The introduction of this Service Book, as it was called, into public worship in St. Giles, Edinburgh, on the day appointed, was the signal for an outburst of popular indignation that was as fire to the heather in the land. On that occasion the Archbishop of St. Andrew's was present with the Bishop of Edinburgh, but when the Dean rose to read the new service, even the presence of such dignitaries was not sufficient to restrain the pent-up feelings of the congregation. Such a clamor arose as made it impossible for the Dean to proceed, books and other missiles were freely thrown, and a stool, hurled by the traditional Jenny Geddes, narrowly missed the Dean's head, whereupon that dignitary fled precipitately, followed by the more forcible than elegant ejaculation of the wrathful woman, "Out thou false thief; dost thou say mass at my lug?" The riot in Edinburgh was the signal for similar manifestations of popular feeling throughout the land, the national spirit was aroused, and the stately fabric which Charles and Laud, supported by a prelatic party in Scotland, had been laboriously rearing for years, was overthrown in a day.
This feeling of opposition on the part of the people to the introduction of a liturgy into the Church of Scotland, found due and official expression in the following year. The General Assembly meeting at Glasgow repudiated Laud's Liturgy and appealed repeatedly to the Book of Common Order as containing the Law of the Church respecting worship. In his eloquent closing address the Moderator, Alexander Henderson, said: "and now we are quit of the Service Book, which was a book of service and slavery indeed, the Book of Canons which tied us in spiritual bondage, the Book of Ordination which was a yoke put upon the necks of faithful ministers, and the High Commission which was a guard to keep us all under that slavery." The people also in formal manner expressed their mind on the matter and in the Solemn League and Covenant, signed in Gray friars Churchyard, asserted their purpose to defend, even unto death, the true religion, and to "labor by all means lawful to recover the purity and liberty of the Gospel as it was established and professed before the late innovations." Charles at first determined upon extreme measures, and preparations were made to force "the stubborn Kirk of Scotland to bow," but wiser measures prevailed, and the desires of the Church of Scotland were for the time granted.
The Book of Common Order, thus reaffirmed as the law of the Church respecting worship, continued in use during the years following the Glasgow Assembly of 1638, years which for Scotland were comparatively peaceful, by reason of the troubles fast thickening around the English throne.
This interesting chapter of Scottish history which we have thus briefly reviewed, is of value to us in the present discussion only in so far as, from the facts presented, we are able to understand the spirit that characterized the Church of Scotland at this period, and the principles that guided them in their attitude toward the subject of public worship. What this spirit and those principles were it is not difficult to discover. The facts themselves are plain; not only did the Church in its regularly constituted courts oppose the introduction of new forms and the elaboration of the Church service, but the people resisted by every means in their power, and at last went the length of resisting by force of arms, the attempt to impose upon them the new Service Book.
It is asserted that the chief, if not the only cause of this resistance was, first, an element of patriotism which in Scotland opposed uniformly any measure which seemed to subordinate the national customs to those of England, and secondly, the righteous and conscientious objection of Presbyterians to having imposed upon them by any external authority, a form of worship and Church government which their own ecclesiastical authorities had not approved, and which they themselves had not voluntarily accepted. The objection, in a word, is said to have been not to a liturgy as such, but to a foreign liturgy and to one imposed.
It cannot be denied that these were important elements in the opposition of the Scottish people to the projects of Charles. Many of them, for one or other of these reasons, opposed the King's command, who had no conscientious scruples with regard either to the form or substance of Laud's liturgy. Too much is claimed, however, when the assertion is made that there was no real objection among the people to the introduction of an elaborated service such as that which was proposed. The liberty of free prayer so dear to the Scottish reformers was, if not entirely denied, largely encroached upon; a responsive service, to which, in common with the great leaders of Geneva, Knox and Melville had been so uniformly opposed, was introduced; and particularly in the service for the administration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, forms of words were employed which seemed to teach doctrines rejected by the reformers. Here then was abundant ground for opposition to Laud's liturgy when judged on its merits, and this ground the stern theologians of that day were not likely to overlook.
Nor is it to be forgotten that in the many supplications which from time to time were presented to the King both from Church and State against the introduction of the Service Book, the anti-English plea never found a place, but uniformly, reference was made in strong terms to the unscriptural form of worship suggested for adoption by the Scottish people, together with a protest against the arrogant imposition upon them of a form of service not desired. Persistently in these supplications the subscribers expressed their desire that there should be no change in the form of worship to which they had been accustomed, and prayed for a continuance of the liberty hitherto enjoyed. In a complaint laid before the Privy Council the Service Book and Canons are described as "containing the seeds of divers superstitions, idolatry and false doctrine," and as being "subversive of the discipline established in the Church." The Earl of Rothes in an address spoke thus: "Who pressed that form of service contrary to the laws of God and this kingdom? Who dared in their conventicles contrive a form of God's public worship contrary to that established by the general consent of this Church and State?" And that the form of worship ever held a prominent place in the discussions of the time, appears from a letter supposed to have been written by Alexander Henderson, in which he defends the Presbyterian Church against a charge of disorder and neglect of seemly procedure in worship; he says, "The form of prayers, administration of the Sacraments, etc., which are set down before their Psalm Book, and to which the ministers are to conform themselves, is a sufficient witness; for although they be not tied to set forms and words, yet are they not left at random, but for testifying their consent and keeping unity they have their Directory and prescribed Order."
While it is true, therefore, that the high-handed conduct of the King in forcing upon an unwilling people a form of service already distasteful because of its foreign associations, was doubtless an important element in arousing the vigorous opposition with which it was met, nevertheless, there is abundant evidence to show that apart from any such consideration, the spirit of the Church of Scotland was entirely hostile to the introduction of further forms, to the elaboration of their simple service, and to the imposition upon their ministers of prescribed prayers from which in public worship they would not be allowed to depart.