The Puritan Regulative Principle of the
Church
How did they worship God? Though I
do not agree with everything in this article, it is still helpful to
have a consensus on what some of the Puritans believed.
The
Puritan Principle of Worship
By
Dr. William Young
“The
Puritan principle of Worship was no invention of the Puritans. On the
contrary, it is the principle regulative of Worship formulated by Calvin
and adopted by all the Reformed Churches, as will appear from a
consideration of passages in the writings of Reformed writers and the
Reformed creeds. The
reformed view of the principle regulative of the external worship of God
stands out by way of contrast with the Lutheran view. Lutherans have
held that what is not forbidden in the Word of God may be allowed in the
Worship of God. Ceremonies in worship are thus regarded as to a large
extent indifferent (Adiaphora), i.e. things neither commanded nor
forbidden in the Scriptures... .The Reformed view has uniformly been
that only that which is prescribed be the Word of God may be introduced
into the Worship of God. Calvin formulated this regulative principle
with clarity and applied it with great consistency in the Reformation at
Geneva. It is implicit in his celebrated definition of pure and genuine
religion as "confidence in God coupled with serious fear -fear
which both includes in it willing reverence, and brings along with it
such legitimate worship as is prescribed by the law."
Expressed
more precisely, the subject of the present study might be formulated as
The Regulative Principle of Reformed Worship in the Puritan Writers and
Its Application to the Element of Sung Praise in Worship." The less
cumbrous title "The Puritan Principle of Worship" or, if one
prefers, The Principle of Puritan Worship" will be assumed to cover
the material referred to by the lengthier title.
The
central significance of the principle of worship in Puritanism has been
made clear in the opening chapter on The Nature of English
Puritanism" in Horton Davies' standard work on The Worship of the
English Puritans" (Dacre Press, Westminster, 1948). The
importance of the regulative principle of worship for the origin and
essential character of the Puritan movement appears in the definition of
Puritanism with which Davies opens the chapter: "Puritanism is most
accurately defined as the outlook that characterized the radical
Protestant party in Queen Elizabeth's day, who regarded the Reformation
as incomplete and wished to model English church worship and government
according to the Word of God." (p.l). He supports this definition
by a reference to the "Ecclesia Restaurata, or History of the
Reformation1' by Heylyn, an opponent of the Puritans. Under "Anno
Reg. 7" Heylyn writes: This year the Zwinglian, or Catvinian
Faction began to be first known by the name of Puritans, which name hath
ever since been appropriated to them because of their pretending to a
greater Purity in the Service of God, than was held forth unto them (as
they gave it out) in the Common-Prayer Book; and to a greater opposition
to the Rites and Usages of the Church of Rome than was agreeable to the
Constitution of the Church of England (ed. 1661, p. 172).
While
Horton Davies' definition includes Church Government with Worship as
part of the basic issue, Heylyn's statement is restricted to the
controversy concerning Worship. The Worship and the Government of the
Church are both subject to the regulative principle in the Reformed
conception. Yet the application of the regulative principle may be said
to enjoy a certain primacy with respect to Worship rather than to Church
Government. Worship is central to the life of the Church. The Church
exists to worship God, not to function as an organization. Church
Government also appears to have numerous features to which the
regulative principle does not apply in the way in which it does apply to
the modes of worship.
Judicial
procedure in a Church trial, for example, must include numerous
circumstances of considerable weight which are not prescribed in
scripture, if the requirements of justice are to be observed. Nothing
analogous to this necessity appears, so strikingly at least, in
connection with worship.
On
the other hand, due weight ought to be ascribed to the consideration
that the regulative principle of Reformed Worship provides a norm for
the practice of worship paralleled by the Scripture norm for the
constitution of the Church as an organized institution. Though the
organization of the Church may not be an end in itself or even so
directly related to the final end, The Glory of God, as is the Worship
of the Church, yet the form of Church Government in the sense of the
offices that are to be found in the Church, the qualifications for and
functions of church officers, the nature of an offence and the essential
procedure for dealing with offenses, is entirely prescribed in the Word
of God. The striking difference between the extent to which worship is
prescribed in Scripture and that to which Church Government is may prove
to be only superficial and apparent. Church Government has a larger
number of types of attendant circumstances that are inseparable from its
exercise, but no part of its essential structure, whereas Worship is
simpler and has relatively few types of attendant circumstances
accompanying it. In principle, however, both Worship and Church
Government in their essential structure and procedure are entirely
prescribed in Holy Scripture according to the regulative principle as
understood by Reformed Theologians and especially by the Puritans.
