Declaratory Acts

Another blog draws attention to the similarity between the praise controversy that has been ongoing within the Free Church lately and the Declaratory Act situation of 1892-3.

One of the points made is that in the Free Church lately there has been "surprising agreement that with Barrier Act legitimacy (however construed) the decision would be a binding law in the Free Church. This has always been the contention of the Free Presbyterian Church in connection with the Declaratory Act adopted in 1891 and made law under the Barrier Act in 1892".

The permission granted to consciences in 2011 to make known their convictions on purity of worship underlines many things. It underlines a situation where "every man does that which is right in his own eyes" and the Church is happy for vows and the definition of true and pure worship to be interpreted according to individual preference. It also acknowledges that the Church's position on worship has changed and in particular the vows of the individual and their meaning. Otherwise why would men need to seek to safeguard their consciences?

Merely to state one's convictions is on the face of it meaningless when this has no integral connection with the vows and it does not matter to the Church whether or not the statement is made. It does not absolve the individual from keeping the vows as the Church has altered them.

Men are now being required to assert, maintain and defend worship that previously their vows required them to oppose. It is no longer possible to assert, maintain and defend purity of worship in congregations that will reject purity of worship. While liberty will be granted to use purity of worship when conducting worship there, is there liberty to preach against the defection from purity of worship? Will this not be seen as schismatic and proceeded against? Will elders be able to protest against defections within their congregation?

When a man changes his views on worship this is entirely irrelevant to his presbytery now and even if the presbytery wished to take action, they cannot. A presbytery cannot require someone being licensed, ordained, inducted to make such a statement and even if they could they cannot act upon it. Thus their vows are now entirely changed.

A man may indicate that his views are conservative and receive a call but what if he omits to make a statement during the process of being inducted, has he changed his views? Could the congregation compel him to make such a statement? But what is the value of the statement? A man may make a statement and change his views not long after. No congregation can be guaranteed otherwise. After all, did not many make such statements and solemn vows but have then changed? A man may decide that he needs to stay in the current Free Church in order to preserve the truth in his own congregation. But what will happen after he is gone?

This brings us back to the point of agreement, that binding rules and constitutions may even if ultra vires, effectually change in practice and reality the meaning and force of one's vows. This is what happened in 1892-3, yet men sought to argue otherwise. One argument was that they were not required to preach heresy. The point was, however, that they had the keys of discipline taken away from them in relation to heresy and their ordination vows were meaningless on this point. Noone is now required to administer worship other than purity of worship but that does not mean that the vows have been altered.

James S. Sinclair commented in relation to the 1892 Act in words that are now very relevant:

"It is very apparent, however, to all observers that the present age is distinguished for great laxity of opinion on religious subjects in general, and that men, from lack of reverence to any authority in heaven or earth, but their own narrow reason, are ready to kick against all fixed doctrinal standards even though these should be clearly supported by the unerring Word of God".

the Free Church and the 2nd Commandment

After one post already on this, some might question my right to comment on this. Besides having belonged to the Free Church in the past, currently I belong to a church that inherits from the Free Church of 1843 and retains its constitution. The right to comment, however, is in Leviticus 19:17 "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him". I trust that this will be understood in the light of that and neither will it be thought that I am breaching the first part of that verse in order to keep the second.

The Second Commandment "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image etc." tells us how God is to be worshipped i.e. the means of worship which are to be only according to his appointment and not by our invention. There is emphasis here upon the reflexive "making unto thee" devising and inventing after our own carnal preference and wisdom. Graven images are invented as an aid to worship and so this commandment is linked to the regulative principle of worship which is so abundant in scripture and forbids any aids to worship not appointed by God (Deut. 4:15-20; 12:32; Matt. 4:9-10; 15:8-9; Acts 17:23-25; Exod. 20:4-6, John 4:23-24; Col. 2:18-23; Lev. 10:1-3). A useful article on this is found here, see also here and here.

The Larger Catechism asks: Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding,using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself...

