By REV. JOHN COLQUHOUN, Glendale.
X.—The Westminster Standards.
We have in a previous article seen the reception which Laud’s Prayer Book received in Scotland. The tumult in St. Giles when an attempt was made to use this Romish Liturgy was only the first outward manifestation of a movement which showed the spirit of the Scottish nation; a movement which was to have far-reaching consequences, for out of it grew the National Covenant, signed at Edinburgh in 1638, the deposition of the bishops, and the overthrow of Prelacy at the Glasgow Assembly of the same year. This movement spread to England, resulting in the temporary overthrow of the Stuart dynasty, and bringing both King Charles I. and Archbishop Laud to end their lives ignominiously on the scaffold. A further effect was that the Presbyterians of Scotland and the Puritans of England discovered that they had a common standpoint in the Calvinism which is based four-square upon the Bible. The result was a desire to have a common creed and a system of church polity and worship for England, Scotland, and Ireland. To meet with that desire the Long Parliament called together what has been known ever since as the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and whose deliberations were to have a permanent effect on the Church of Christ for ages to come, while the documents drawn up by it have formed the standard by which the orthodoxy of churches and individuals, in this country and in America, are judged by all who draw their religion from the Bible. The Stuarts endeavoured to bring about a uniformity of religion by bringing the Presbyterian Church of Scotland into line with the Episcopal Church of England, and, in this endeavour, substituted the arbitrary will of the Monarch for the clear pattern shown in the Scriptures. The object of the Westminster Assembly was to bring about the uniformity of religion in the three kingdoms on the basis of the Word of God.
The members were all appointed by Parliament, and consisted of one hundred and twenty-one clergymen, ten nobles, and twenty members of the House of Commons who acted as lay assessors. At a subsequent period thirty others were added along with the Scottish Commissioners. Of that number thirty-seven were Masters of Arts, thirty-two were Bachelors of Divinity, twenty-one were Doctors of Divinity, and one was a Doctor of Laws, while many were Fellows of Oxford and Cambridge. This shows that the personnel of the Assembly were the cream of the Church so that there can be no exaggeration in the language of Dr. Briggs when he says, “Looking at the Westminster Assembly as a whole, it is safe to say that there never was a body of divines who laboured more conscientiously, carefully, and faithfully, and produced more important documents, or a richer theological literature, than that remarkably learned, able, and pious body, who sat for so many trying years in the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster Abbey.” Article on Documentary History of the Westminster Assembly, in Presbyterian Review, New York, 1880, pp. 127-164. These divines had a great deal of uphill work. Apart from diversities of opinion among themselves, causing long debates on intricate points, the Bishops of the Church of England did not acknowledge the Assembly, King Charles prohibited it, and the Parliament, which claimed Erastian control over ecclesiastical matters, required that all its decisions should be ratified by the civil legislature. Though it continued in existence till 1652, and, in fact, was never formally dissolved, its main work was completed by 1648 after it had sat for eleven hundred and sixty-three sessions.
The fruit of the deliberations of the Westminster Assembly is to be found in the Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the Directory of Public Worship, and the Directory for Church Government and Discipline. The Confession of Faith and Catechisms which, like the other documents, are based four-square upon the Scriptures, bear evident traces of a deep acquaintance with Continental Reformed Theology. It also has borrowed much from the Irish Articles drawn up by Archbishop Ussher about 1615. On this point Prof. A. F. Mitchell, D.D., of St. Andrews University says, “Some time ago I endeavoured to show that the Assembly’s Confession was not derived from foreign sources, either Genevan or Dutch, but that, both in its general plan and in the tenor of its more important articles, it was drawn from native sources other than Scotch, and in particular from those confessedly Augustinian or Calvinistic Articles, which, even before the Synod of Dort was summoned, or the Arminian controversy had become so embittered, had been adopted by the Convocation of the Irish Church. An examination of the Minutes of the Assembly confirms me in this view. I do not venture to assert that in no case has it determined points which the Irish Synod had left open. But I do say that these points are not many nor important, and that it is clear the Assembly took the greatest possible pains to express its views in such a way as to obviate objections which had been or might have been taken either to the words or to the matter of the Irish Articles.” Introduction to the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly, p. xlvi. The Directory of Public Worship was intended as a substitute for the English Book of Common Prayer; it had no liturgical forms, but it gave directions and suggestions to the minister as to how to conduct public worship. In the Preface to it, it is stated, “that the Liturgy used in the Church of England (notwithstanding all the pains and religious intentions of the compilers of it) hath proved an offence, not only to many of the godly at home, but also to the Reformed Churches abroad;” that “In the meantime, Papists boasted that the book was a compliance with them in a great part of their service; and so were not a little confirmed in their superstition and idolatry, expecting rather our return to them, than endeavouring the reformation of themselves.” The Form of Church Government, clearly favours Presbyterianism as the only form which is based on the Word of God. These documents were not finished without long and wearisome debates for we see that, according to the Notes of Proceedings by George Gillespie, the debates on the Form of Church Government continued from 2nd February, 1644, till 30th December of the same year. In the compiling of the Westminster Standards the overruling power of God is clearly to be seen. From the fact that in 1642 King Charles brought forward the idea of convening “a number of grave, wise, and religious divines” to settle uniformity of government and worship in the Church, one can see that his purpose was to prove the catholicity of the doctrine of the Church of England, and to bring the other churches in the kingdom, and especially the Church of Scotland, into line with it. In this, however, he did not get his own way, and when that became clear, he proclaimed the Assembly illegal and threatened to prosecute its members. The Assembly, however, was not convened by the King, but by “The Lords and Commons of England” in an ordinance, dated 12th June, 1643. At first the Assembly turned its attention to the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England in an endeavour to mould its form of worship and government more in accordance with what was observed in the Church of Scotland. This was given up after three months and attention was drawn to the Scottish Solemn League and Covenant. This Covenant was largely signed but it became all too apparent that the Covenant was being made use of in order to further the policy of the civil rulers south of the Borders. It was then that the Assembly turned its attention to the Irish Articles.