Whatever
may be the last word as to the ideal relationship of Worship and Church
Government to the regulative principle, in actual historical fact,
Puritanism began with the application of the principle to worship and
later became increasingly concerned with the application of it to
questions relating to the form of Church Government and the relations
between the Church and the State. While on the latter issues Puritans
divided into diverging camps, Presbyterians and Independents, those who
would remain in the State Church and Separatists2 all were of one mind
as to the application of the regulative principle to the Worship of the
Church. The regulative principle of Worship may then be regarded as in a
historical sense, the originating and also the unifying principle of
Puritanism. An adequate understanding of this principle is a necessary
condition of a proper comprehension of the significance of the Puritan
movement in the past and its relevance to our present problems.
In
the narrow sense of the terms "Separatist" and
"Puritan", the Separatists may be opposed to the Puritans.
Horton Davies, however, says of the term "Puritan",
"Whilst the term is strictly applicable only to the ecclesiastical
party who urged this concern in Elizabeth's day and renewed it in the
days of James I, it may be extended, in a wider sense, to the
semi-separatists such as John Robinson, who would never allow himself to
deny that the Church of England was a true Church," (The Worship of
the English Puritans, p. 11).
The
Puritan principle of Worship was no invention of the Puritans. On the
contrary, it is the principle regulative of Worship formulated by Calvin
and adopted by all the Reformed Churches, as will appear from a
consideration of passages in the writings of Reformed writers and the
Reformed creeds.
The
reformed view of the principle regulative of the external worship of God
stands out by way of contrast with the Lutheran view. Lutherans have
held that what is not forbidden in the Word of God may be allowed in the
Worship of God. Ceremonies in worship are thus regarded as to a large
extent indifferent (Adiaphora), i.e. things neither commanded nor
forbidden in the Scriptures. The Augsburg Confession treats of
Ecclesiastical Rites in Part 1, Article XV: "Concerning
Ecclesiastical Rites (made by man - W.Y.), they teach that those rites
are to be observed which may be observed without sin, and are profitable
for tranquility and good order in the Church; such as are set holidays,
feasts, and such like. Yet concerning such things, men are to be
admonished that consciences are not to be burdened as if such service
were necessary to salvation." (Schaff, The Creeds of the
Evangelical Protestant Churches, p. 16). The article goes on to condemn
human traditions, instituted to propitiate God, to merit grace, and to
make satisfaction for sins as opposed to the Gospel and the doctrine of
faith. Likewise in Part II, Article V, which treats "Of the
Distinction of Meats and Traditions:" "Yet most of the
traditions are observed among us which tend unto this end, that things
may be done orderly in the Church: as, namely, the order of lessons in
the Mass and the chiefest holidays. But, in the mean time men are
admonished that such service doth not justify before God, and that it is
not to be supposed there is sin in such things, if they be left undone,
without scandal. This liberty in human rites and ceremonies was not
unknown to our fathers." (Schaff, Op. cit. p. 48). Cf. The Formula
of Concord, Art. X "Of Ecclesiastical Ceremonies": "For
the better taking away of this controversy we believe, teach, and
confess with unanimous consent, that ceremonies and ecclesiastical rites
(such as in the Word of God are neither commanded nor forbidden, but
have only be instituted for the sake of order and seemliness) are of
themselves neither divine worship nor even any part of divine worship.
For it is written (Matt. 15:9): 'In vain did they worship me, teaching
for doctrines the commandments of men'" (Schaff, Op. cit., pp. 161
f.)
The
34th of the 39 articles of the Church of England follows the Lutheran
line: "It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all
places one, or utterly alike; for at all times they have been divers and
be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's
manners, so that nothing can be ordained against God's Word."
(Schaff, Op. cit., p. 508).