Only only has to look at the arguments to see that what is now being taught and commanded by the Free Church is merely the doctrines and commandments of men. The crux of the matter is that noone has been able to find that God has instituted in Scripture extra-biblical hymns not immediately inspired by Himself. Neither has anyone been able to find that God has instituted in the New Testament the retention of parts of the ceremonial temple worship which typified Christ's perfect work of redemption and were therefore swept away. Musical instruments are included in this.

We can consider the steps to the position taken by the Free Church in the words of the Larger Catechism.

Using religious worship not instituted by God Himself
The Board in their Report pointed out that inconsistent practice has been maintained in the Free Church for a long time. "The Assembly had the matter drawn to their attention in 1953 when
they were asked to judge an appeal against a decision by the Synod of Ross. The Synod had sought to prohibit Free Church ministers from participating in worship involving hymns and instrumental music in other churches. The Assembly debated the matter, and upheld the right of Free Church ministers to participate in worship of this kind in other churches - thus moving against the spirit of the 1910 Act." This was what Kenneth Macrae protested against in his booklet "Resurgence of Arminianism" in the 1950s. The growing question becomes, "if the vows can be relaxed outwith the Free Church, why not within?" Neil Macmillan put this at the plenary General Assembly: "There are few of us who think that singing hymns and using musical instruments is sinful – hence the repeal of the Act. It if it sinful we should not do it anywhere. How can worship be acceptable to God in another church but not in the Free Church?" Others referred to the inconsistency of allowing church gatherings to use hymns but not allowing them in public worship. The Board tried to maintain this inconsistency but could not in the face of those taking matters to their logical conclusion.

Approving religious worship not instituted by God Himself
The Free Church have now gone the length of approving religious worship not instituted by God Himself. They have done this in a way that is exceedingly difficult to reverse, only an attempt through the barrier Act over several years would change this. Note that the Free Church would have found it a little more difficult and time-consuming to arrive at its current position following this method which was instituted for the prevention of such innovations. The Free Church as a whole with the consent of the majority of the members of her presbyteries approves of religious worship not instituted by God Himself.

Counselling religious worship not instituted by God Himself
The arguments that allow defection from purity of worship that one does not believe in themselves and believe that it will be more attractive to those who would otherwise leave are only counselling that which is sinful that good may come from it.

Commanding religious worship not instituted by God Himself
The result of this position is that the ordination vows and constitution have been changed. The ordination vows under which men took office cannot be maintained any longer. Despite the false assurances there is an imposition upon consciences made by this legislation. It is no longer possible to assert, maintain and defend purity of worship in congregations that will reject purity of worship. While liberty will be granted to use purity of worship when conducting worship there is there liberty to preach against the defection from purity of worship? Will this not be seen as schismatic and proceeded against? Will elders be able to protest against defections within their congregation? The truth is that men are being commanded to accept this. John Kennedy said that if the legislation permitting hymns had gone under the Barrier Act he would have separated from the Free Church due to the constitutional change. This position enters into the difference of views on duty as to the 1892 Declaratory Act. When I referred to this back in 2009 I commented that "I don't think that there are any of John Kennedy's spirit in the present day Free Church". It appears that I may have been wrong and I am very glad to say so because it seems Kenneth Stewart, Dowanvale has principle in view (his statement is here). There were 30 dissents apparently but protest rather than dissent is what is required in order to keep one's conscience and vows entact.

Devising religious worship not instituted by God Himself
The Free Church are now devising worship for themselves like Jeroboam "devised of his own heart" his worship (1 Kings 12:33). The Assembly approved as follows: "The General Assembly appoint a Special Committee (using consultants as required) to investigate the feasibility and desirability of producing a recommended list of paraphrases of Scripture and hymns and spiritual songs consistent with the Word of God and the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith [there are none such consistent with WCF 21:1 and 5 - this is a Declaratory Act in relation to confessional subscription], and whether the Free Church ought to produce a praise resource supplementary to the Psalter, and to report to the 2011 General Assembly [with all due haste].” We also note that the anti-verbal inspiration principle of dynamic equivalence has been elevated to constitutional significance in the following instruction to the committee: "to investigate, collect and, if necessary prepare from within the resources of the Church appropriate portions of Scripture, other than the 150 Psalms, in a form which accurately renders the thought of the original [note that] and is suitable for singing in public worship".

