Jerarquía de indicadores:

However, as news of this innovation spread, a number of ministers in that area of Scotland became aroused to stop this practice. Using St. John's Church as the prime example, the opponents of the innova­ tion presented the following overture to the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr in October, 1822:

"Whereas, an Innovation has been lately introduced into some Churches, within the bounds of the Synod of Glasgow, and Ayr, in the mode of dispensing the sacrament of our Lord's Supper, namely, the distribution of the elements to the communicants sitting in pews, and not sitting about, or at, the Communion Table, according to the laws and practice of the Established Church of Scotland; — It is overtured to the very Rev. Synod, that they shall declare their disapproba­

tion of this Innovation, as contrary to the purity and uniformity of worship presently authorized and practised in our National Church: that they shall enjoin every Presbytery, within their bounds, to take care that a Communion Table, according to the practice of the Church, be provided in every Church under their jurisdiction; and that they shall recommend to all the Ministers within their bounds, that

they observe the fifteenth Act of the General Assembly,

^^^William Hanna, Memoirs of Thomas Chalmers, D.D., LL.D., vol. I, p. 647.

seventeen hundred and seven, entitled, Act against Innova­ tions in the worship of G o d ."1^3

Supporters of this overture primarily centered their case in the instructions given in the Westminster Directory for Public Worship, which read; ", . . the Table being before decently covered, and so conveniently placed, that the Communicants may orderly sit about it, or at it, the Minister is to begin the Action . . . They con­ cluded that, according to tradition, the only valid obedience to the Directory was the practice of communicants sitting around the table facing each other as they communed. Dr. Chalmers explained the reason for the new practice and defended its legality to the Synod. Prior to the change in custom "the day of a sacrament in St. John's was a day of discomfort and almost intolerable suffering from the

pressure and the stifling almost to suffocation, and the way in which every inch of progress to the tables was fought for by the crowd of • competitors who, during the time of seven table services, stood wedged in the long but narrow access that led to them."^^^ pointing

to the fact that the innovation allowed for a communion table from which the minister presided in the distribution of the elements, Chalmers admitted that the communicants were not seated so that they could face one another. However, he contended, the essential point was that the communicants were "all so placed as to look to the minis­

ter who addresses them. It is also true that they do not sit about a table, but they sit at a table, and about it or at it, is the express

173james Begg, o£. cit., pp. 6-7.

^^'^The Directory for the Public Worship of God, p. 309, ^^5jïanna, cit., p. 648.

17 6

utterance tliat Is left to us by I.he word» of our Directory," ' < After both sides had been heard by the Synod, the overture, which had been moved and seconded, was agreed to without a vote.

How well the churches heeded the overture of 1822 is evident from a treatise published by Dr. James Begg in 1824. Begg, who was a leading opponent of the innovation, entitled his work, A Treatise on the Use of the Communion Table in Celebrating the Sacrament of the Lord'8 Supper. The occasion of the essay was the fact that some of the ministers and churches within the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr had obviously disregarded the overture of 1822. Seeking to emphasise, from his point of view, the seriousness of the contemporary situation, Begg noted that in the churches in Glasgow, while some dispensed the. elements according to the accepted custom, other parishes had adopted some form of the innovation. "In some churches the communicants sit in pews, according to the late innovation; in some churches there is a mixed mode of administration; part of the communicants receive the elements at the Communion Table, and part of them receive them

sitting in pews . . . part of them do so in the pews in which they usually sit through the year, having occupied them during the time of

the sermon proceeding; and part of them have not that indulgence, but, go to pews in which they do not usually sit, but to which they are

I "I - j

only admitted to communicate." The minister of the New Monkland Church argued against these changes by appealing to the institution and the history of the sacrament. He advocated that the use of a Communion Table was in conformity with the example and intention of Christ when he instituted the Lord's Supper. According to Begg, the