On 27th August, 1647, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland approved of the Confession of Faith, stating that the said Confession was “upon due examination thereof, found by the Assembly to be most agreeable to the Word of God, and in nothing contrary to the received doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Kirk.” Parliament approved and ratified the Directory for Public Worship on 6th February, 1645, and the Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms on 7th February, 1649.
These subordinate standards which were now recognised by both the ecclesiastical and civil authorities, became the Constitution of the Church of Scotland. Though the aim of those who framed the Westminster Standards was to bring about uniformity in doctrine, worship, and government, yet that did not succeed. The Church of England continued her Episcopacy, her Thirty-nine Articles, and her form of worship, and, in these matters, the Independents followed their own way, so that, as far as both these Churches were concerned, the Westminster Assembly might never have sat. In accepting the Westminster Standards, the Church of Scotland only accepted what was in her own standards, previously drawn up, and thus was under no necessity to depart from the doctrine believed by her, or from the worship and government practised by her from the time she was first set up. Her Constitution was older than the Westminster Standards, but in these Standards, it was set forth in a manner which was calculated to combat more effectively errors which had become more manifest since the older Standards were framed, and thus, the Church which adopted them, was, in a peculiar manner, fitted to hold up to other Churches a Constitution which might be taken by them as an example to follow. As Dr. Charles Hodge put it: “What then was the origin and history of our present constitution? It will be remembered that at the period to which it is so common to refer, as the birth-day of the great principles of civil and religious liberty, a convention of divines assembled at Westminster, who, after long deliberation, prepared and published a Confession of Faith and a Directory for Worship, Government, and Discipline. This Confession and this Directory were adopted by the Church of Scotland, and have ever since continued in authority in that Church. Under that constitution, the General Assembly of that Church has always acted as its parliament; exercising legislative, as well as judicial powers; making rules binding on synods, presbyteries, and churches, restrained by nothing but the Word of God, the laws of the land and its own written constitution. This fact is too notorious to need proof. A greater absurdity could not be put into words, than the assertion that in Scotland, the General Assembly is “a mere appellate court and advisory council.” That American Presbyterianism was originally the same with that of Scotland is proved by two incontestible facts; first, that our Church adopted identically the same constitution as the Church of Scotland; and secondly, that under that constitution, our highest judicatory claimed and exercised the same powers with the Scottish General Assembly. Church Polity, p. 171.
In one matter the Westminster Standards caused the Church of Scotland to depart from its accepted practice, that, is, the manner of congregational singing. In the section on “Singing of Psalms” we read: “But for the present, where many in the congregation cannot read, it is convenient that the minister, or some other fit person appointed by him and the other ruling officers, do read the psalm, line by line, before the singing thereof.” Whatever the necessity there might have been for this manner of singing the psalms as far as England was concerned, when the Directory was framed, there was no such necessity among the people of Scotland, for, educationally, they were far in advance of those who lived south of the Border. Neither was it received with favour in many parts of Scotland, though, in later years, the custom became such an object of regard, in some places, that it was considered an innovation to depart from it. Whatever may be said for or against the custom, the reason for its introduction has long since ceased to exist, for the directory explicitly says that it is only “for the present” and that it is to be introduced for the sake of convenience “where many in the congregation cannot read.” Thus caution must be exercised not to make a principle of what the Standards of the Church does not make a principle.