This is the seriousness of the step that has been taken: using, approving, commanding, counselling and devising what is sinful in God's eyes. Jeroboam was described as one "who made Israel to sin" by his false aids to the worship of Jehovah not instituted by God Himself. We tremble to say it but this is what must be applied to the Free Church since Friday 19 November 2010.

Free Church votes to allow instruments and man-made hymns

Which makes it an extremely sad day for anyone who prizes the principles of the Scottish Reformation including the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. The vote was carried 98 to 14, defeating a report that proposed a compromise that was unconvincing and clearly not acceptable. As with many of these events in church history it is not the vociferous and determined minority that vote it through but those who do not want the change for themselves but want to keep the minority happy and think that they can and always will be able to harness the forces of change and conservatism. Those who approve of others who express views they personally never could are those who are responsible for the consequences of the change for they have given their support to it.

Take the example of Iain D Campbell who less than 18 months ago was clearly opposed to the change observing at the 2009 General Assembly that the regulative principle was being skewed in the report by a reference to the primacy of Scripture. He pointed out: 'This report affirms the primacy of Scripture. Primacy is something you start from. Scripture is a finality not a primacy'. He then said something important: 'We have taken serious vows regarding a particular position on worship. We’re now being asked to approve a process in this report that begs serious questions. We seem to be asked to reinvent the wheel. It seems to be predetermining the outcome. He did not think he could approve a report that would allow songs of human compositions and instruments.'

His intervention in the debate today was no doubt significant. 'The view I hold is that I want to remain in the same church as the previous two speakers [David Robertson and Kenneth Stewart]. I agree with Mr Stewart’s arguments. I have argued this before - always taken the view that the sufficiency of scripture means the sufficiency of the psalms. Now I need to ask which position safeguuards my position on worship. Alex’s! it safeguards my position insisting on singing psalms. BUT I need to ask what to do with my brethren who have come to another conclusion. What am I going to say to our young people - we’re educating them in the theology of the reformed faith but they drift away to other churches. I want to keep them! Alexs amendment in opening up honestly is a means to that end. We need to fill our pulpits and take more people - but we need to keep our people!' Principled expediency?

The motion carried and the quality of the arguments within the debate (here and here)are most concerning because very little was said of a scriptural character let alone logical consistency. The essence of the motion was that every one had their own 'equally conscientious and Biblically grounded but differing views on the subject' i.e. mere opinion and should be free to do what was right in their own eyes. Scripture wasn't clear on the matter and so it was a matter of conscience and subjective judgement. They had landed themselves in the same morass as John Frame, without a tenth of his rationalising attempts to dilute the regulative principle. Frame says “Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to prove that anything is divinely required specifically for official services” (Worship in Spirit and Truth, p.44).

The most telling contribution and stinging indictment of the whole debate was from Chris Redmond - Dowanvale.
'There is lack of scripture and confusion. I sing Jesus with my understanding when I sing the psalms Going to support the deliverance as lesser of two evils. We are accommodating two different views of scriptures but God is not divided. Are we Reformed? Not if we are subjective and interpret scripture subjectively. My vows speaks of current worship. The pragmatic arguments? We are too accommodating to people rather than the word'.

Previous posts that have discussed this controversy are here.

"The Free Church in its current form is finished" part 2

I omitted to mention in the last post that it is an extremely sad step that is being contemplated in the Free Church and noone who considers these matters deeply can view the largest presbyterian denomination in Europe still committed to purity of worship change, without real grief. I still remember the sorrowful, prayerful spirit that I had when I first learned of the influence of these trends around 12 years ago. Yes, there was an alarm too as now but I trust that the same spirit is in evidence as well.

I view the words of the editor of the Monthly Record in the title of this post as deeply significant. For the Free Church to take the step that he advocates, will mean abandonment of biblical puritan principle, the regulative principle of worship, strict subscription to the Westminster Confession(which requires psalms to be sung)as well as the regulative principle.