CALVIN'S
FORMULATION OF THE REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE
As
opposed to the Lutheran view that there is a substantial area of Adiaphora
in the service of Worship, the Reformed view has uniformly been that
only that which is prescribed be the Word of God may be introduced into
the Worship of God. Calvin formulated this regulative principle with
clarity and applied it with great consistency in the Reformation at
Geneva. It is implicit in his celebrated definition of pure and genuine
religion as "confidence in God coupled with serious fear - fear
which both includes in it willing reverence, and brings along with it
such legitimate worship as is prescribed by the law." (Inst,
1,11,3. Beveridge Trans.). The pertinent expression in the definitive
Latin edition (1559) reads "et secum trahit legitimum cultum qualis
in Lege praescribitur." The French text of 1560 accentuates the
Divine origin of acceptable worship;"et tire avec soy un service
tel qu'il appartient, et tel que Dieu mesmes i'ordonne en sa Loy."
(ed. published by Jean-Daniel Benoit, Vrin. 1957). In his account of
superstition, Calvin proceeds from the regulative principle: "In
this way, the vain pretext which many employ to clothe their
superstition is overthrown. They deem it enough that they have some kind
of zeal for religion, how preposterous soever it may be not observing
that true religion must be conformable to the will of God as its
unerring standard; (Latin: 'sed non animadvertunt, veram religionem ad
Dei nutum, ceu ad perpatuam regulam, debere conformari.' Fr.'Mais ils ne
notent pas que la vraye religion doit estre du tout conforme a la
volonte de Dieu, comme une reigle qui ne fleschit poin.') that he can
never deny himself, and is no specter or phantom, to be metamorphosed at
each individual's caprice. It is easy to see how superstition, with its
false glosses, mocks God, while it tries to please him. Usually
fastening merely on things on which he has declared he sets no value, it
either contemptuously overlooks or even undisguisedty rejects, the
things which he expressly enjoins, or in which we are assured he takes
pleasure. Those, therefore, who set up a fictitious worship, merely
worship and adore their own delirious fancies; indeed, they would never
dare so to trifle with God, had they not previously fashioned him after
their own childish conceits ... It remains therefore to conclude with
Lactantius (Instil. Div. lib. 1,2,6) 'No religion is genuine that is not
in accordance with truth.'"(I,IV,3). The corruption of pure
religion by the introduction of worship invented by man is for Calvin a
mark of the vanity and blindness of fallen human nature. Inst. I,V 13
unfolds this thought in detail: "Hence we must hold, that whosoever
adulterates pure religion (and this must be the case with all who cling
to their own views) make a departure from the one God. No doubt, they
will allege that they have a different intention; but it is of little
consequence what they intend or persuade themselves to believe, since
the Holy Spirit pronounces all to be apostates who, in the blindness of
their minds, substitute demons in the place of God. For this reason Paul
declares that the Ephesians were "without God' (Eph. 2:12), until
they had learned from the gospel what it is to worship the true God. Nor
must this be restricted to one people only, since in another place, he
declares in general, that all men 'became vain in their imaginations,'
after the majesty of the Creator was manifested to them in the structure
of the world . . . But if the most distinguished wandered in darkness,
what shall we say of the refuse? No wonder therefore, that all worship
of man's device is repudiated by the Holy Spirit as degenerate. (Lat.
"Quare nihil mirium si cultus omnes hominum arbitrio excogitates
tanquam degeneres repudiet Spiritus sanctus.' Fr. 'II ne se faut done
esmereiller si le sant Espirit a reiette tout service de Dieu contreuve
a la poste des hommes comme bastar et corrompu.') Any opinion which man
can form in heavenly mysteries though it may not beget a long train of
errors, is still the parent of error. And though nothing worse should
happen, even this is no light sin - to worship an unknown God at random.
Of this sin, however, we hear from our Saviour's own mouth (John 4:22),
that all are guilty who have not been taught out of the law who the God
is whom they ought to worship."
In
arguing against idolatry and Image worship, Calvin also appeals to the
regulative principle. Referring to Psalm CXV, 4 and CXXXV, 15, the
Reformer inquires: "Whence had idols their origin, but from the
will of man?" He argues: "It is, moreover, to be observed,
that by the mode of expression which is employed, every form of
superstition is denounced. Being works of men, they have no authority
from God (Isa. 2:8,13; 7:57; Hos. 14:4; Mic. 5:13); and therefore it
must be regarded as a fixed principle, that all modes of worship devised
by men are detestable." (Inst I, XI, 4). Lat. *Ut hoc fbcum sit,
destestabiles esse omnes cultus quos a seipsis homines excogitant.' Fr.
'afin que nous ayons une reigle infallible que tous les services divins
que les hommes se forgent sont detestables') cf. also I, X, 13.
