliar through long usage.  The age, it is true, is past when\ndictation on this matter, either favoring or condemning a liturgy,\nwould be suffered; and, therefore, it is to be expected that\ncongregations will exercise liberty in the matter.  Yet, so far as the\ngeneral sentiment of the Church is concerned, a sentiment that will\ndoubtless from time to time find expression in official declarations,\nit appears evident that the preponderating feeling is still strongly in\nfavor of a voluntary worship, unrestricted even by suggested forms.\n\n\n\n\nConclusion.\n\n\n\n\"A constant form is a certain way to bring the soul to a cold,\ninsensible, formal worship.\"--BAXTER.\n\n\n\nChapter X.\n\nConclusion.\n\nThe foregoing brief review of public worship within those influential\nsections of the Presbyterian Church whose attitude on this question has\nbeen examined, affords a sufficient ground for the assertion that those\nbodies have shown, until recently, a uniform and steadily growing\nsuspicion of a liturgical service, even in its most modified form.\n\nThe Book of Common Order, the first official service book adopted by\nthe General Assembly of the Church of Scotland for the regulation of\nits worship, marked a distinct advance towards a freer form and greater\nliberty on the part of the minister in conducting Divine service.  As\ncompared not only with the English Prayer Book of the time, which was\nused in Reformed parishes in Scotland, but even with Calvin's order of\nworship, which had been so generally adopted by the Reformed Churches\non the Continent, this Book of Common Order was characterized by a\nspirit of larger liberty in worship and less reliance upon forms either\nsuggested or imposed.\n\nIn the period of struggle through which the Church of Scotland passed\nin the reigns of James the First and Charles the First, the conflicts,\ncivil and religious, only served, so far as they had any effect upon\nthe views of the Church concerning worship, to strengthen the already\nstrong opposition to prescribed forms of prayer and to ritualistic\nobservances.  Accordingly, when it was proposed to substitute for the\nBook of Common Order a Directory, in which there should appear no\nprescribed forms for any part of public worship, the Scotch Assembly\ngave a ready assent to the proposal, and, although some words of regret\nat parting with an historic symbol were spoken at that time by leaders\nin the Scottish Church, they were only such as it was natural to expect\nshould be spoken in view of the strong attachment for that symbol\nfostered by its use during many years, but they were not such as\nindicate that those who so spoke felt themselves called upon to\nsurrender any principle in laying aside the order to which they had\nbeen so long accustomed.  Indeed the hearty and cheerful adoption by\nthe Scottish Assembly of the strongly worded preface to the Westminster\nDirectory, exposing as it does so vigorously the weakness as well as\nthe dangers resulting from the use of a liturgy in public worship,\nplainly indicates that in the judgment of the Church of that day the\nuse of liturgical forms was not only not helpful, but was positively\nperilous, as well to the best interests of the congregation as to the\nmost efficient service of the minister.\n\nAgain in a third epoch of the Church's history, in the days following\nthe \"killing time,\" and marked by the succession to the throne of\nWilliam of Orange, and later by the union of England and Scotland, the\nPresbyterian Church of the latter country not only reasserted her\nloyalty to the principles of liberty in worship which she had so long\ndefended, but she also succeeded in having secured to her by\nlegislation, freedom from the imposition of ritualistic forms.\n\nIt is at least allowable to assert that the leaders in the Scottish\nChurch in the days of the Westminster Assembly and at the beginning of\nthe eighteenth century, regarded the perfect liberty in worship allowed\nby the Directory not only as scriptural, but as suitable for the\nattainment of the great ends of public worship, for on no other grounds\nwould they have consented to its adoption in Scotland.  And if\nPresbyterians of to-day desire to imitate the spirit and methods of\ntheir ancestors, it is reasonable that they should study the example of\nthe men of the second Reformation.  There is good ground for claiming\nthat in no period of the Church's history did it give evidence of a\ndeeper spiritual life and a more aggressive energy than in the age in\nwhich those heroic spirits lived.  The leaders in that day also, such\nmen as Henderson, Gillespie, Rutherford and Baillie, understood the\nspirit of Presbyterianism and the need of the Church quite as fully as\ndid any leaders of either an earlier or a later day.  It is not to be\nforgotten that, in an age that produced men whose names must never be\nomitted when the roll of Scotland's greatest sons is called, the\nPresbyterian Church stood firmly for absolute liberty in worship from\nprescribed forms.