17G%bid., p. 649, 177

sacrament was a feast of love in which the believers commemorate anti witness to the atoning death of Jesus Christ as a vicarious sacrifice. In this act the faithful testify to their love for Christ and to their love for each other as redeemed sinners. However, contended Begg, when communicants' sit in pews with their backs turned to one another,

there can be no visible witness to the sacrament as a feast of love. Next, Dr. Begg advocated that the use of the Communion Table was in conformity to the practice of celebrating the Lord's Supper during "the first and purest ages of the Christian Church." Referring to the writings of Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, and Gregory Nyssen, he concluded that in those early days "the Communion Table was a part of the furniture of every church; that it was so placed that the communicants could surround, or compass it about; and that all the faithful, both men and women, both clergy and laity, without

17 8

distinction, had access to it." Finally, Dr, Begg appealed to the laws and authorized practice of the Church of Scotland since the Reformation. To document his case, he referred to the Westminster Confession of Faith, the First Book of Discipline, the Book of Common Order, the struggle in the Westminster Assembly against Episcopalians and Independents, the Directory for Public Worship, and to the various acts of the General Assembly in 1639, 1641, 1695, 1697, and 1707. Historically, especially at the Westminster Assembly, the issue has been thoroughly debated and decided. It followed that it was the duty of Presbyteries to oversee the building of new churches to conform to every part of public worship according to the laws of the Church,

179 "The authorized practice of the Church is the law in this case."

l^^ibid., p. 27. ^^^Ibid., p. 67.

Furthermore, concluded Dr. Begg, judicatories must guard against every innovation which threatened the purity and uniformity of the Estab­ lished form of worship. Failure to do so was a serious disobedience of the General Assembly Act of 1707 against innovations. Also, minis­ ters who followed that innovation were violating their ordination vows to maintain and defend the doctrine and worship of the Church of

Scotland.

Dr. Begg*8 opposition to the innovation found sufficient

support within his own presbytery to send an overture to the General Assembly anent the mode of dispensing the Lord's Supper. The

overture from the Presbytery of Hamilton was considered by the General Assembly on 23rd May, 1825. The minutes of that session recorded that during the discussion of the overture Dr. Begg "was heard upon the subject at great l e n g t h . A t the end of the debate, the

Assembly approved the conduct of the Presbytery of Hamilton in bring­ ing the subject to the attention of the Church and found "that it is the law, and has been the immemorial practice of the Church of Scot­ land, to dispense the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to the people seated at or around a Communion Table or Tables; and they enjoin the Presbyteries of this Church, when churches are to be built, or to be new seated, to use their best endeavours to have a suitable table or tables provided for the solemn service of the Lord's S u p p e r . T h e -decision of the Assembly was vague and inconclusive. On the one hand,

it approved and recommended the traditional custom of dispensing the elements. On the other hand, it neither declared the innovation to

^^^The Principal Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland convened at Edinburgh, the 19th Day of May, 1825, p. 34.

be a violation of the law of the Church nor discouraged the innovating churches from continuing the new practice of serving the elements to the people seated in the. pews. Years later in a lecture to, students in Edinburgh, Thomas Chalmers commented upon this decision of the General Assembly. "When our venerable mother [the General Assembly], sitting in her collective wisdom, was called on to decide the quarrel that had broken out among her children, she allowed me, the one party, to continue the table-service in the way I had found to be most con­ venient; but, instead of laying aught like severity or rebuke upon

the other, she, while disappointing them of their plea, dismissed

them at the same time with a look of the most benignant complacency."^®^ The opponents of the innovation continued to pursue every

possible means of stopping this new practice which Begg declared to i 83 be "really and truly an exclusion from the Communion Table."