Again
in distinguishing true religion from superstition, Calvin observes that
the latter "seems to take its name from its not being contented
with the measure which reason prescribes, but accumulate a superfluous
mass of vanities." (Inst. I,XII,1) "Religion" in Calvin's
opinion "is used in opposition to vagrant licence - the greater
part of mankind rashly taking up whatever first comes in their way,
whereas piety, that it may stand with a firm step, confines itself
within due bounds." These due bounds are determined by the law of
God. "But God, in vindicating his own right, first proclaims that
he is a jealous God, and will be a stern avenger if he is confounded
with any false god: and thereafter defines what due worship is, in order
that the human race may be kept in obedience. Both of these he embraces
in his Law when he first binds the faithful in allegiance to him as
their only lawgiver, and then prescribes a rule for worshipping him in
accordance with his will." (Ibid). The Law, according to Calvin,
among other uses "is designed as a bridle to curb men, and prevent
them from turning aside to spurious worship." Cf. I, XII, 3.
"He has been pleased to prescribe in his Law what is lawful and
right, and thus constrict men to a certain rule, lest any should allow
themselves to devise a worship of their own."
In
discussing the sufficiency of the Moral Law as a rule of conduct, Calvin
again refers to the regulative principle of worship (II, VIII, 5).
"The Lord, in delivering a perfect rule of righteousness, has
reduced in it all its parts to his mere will, and in this way has shown
that there is nothing more acceptable to him than obedience. There is
the more necessity for attending to this, because the human mind, in its
wantonness, is ever and anon inventing different modes of worship as a
means of gaining his favour. This irreligious affection of religion
being innate in the human mind, has betrayed itself in every age, and is
still doing so, men always longing to devise some method of procuring
righteousness without any sanction from
The
Word of God
God
foreseeing that the Israelites would not rest, but after receiving the
Law, would, unless sternly prohibited, give birth to new kinds of
righteousness, declares that the Law comprehended a perfect
righteousness ... How do we act? We are certainly under the same
obligation as they were ; for there cannot be a doubt that the claim of
absolute perfection which God made for his law is perpetually in force.
Not contented with it, however, we labour prodigiously in feigning and
coining an endless variety of good works, one after another. The best
cure for this vice would be constant and deep-seated conviction that the
Law was given from heaven to teach us a perfect righteousness; that the
only righteousness so taught is that which the divine will expressly
enjoins; and that it is, therefore, vain to attempt, by new forms of
worship, to gain the favor of God, whose true worship consists in
obedience alone; or rather, that to go a wandering after good works
which are not prescribed by the Law of God, is an intolerable violation
of true and divine righteousness."
Calvin
also finds the regulative principle of worship established by the second
commandment of the decalogue. He expounds the commandment this: "As
in the first commandment the Lord declares that he is one, and that
besides him no gods must be either worshipped or imagined, so he here
more plainly declares what his nature is, and what the kind of worship
with which he is to be honoured, in order that we may not presume to
form any carnal idea of him. The purport of the commandment, therefore,
is that he will not have his legitimate worship profaned by
superstitious rites. Wherefore, in general, he calls us entirely away
from the carnal frivolous observances which our stupid minds are wont to
devise after forming some gross idea of the divine nature, while at the
same time, he instructs us in the worship that is legitimate, namely,
spiritual worship of his own appointment." (Institutes II, VIII,
17).
In
Calvin's refutation of the claims of the Church of Rome, the regulative
principle of the Reformed Worship provides a charter of Christian
liberty. A superficial view might suppose the regulative principle to be
a confining, restricting principle that condemns Christian worship to
barrenness and ugliness. In Calvin's doctrine and practice, as in that
of the Puritans in the following century, the regulative principle was a
liberating power, cutting off at the root of tyrannical imposition of
men in the worship of God and exhibiting that worship in its native
beauty, the beauty of holiness. The implication of the regulative
principle for Christian liberty is expressed in Calvin's stirring words:
The power we have now to consider is whether it be lawful for the Church
to bind laws upon the conscience? In this discussion, civil order is not
touched; but the only point considered is how God may be duly worshipped
according to the rule which He has proscribed, and how our spiritual
liberty, with reference to God, may remain unimpaired. In ordinary
language, the name of human traditions is given to all decrees
concerning the worship of God, which men have issued without the
authority of His word. We contend against these, not against the sacred
and useful constitutions of the Church, which tend to preserve
discipline, or decency or peace. Our aim is to curb the unlimited and
barbarous empire usurped over souls by those who would be thought
pastors of the Church, but who are in fact its most cruel murderers.