There is also a constitutional issue. The Free Church in 1910 declared its existing position very strongly by making a constitutional Class I Act and inserting reference to it in the ordination vows. To remove this is similar to removing the Westminster Confession from the ordination vows or making a Declaratory Act. To reverse wholescale a part of the constitution (rather than reaffirm or clarify what the Church is already committed to) can only really be done if every office-bearer that has taken these vows agrees. To impose this upon a dissenting minority risks the dissenting minority having the moral case for being the continuing Church whereas the majority have departed from the constitution and have no further right to be regarded as the same continuing Church. Whether they do become a protesting minority or not it could still be said, "the Free Church in its current form is finished".

The Free Church are cutting off a part of the heritage of the reformation Church of Scotland. This was protected in the National Church by the State in the 1693 Act for settling the quiet and peace of the Church. It is also in the British Constitution itself in the 1707 Act of Security protecting 'the true Protestant religion, as presently professed within this kingdom, with the worship, discipline, and government of the Church, should be effectually and unalterably secured'.

What the Free Church Act of 1910 refers to in the 1707 church legislation is what the National Church ordination vows referred to in speaking of 'the purity of the worship as presently practised in this national church, and asserted in the Act 15, Assembly 1707, entitled, Act against Innovations in the Worship of God'. The Free Church Act of 1910 ought really to have explicitly referred to psalms only rather than use the ambiguous phrase 'inspired materials of praise' since paraphrases were not in view in the 1707 Act and had not gone under the Barrier Act for approval. They had other reasons, however, for making room for paraphrases.

Previous generations were evidently very careful in setting up bulwarks against unscriptural innovations in worship, our own generation has become comparatively careless. There is a great attack is on biblical uniformity and allowing everyone to do what is right in their own eyes is advocated. This is what James Begg referred to as "Anarchy in Worship". "The very meaning of our being Presbyterians, moreover, as distinguished from Congregationalists, is that the details of worship shall be uniform, and settled by a central authority, so that in going from church to church, as from room to room in one great house, we shall not be distracted in our devotions by diversity and individual crotchets, as when "there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." cf. Jud. 17:6f. To this "uniformity," as well as purity of worship, all the office-bearers of the Presbyterian Church are solemnly pledged". He described five types of innovators 1.) the presumptuous and blasphemous innovator; 2.) the popularity-hunting innovator; 3.) the politic and scheming innovator; 4.) the aesthetic innovator. 5.) the well-meaning innovator.

We fervently hope that the innovators in the Free Church only fall into the latter category. As Begg says, however, "We are not sure that a numerous class are to be
ranked under this head, and especially we deny that ministers and others who have avowed the Presbyterian principles of worship, and undertaken solemn obligations
in connection therewith, are entitled when they break their vows to take shelter under the plea of good intentions. But what is greatly important, is that even
when we have reason to believe that men have a good motive, this will not excuse the slightest deviation from the will of God in the matter of worship". He gives the example of Uzzah, that ought to be well-weighed. Begg refers to Jeremiah 7:12 "Go ye now," says God, " unto my place which was in Shiloh, where I set my name at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel." The wickedness specially referred to was all connected with false worship, concerning the introduction of which, God says, "I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart." (Jer. 7:31)

the Free Church in its current form is finished

This year the Free Church is to meet to debate and decide upon its position on worship. This comes after a sustained attack by an influential number upon their ordination vows. The current editor of the Monthly Record told the Assembly in 2008 that he could no longer ‘assert, maintain and defend’ the current practice on worship. That is that he desires hymns, instrumental music and women deacons too. He has said 'the Free Church is going to change', 'the Free Church in its current form is finished'.

The interesting thing for those who have a knowledge of the history of the Free Church is that the proponents of change are appealing to the historical precedent of the late-victorian Free Church where hymns and organs were permitted in order to make way for union with the United Presbyterian Church. Union with Church of Scotland evangelicals unable to accept psalms without organs is the great rallying cry now behind the movement for change. History is evidently repeating itself, it has to because few are really listening. An astute article looks at the historical arguments used by contemporary proponents of change. It notes that the changes in Victorian times came hand in hand with theological declension. The attempts to form a superchurch in those times culminated in the United Free Church declining further until it merged into the Church of Scotland in 1929. Only a very basic theological standard is going to suit most evangelicals in the Church of Scotland.