Within the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr, the mode of dispensing the Lord's Supper continued to be a very prominent topic of debate. In 1827, the Synod came to the decision that in those churches where the sacrament was dispensed to people sitting in pews, this practice was not con­

sistent with the laws and practice of the Church, and the enactment of the General Assembly of 1825. Thus, the Synod "enjoined the Presbytery of Glasgow to take all prudent steps to provide one or more suitable communion-tables in said churches, and to report to next meeting of Synod."1®^ From this judgment, the Reverend Patrick Macfarlan and several others dissented. Macfarlan, the successor to Thomas Chalmers

^®^Hanna, op. cit., p. 652. 1 _{Begg, 0£. cit., p. 35.}8 3

’

^^^The Principal Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland convened at Edinburgh, the 17th Day of May, 1827, p. 42.

at St, John's Church, had translated the following year, 1825, to St. Enoch's Church, Glasgow. Under his leadership, the dissent against the decision of the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr was brought to the General Assembly in May, 1825. The Assembly heard the various parties invol­ ved in the complaint before debating the issue on the assembly floor. Finally, it was moved and unanimous l,y passed :

"that the General Assembly reverse the finding of the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr, in so far as they purpose alterations upon the arrangements already made ini certain churches with­ in their bounds; and in all other respects find, That it is the law, and has been the immemorial practice of the Church of Scotland, to dispense the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to the people seated at or around a Communion Table or Tables; and they require the Presbyteries of this Church, when Churches are to be built, or to be new-seated, to use their best endeavours to have a suitable Table or Tables provided for the solemn service of the Lord's S u p p e r ."1®^

Again the decision of the General Assembly did not clearly declare victory or defeat for either side of the controversy. On this occasion the high court of the kirk once more counseled the Church to maintain the traditional mode of dispensing the communion elements to people sitting at specially provided tables. At the same time, the Assembly took action to protect the innovating churches from any efforts to prevent them from continuing the practice of serving the people while they were seated in the pews. Thus, as that early

period of the nineteenth century passed, the issue remained unsettled. The innovation had been tried and adopted by a few churches. It had survived the tests of opposition before church courts at every level. Yet another innovation had become established.

During this’ period of the nineteenth century, another contro­ versy began to smoulder which would not become ablaze until the middle

years of the century. Religious opinion in Scotland began to react against the prominently heavy drinking which had characterised the nation during the previous century. By 1850, an editorial in The Scotsman claimed that "Scotland is, pretty near at least, the most drunken nation on the face of the earth is a fact never quite capable of d e n i a l . I n reacting to this particular national trait, voices of protest within the church began to be raised against the use of fermented wine in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Only briefly mentioning this controversy, Edgar explained that "the wine conmionly used now is not the same kind of wine as was used very long ago in Scotland. The wine now in use is port wine, the wine used long ago was claret, and the quantity of it consumed at a sacrament was enormous."1®^ Just when the dispute over fermented wine vs. non­ fermented wine began is uncertain. It has been speculated that the issue was beginning to be raised and that convictions were starting to be formed at the turn of the century. For example, Hunter made the following appraisal:

"It is not surprising, in view of the deplorable drinking habits of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and the scandals occasioned by them which kept kirk sessions busy, that voices began to be raised in urgent protest against

the use in the sacred rite of that which was so largely responsible, at least among the better classes, for demor­ alising consequences. When exactly the movement for the substitution of a non-alcoholic liquor began does not appear, but the current was running strongly by the beginning of last century [19th century], not only in the country, but in

England and America, and in all Churches except the Angli­ can. "i88

^®®The Scotsman, 22nd May, 1850. ^^^Edgar, ££. cit., p. 145.

It was also during the early years of the nineteenth century that the temperance movement began in Scotland. The conception and growth of temperance societies originated in the leadership of two elders of the Church of Scotland — John Dunlop, a lawyer, and William Collins, a publisher, who served as an elder under Thomas Chalmers in Glasgow. Between 1829 and 1830, one hundred new temperance societies were

formed and were credited with 15,000 members. The proclamation of the avowed purpose of these organizations was bound to contribute to the increasing reaction against the use of alcoholic drink at any time and at any occasion. The goal of the temperance reformation was two­ fold: (1) the abstinence from spirits, including wine; and (2) the

189