They say that the laws which they enact are spiritual, pertaining to the
soul, and they affirm that they are necessary to eternal life. But thus
the Kingdom of Christ, as I lately observed, is invaded; thus the
liberty, which He has given to the consciences of believers, is
completely oppressed and overthrown ... What I contend for is, that
necessity ought not to be laid on consciences in matters in which Christ
has made them free . . . They must acknowledge Christ their deliverer,
as their only king, and be ruled by the only law of liberty, namely the
sacred word of the gospel, if they would retain the grace which they
have received in Christ: They must be subject to no bondage, be bound by
no chains." (Institutes IV, X, 1).
The
Christian is free from the commandments of men in matters of worship
because God is the only lawgiver and His will is the perfect rule of all
righteousness and holiness. Consequently, human constitutions are
contrary to the word of the Lord, if they are devised as part of the
worship of God and their observance is bound upon the conscience as of
necessary obligation. Calvin points out that in Colossians Paul
"Maintains that the doctrine of true worship of God is not to be
sought from men, because the Lord has faithfully and fully taught as in
what way He is to be worshipped (Inst. TV, X, 8). Calvin comments on 'ETHELOTHRESKIAS',
will worship: "That is, fictitious modes of worship which men
themselves devise or receive from others, and all precepts whatsoever
which they presume to deliver at their own hand concerning the worship
of God." (Ibid).
Throughout
the further discussion of ecclesiastical legislation in Inst. TV, X,
Calvin repeatedly appeals to the regulative principle of worship as the
chief ground for rejecting the traditions of men. A few passages may be
quoted in addition to those given to show how pervasively the regulated
principle has penetrated the Reformer's outlook. "Since Paul then
declares it to be intolerable that the legitimate worship of God should
be subjected to the will of men, wherein do we err when we are unable to
tolerate this in the present day? Especially when we are enjoined to
worship God according to the elements of this world - a thing which Paul
declares to be adverse to Christ (Col. 2:20)." (IV, X, 9).
"Moreover, the worst of all is, that when once religion begins to
be composed of such vain fictions, the perversion is immediately
succeeded by the abominable depravity with which our Lord upbraids the
Pharisees of making the commandment of God void through their tradition,
if this is not done when recommending the ordinances of God only
frigidly and perfunctorily, they nevertheless studiously and anxiously
urge strict obedience to their own ordinances, as if the whole power of
piety was contained in them -- when vindicating the transgression of the
divine Law with trivial satisfactions, they visit the minutest violation
of one of their decrees with no lighter punishment than imprisonment,
exile, fire, or sword?" (IV, X, 10). Commenting further on the show
of wisdom in will-worship, Calvin remarks: "But what does Paul say
to all this? Does he pluck off these masks lest the simple be deluded by
a false pretext? Deeming it sufficient for their refutation to say that
they were devices of men he passes all these things without refutation,
as things of no value. Nay, because he knew that all fictitious worship
is condemned in the Church, and is more suspected by believers, the more
pleasing it is to the human mind - because he knew that this false show
of outward humility differs so widely from true humility that it can be
easily discerned; - finally, because he knew that this tutelage is
valued at no more than bodily exercise, he wished the very things that
commended human traditions to be ignorant to be regarded by believers as
the refutation of them." (IV, X, 11). Calvin complains of the
imposition of a multitude of ceremonies as a restoration of Judaism
which burdens rather than aids the weak, To the question "Are no
ceremonies to be given to the more ignorant, as a help to their
ignorance?" he replies: "I do not say so; for I think that
help of this description is very useful to them. All I content for is
the employment of such a measure as may illustrate, not obscure Christ.
Hence a few ceremonies have been divinely appointed, and these by no
means laborious, in order that they may evince a present Christ. To the
Jews a greater number were given, that they might be images of an absent
Christ. In saying he was absent, I mean not in power, but in mode of
expression. Therefore to secure due moderation, it is necessary to
retain that fewness in number, facility in observance, and significance
of meaning which consists in clearness," (IV, X, 14). (Lat.
"in numero paucitatem, in observatve facilitatem, in significatione
dignitatem, quae etiam claritate constat").