\n\nIt should, therefore, be considered by those who would have the Church\nreturn to the bondage of forms or even to their optional use, that they\nare advocating not a return to the practice of any former period in\nwhich the Church was free to exercise its own desire in this matter,\nbut rather that they are urging her to a course that will be wholly\nantagonistic to the spirit of Presbyterianism as indicated by the trend\nof its practice during a stirring and eventful history of three hundred\nyears.  The spirit of Presbyterian worship has been consistently and\npersistently non-liturgical and anti-ritualistic, and to advocate the\nadoption of liturgy and ritual to-day is to depart completely from that\nhistoric attitude.\n\nA few words on the subject of liturgies in general may not\ninappropriately close this sketch of the history of Presbyterian\nworship since the Reformation.\n\nIt is now generally acknowledged that the introduction of liturgies\ninto the worship of the Christian Church was not earlier than the\nlatter part of the fourth century.  Not until the presbyter had become\na priest, and worship had degenerated into a function, did liturgies\nfind a place in Christian service.  Even the earliest Oriental\nliturgies were sacramentaries, the Christian sacrifice being the\ncentral object around which the entire service gathered.  So long as\nthe life of the Church was strong, and in its strength found delight in\na freedom of approach to God, so long the Apostolic practice was\nfollowed and worship was unrestricted and simple.\n\nDuring the middle ages, as religion became ever more formal and less\nspiritual, as the priesthood deteriorated intellectually and\nspiritually, liturgies flourished; and it is not too much to assert\nthat just in proportion to the growth of the liturgical service in any\nChurch, in that proportion the power of its ministry has declined.\nIndeed the whole history of liturgies in their origin, development, and\neffects, should make the Church that rejoices in freedom from their\nbinding forms most careful ere submitting in any degree to their\nparalyzing influence.\n\nIt is argued in favor of the introduction of forms of prayer that their\nuse would tend to the more orderly and dignified conducting of public\nworship by the minister.  It is not a difficult matter to take\nexception to methods to which we have long been accustomed, and to\ncompare these, sometimes to their disadvantage, with ideal conditions.\nAs a matter of fact, however, it may in all fairness be asked, does\ndisorder or irreverence characterize Presbyterian worship in general,\nor indeed to any noticeable extent?  Whatever lovers of another system,\nwithin our own Church, may say, it cannot be denied that the impression\nin the minds of men of all denominations (an impression that has not\ngained strength without cause) is that, compared with the worship of\nany other denomination, that of the Presbyterian Church is\ncharacterized by reverence, dignity and order.  The conduct of any\naverage congregation in the Presbyterian Church, and the heartiness\nwith which its members join in every part of public worship will appear\nat no disadvantage when compared with that of a congregation\nworshipping with a ritual.  Whatever other blessings a liturgy may\nsecure for those devoted to its use, it has never been able to develop\nin the Churches where it is employed a spirit and conduct in public\nworship as reverent and devotional, and at the same time so marked by\nunderstanding, as that which has uniformly characterized the\nPresbyterian Church, and that Church would have to gain very much in\nother directions to compensate for the opening of the door to the\nformal and careless repetition of holy words so often associated with\nthe use of a liturgy.\n\nIt is further argued that congregations would, with the aid of a\nliturgy, be enabled to take both a more lively and a more intelligent\npart in public prayer than they can possibly do when endeavoring to\nfollow a minister who uses extempore prayer only.  This argument must\nappear to be of considerable weight to those only who forget how\nlifeless and unmeaning a mere form of words, with which the lips have\ngrown familiar, can become.  Paley frankly admitted, when treating of\nthis matter, that \"the perpetual repetition of the same form of words\nproduces weariness and inattentiveness in the congregation.\"  There is\na danger that by carelessness in considering the needs of the\nworshippers, and by diffusiveness, the minister may render the service\nof prayer far less helpful than it should be to those whom it is his\nprivilege to lead to the throne of grace; but the cure for this is not\nto be found in the introduction of stereotyped forms, which in the\nnature of the case cannot be suitable for all occasions, but in a due\nrecognition by the minister of the greatness of the duty which he\nassumes in speaking to God for the people.  Such a recognition will\nlead him to seek that preparation of heart and mind necessary for its\nhelpful performance, nor will his consciousness of the need of help,\nother than man can give, go unrecognized by the Father of Spirits, Who\nin this matter also sends not His servants at their own charges.