But the question might be asked as to why the Free Church waited until 1910 to firm up its position on worship. Even the 1905 Act did not have a constitutional authority binding any to purity of worship. Was it because there had been an influx of ministers of all hues and shades from other denominations which by 1910 had departed almost as quickly as they came? Some answers are available in Maurice Grant's, "The Heirs of the Disruption in Crisis and Recovery", in Crown Him Lord of All. He notes that the use of organs were a live issue for at least one Free Church congregation before the Great War. Perhaps the 1910 Act would have been as quietly ignored in the Lowlands as the Postures in Public Worship Act of 1910 if the legislation had not been Class I and constitutional.

John Kennedy said that if the legislation permitting hymns had gone under the Barrier Act he would have separated from the Free Church due to the constitutional change. This position enters into the difference of views on duty as to the 1892 Declaratory Act. I don't think that there are any of John Kennedy's spirit in the present day Free Church.

the presbyterian downturn in Scotland

As many wait to see what the Church of Scotland will make of biblical morality at the end of this week there are other indications of a downturn on the ecclesiastical scene in Scotland.

Some of the debate turns upon what it means that 'the act of Ordination and Induction the Church of Scotland declares that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the supreme rule of faith and life in the Church of Scotland'. The evangelicals have a tight interpretation of this but the response by the Aberdeen Presbytery notes that this statement 'has its origins in the first of the Articles Declaratory which declares, ‘The Church of Scotland adheres to the Scottish Reformation; receives the Word of God which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as its supreme rule of faith and life; and avows the fundamental doctrines of the Catholic
faith founded thereupon.’ The presbytery goes on to assert that the word of God is not 'synonymous with the Scriptures', 'but it can, in part, be discerned from the Scriptures through prayer and through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit'. This, they believe allows for widely varying interpretations according to individual experience.

It shows that the confessional revision movement has ultimately arrived at the point where no statement can express meaningfully the diversity of views within the Church of Scotland without being so vague as to mean that Scripture is interpreted entirely differently.

The Free Church have found this in their discussions with the CofS which some in the FC General Assembly unsuccessfully attempted to bring to a close. The idea of an associate presbytery had been dropped as unworkable, and there are no overt moves towards integration because the fundamental problem is still the authority of Scripture. The Convener of the Committee said, however, 'we have to take risks some times'. Which is no doubt exactly the objection in the minds of those trying to suspend the discussions. The question was asked as to why the joint report says 'both churches stand in the Reformed tradition'. The Convener responded: 'That is what they claim. It may be a different understanding to us'. A response which shows that they have entangled themselves in the same net as the evangelicals within the Church of Scotland by allowing vague statements to cover contrary positions. It isn't far from here to accepting a vague statement that covers contrary positions on the Scriptures also.

Yet there are problems of contrary positions within the Free Church itself. It's position and constitution couldn't be much clearer on paper. The most obvious is in relation to worship where a special General Assembly is expected to debate in 2010 whether the FC can adopt musical instruments and hymns. The strange thing is that those pushing overtly for the latter are bound by ordination vows which bind them solemnly to assert, maintain and defend the purity of worship in the Church which was clearly explained to them at ordination and induction to exclude hymns and musical instruments. There was a clear encouragement of freedom of expression on this which was contrary to those vows. ID Campbell picked up on the fact that the regulative principle was being skewed in the report by a reference to the primacy of Scripture. He pointed out: 'This report affirms the primacy of Scripture. Primacy is something you start from. Scripture is a finality not a primacy'.

'We have taken serious vows regarding a particular position on worship. We’re now being asked to approve a process in this report that begs serious questions. We seem to be asked to reinvent the wheel. It seems to be predetermining the outcome. He did not think he could approve a report that would allow songs of human compositions and instruments.'

Others defended the idea that one could have taken these vows and then challenge the Assembly for Scriptural proof of the position. This is absurd, if someone has taken vows and changed their minds it is not their business break their vows and then to change the Church's mind so that the vows can be changed.