Although
Calvin is directing his argument towards abuses prevalent in his own
day, he recognizes that the regulative principle is applicable to all
ages. "For whenever men begin the superstitious practice of
worshipping God with their own fictions, all the laws enacted for this
purpose forthwith degenerate into gross abuses. For the curse which God
denounces - viz. to strike those who worship him with the doctrines of
men with stupor and blindness Isaiah 29:13f.) - is not confined to any
one age, but applies to all ages. The uniform result of this blindness
is, that there is no kind of absurdity escaped by those who, despising
the many admonitions of God, spontaneously entangle themselves in these
deadly fetters. But if, without any regard to circumstances, you would
know the character belonging at all times to those human traditions
which ought to be repudiated by the church, and condemned by all the
godly, the definition which we formerly gave is clear and certain - viz.
That they include all the laws enacted by men, without authority from
the word of God, for the purpose either of prescribing the mode of
divine worship, or laying religious obligation on the conscience, as
enjoining things necessary to salvation." (IV, X, 16). For the
passage referred to in this quote, see IV, B, 1 and cf. Calvin's tract
on the "Necessity of Reforming the Church" (Edinburgh Ed.
Tracts, Vol I pp. 127 ff.).
Calvin
supports the regulative principle by further appeal to Scripture
passages. He points out that "it is not property of the Church to
disregard the limits of the word of God, and wanton and luxuriate in
enacting new laws. Does not the law which was once given to the Church
endure for ever?" Deut. 12:32 and Prov. 30:6 are quoted with the
following observations: "Since they cannot that this was said to
the Church, what else do they proclaim but their contumacy, when,
notwithstanding of such prohibitions, they profess to add to the
doctrine of God, and dare to intermingle their own with it? . . . Let us
understand that the name of Church is falsely pretended wherever men
contend for that rash human license which cannot confine itself within
the boundaries prescribed by the word of God, but petulantly breaks out,
and has recourse to its own inventions. In the above passage there is
nothing involved, nothing obscure, nothing ambiguous; the whole Church
is forbidden to add to, or take away from the word of God, in relation
to His worship and salutary precepts ... Now, if the Lord does not
permit anything to be added to, or taken away from the ministry of
Moses, though wrapt up, if I may so speak, in many folds of obscurity,
until He furnish a clearer doctrine by His servants the Prophets, and at
last His beloved Son, why should we not suppose that we are much more
strictly prohibited from making any additions to the Law, the Prophets,
the Psalms, and the Gospel? The Lord cannot forget Himself, and it is
long since He declared that nothing is so offensive to Him as to be
worshipped by human inventions." (IV, X, 17). Calvin further quotes
Jer. 7:22, 23. 11:7 and I Sam. 15:22, 23 to show that human inventions
may not be defended by appeal to the authority of the Church.
THE
WITNESS OF REFORMED CREEDS
The
witness of the Reformed creeds to the Regulative Principle of Worship is
along the lines laid down by Calvin. The Heidelberg Catechism (1563),
used in the German and Dutch Reformed Churches gives us the answer to
question 96, "What does God require in the second
commandment?", "That we in nowise make any image of God, nor
worship him in any other way than He has commanded in His Word."
The Belgic Confession by Guido de Bres (1561) used by the Dutch Reformed
Churches, in expounding the sufficiency of the Scriptures, declares
"The whole manner of worship which God requires of us in written in
then at large." (Article VII). Likewise in discussing the order and
discipline of the Church, the Belgic confession rejects "all human
inventions, and all laws which man would introduce into the worship of
God, thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any manner
whatever." (Article XXXII).
Among
the Reformed creeds, the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms
excel in the accuracy with which doctrine is formulated and the balance
with which the various elements of Scriptural truth are set in relation
to one another. These standards, it should be remembered, were the work
of a body of divines consisting almost entirely of English Puritans. The
following passages, in Carruthers' Text of the Confession edited from
the original manuscript written by Cornelius Surges in 1646, provide a
succinct formulation of the regulative principle.
"The
whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory,
man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in
Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from
Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new
revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we
acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary
for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:
and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and
government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which
are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence,
according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be
observed." Chapter I, Sec. VI.
"God
alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the
doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to
His Word; or beside it, in matters of faith, or worship. So that, to
believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is
to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit
faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of
conscience, and reason also." Ch. XX, Sec. II.