\n\nAs to the unity in prayer so much desired, true prayer is \"in the\nSpirit,\" and earnest worshippers have a right to expect that their\nhearts will be united by that Spirit at the throne of grace, so that\n\"with one accord\" they may present their petitions and claim the\npromise to those who are thus agreed.  This is the true unity and\nuniformity which Christians are bound to seek, and any mere mechanical\nuniformity of words, apart from this, is but the outward trappings of\nform which are much more liable to satisfy the careless worshipper than\nto inspire in him any thought of the need of a more real approach to\nGod.\n\nLastly, it is urged that the responsive reading of the Scriptures would\nprove an aid to the intelligent understanding of them, and that the\nrepetition of the Creed or other such formulary of doctrine would serve\nto preserve the Church in the soundness of the faith.\n\nThe refutation of the first statement is to be found in many\ncongregations where the practice has been tried, and in Sabbath Schools\nin which the custom now prevails.  Many there are who will not read,\nothers who cannot, and these fail entirely to profit from the\nunintelligible hum of a number of voices reading in what is often\nanything but harmony either of sound or time; and those who do read,\nfrequently fail to receive that clear impression of the truth that\nshould result from the effective and sympathetic reading of an entire\npassage.  Without dwelling on the question whether the reading of the\nScriptures is to be regarded as properly a ministerial act or not, on\nthe simple ground of efficiency, responsive reading in large and\nconstantly-changing congregations must frequently, if not generally,\nprove a failure.\n\nAs regards the repetition of the Creed by the congregation, it is\ncertainly a question open for discussion whether or not the frequent\nrepetition of a formulary of doctrine is a safeguard to the faith of\nthe Church.  In this matter also we are not without the light of\nexperience and history; the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland and\nAmerica, which have never adopted any such practice, have certainly a\nrecord with respect to soundness in the faith which compares favorably\nwith that of Churches which have for ages adopted this as a custom in\ntheir worship.  It would not be difficult to mention Churches in which\nthe repetition of a formulary of doctrine has long been an established\nquestion, and in which it is not apparent that the practice has\nsuccessfully served as a safeguard to doctrine.  Comparisons are\nodious, and we do not desire to institute them, but as wise men we\nshould surely be guided by the light which history and experience in\nthe past throws forward upon the pathway that we are to travel.\n\nThe Presbyterian Church has a history which may with reason cause all\nher children to thank God and take courage as they look forward on\ngreater works than those of past days yet to be accomplished.  Her past\nis rich in noble deeds, valiant testimonies and stirring struggles for\nthe truth, and through it all she pressed forward rejoicing in a\nliberty which is inseparable from the principles of Presbyterianism,\nand one product of which has ever been an unwillingness to be trammeled\nby forms in her approach to God.  That history is such as need cause no\nPresbyterian to blush when it is related side by aide with that of any\nother Church; surely they must be bold souls who would propose to\nintroduce a radical change into the genius of Presbyterianism, or to\nrelinquish principles which have led to such success, for others that\nhave yet to show an equal vitality and vigor.\n\nOur free and untrammeled worship demands from the worshipper his best;\nit brings him face to face with his God, and forbids him to rest in any\nmere repetition of a familiar form; it requires of the minister a\npreparation of both mind and soul, and challenges him to spiritual\nconflict which he dare not refuse, while in addition to all this its\nvery freedom renders it adaptable to all the varying circumstances in\nwhich in a land like our own the worship of God must be conducted.  It\nis suitable alike to the stately city church and to the humble cabin of\nthe settler, or to the mission house of the far West; wherever men\nassemble for worship it affords the possibility for seemly, orderly and\nreverent procedure.  Is there any other form of worship suggested for\nwhich as much can be said?\n\nAs long as the ministers of the Presbyterian Church are men of God,\nrecognizing His call to the sacred office of the ministry, and\nbelieving that those whom He calls He equips with needed grace and\ngifts for their work, so long will they be able to lead the\ncongregations to which they minister in worship that shall be at once\nhonoring to God and a help to the spiritual life of the people: when\nthey cease to be such men forms may become, not only expedient, but\nessential.","title":"Presbyterian Worship: Its Spirit, Method and History","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":27401}