Alex Macdonald raised an interesting point which was that in the period 1900 – 1904 'there was no focus whatsoever on the presence of worship, the practise at the time was to use psalms, hymns and instruments. It was not viewed as a fundamental principle of the Free Church'. This reveals the influence of the spirit of the Declaratory Act on the 1900 men and the fact that they were willing to allow everything to continue without correction to ensure that the property would be secured. This ambiguous position is the root of the current movement.

Some were arguing that it is not a constitutional matter - simply a case of changing legislation as had been done in the 19th Century. The Westminster Confession, however, requires singing of psalms only. Further the vows are part of the constitution and the Animus Imponentis was clear. The fact that the change is to be approved by a plenary Assembly and to go through the Barrier Act will make the change constitutional. Dr Kennedy would have separated from the FC if this step had been taken to constitutionalise impure worship. Why? The Free Church would have departed from its constitution and he could no longer keep his ordination vows by being part of it. The same will be the case for the FC now. Once this legislation goes through the procedure envisaged it can no longer be regarded as having a constitution equivalent to the FC of 1843.

The nature of ordination vows

In the September 2007 Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland Rev. John Ross Inverness Greyfriars-Stratherrick reports on an induction and comments as follows on the vows put to the prospective minister.

'I wonder if it really is necessary to make an ordination a public display of the mysteries of the Claim, Declaration and Protest of 1842 or the Protest by Commissioners to the General Assembly of 1843, or a disavowal of all "Popish, Arian, Socinian, Arminian, Erastian and other doctrines doctrines, tenets and opinions whatsoever..." to say nothing of placing the candidate under reminder of the strictures of Act V, 1932. This all bemused most of the congregation and produced not a few a few stifled sniggers and embarrassed looks by those conscious of the presence of the local Catholic priest, whose kindly presence helped welcome Ricky and Melissa to the community. Might not these arcane memories of 'old unhappy, far off things and battles long ago' be better dealt with by the Presbytery in private prior to ordination? Surely induction questions, like those put to a bride and groom at a marriage, ought to be short, serious, and above all, obviously relevant, not detracting from the essentially joyous nature of the occasion by turning it into a public justification of the continued separate existence of the Free Church of Scotland'.

These comments fail to understand the true nature of the vows themselves as well as the their content. Ordination vows must be public, before the congregation who are receiving this minister or other office-bearer. It matters what the minister believes and is prepared to assert, maintain and defend. It matters what constitutes purity of worship. The climate of indifference to these solemn vows within the Free Church at present is truly alarming when we consider the true nature of such vows.

The solemn promises and declarations made at ordination - commonly called ordination vows- are in nature both an oath made in relation to man and vows taken with respect to God. (the Establishment in the Act for Settling the Quiet and Peace of the Church 1693 speak of the ordination vow as "the oath of allegiance"). Thus the whole of chapter 22 of the WCF is applicable. In relation to oaths the Confession says:
"WHOSOEVER takes an oath, ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believes so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.

An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation. It cannot oblige to sin; but in anything not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt; nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics or infidels."

This makes it clear that an oath is to be taken clearly without mental reservation or interpretation different from those who impose it because that involves the individual in the sin of perjury. An oath also binds to performance although it is to one's hurt and even though it is made to those who are heretics or infidels - we cannot violate it (Ezek. 17:16, 18, 19; Josh. 9:18, 19; II Sam. 21:1), provided the object of the oath is not sinful. An oath is also to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation. Thus there is to be no reinterpretation - the oath is to be understood in its prima facie sense.

"A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness." As Robert Shaw puts it, "the oath retains its high place among the solemnities of religion".
The fulfilment of vows is repeatedly enjoined in Scripture. "If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth." Numbers 30:2 "When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee." (Deuteronomy 23:2) "He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not." (Psalm 15:4) "...yea, they shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it." (Isaiah 19:21) "When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay" (Eccl 5:4-5). "Vow, and pay unto the LORD your God:" (Psalm 76:11). "It is a snare to the man who devoureth that which is holy, and after vows to make enquiry." (Proverbs 20:25).

It is a solemn thing therefore to break ordination vows - it is to violate the third commandment. As James Begg put it: "To allege that they may afterwards set these avowals at defiance, and still retain their offices, is to outrage morality and overflow the liberty of the Church and her congregations".