"The
light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and
sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore
to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with
all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the
acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and
so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped
according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of
Satan, under any visible representation or any way not prescribed in the
Holy Scripture." Ch. XXI, Sec. I.
The
sense of the regulative principle may be rendered clear and precise by
certain observations on the Westminster formulation which we may safely
take as the unanimous consensus of Puritan conviction on this subject.
1.
The regulative principle is a consequence of the sufficiency of
Scripture. Nothing need or may be added to the Word of God as a rule of
faith and practice. Therefore only what is prescribed by the written
Revelation may be admitted in the worship of God.
2.
The mode of prescription need not be that of explicit command in
a single text of Scripture. Approved example warrants an element of
worship as surely does an express precept.
Moreover, good and necessary consequence may warrant acceptable
worship. Without
entering upon disputed questions as to the proper subjects of Baptism,
all would agree that Scripture warrants the admission of women to the
Lord's table although no express command or approved example can be
adduced. There is a sound adage sometimes quoted by Reformed divines
that the sense of Scripture is Scripture.
3.
The regulative principle does not entail an impossible demand
that an indefinite number of minute circumstances concerning the worship
of God should be deduced from Scripture.
The time and place of worship for a Christian congregation are
not minutely prescribed.
4.
Yet this does not mean that all circumstances are Adiaphora.
The circumstances not prescribed by the Word of God are only such
as are "common to human actions and societies" and only some
such.
5.
The general rules of the Word of God are to be observed in the ordering
of the circumstances "by the light of nature and Christian
prudence." This implies that acts of worship itself are regulated
in a much more specific manner by Scripture than are other human
actions. An act of
worship is never a thing indifferent, something neither commanded nor
forbidden by God, while some civil actions and even circumstances
accompanying acts of worship may be thus classed among the Adiaphora.
6.
This distinction between acts of worship and civil acts is
implied in the distinction between things contrary to God's Word and
things beside God's Word. In all things human laws contrary to the Word
of God are not binding, though in some things human laws beside the Word
of God may be binding , as in laws passed by the civil magistrate that
may restrict conduct in things indifferent.
With respect to matters of faith and worship, however, human laws
beside the Word of God even though not directly contrary to it have no
binding force.
7.
The reason for this state of affairs is that the entire content of faith
and worship is revealed in the Word of God. The argument closes with a
return to its starting-point, the sufficiency of Scripture revelation as
prescribing the entire content of worship including all the ways in
which God may be worship acceptably.
THE
TESTIMONY OF THE PURITAN AUTHORS
The
Westminster Standards contain the consensus of English Puritan and
Scottish Presbyterian judgment as to the Regulative Principle. Whatever
difference of opinion there was in the assembly as to Church Government,
there was unanimity as to the regulation of worship. Where the English
Puritans were more scrupulous than their Scottish brethren in objecting
to the singing of a doxology as the close of a Psalm, the Scottish
divines were willing cheerfully to give up their time honoured custom
for the sake of uniformity in a matter where they were not called to
sacrifice principle.
The
same view of the regulative principle that appears in Knox* argument
against the Mass and in George Gillespie's dispute against the English
Popish Ceremonies was used by the English Puritans themselves against
the Mass and the Ceremonies. (Cf. W. Ames A Reply to Dr. Morton's
general defence of three nocent ceremonies, 1622, and A Fresh Suit
against Human Ceremonies in God's Worship, 1633, as well as the
propositions in the Medulla. Ames also wrote a preface to W. Bradshaw's
English Puritanism Containing the Maine Opinions of the rigidest sort of
those that are called Puritaines. Cf. also the discussion of the 2nd
commandment in Perkin's Golden Chain (1609) and his Warning against the
Idolatrie Of the Last Times. A full discussion of the regulative
principle may also be found in John Owen's Discourse concerning
Liturgies.
In
his well known Medulla Theologica (Eng. Trans., The Marrow of Sacred
Divinity, London, 1642), William Ames, Professor at Franeker, discusses
the principle of worship systematically under the heading, De Cultu
Instituto (Of instituted worship). The following propositions illustrate
the well ordered argument and precise definitions characteristic of
Ames' Medulla.
1.
Instituted worship is the meanes ordained by the Will of God to
exercise and further natural worship.
2.
All such like meanes ordained of God are declared in the second
Commandement, by forbidding all contrary meanes of worship devised by
men, under the title of Graven and Image: Which seeing they were of old
the chiefe inventions of men corrupting the worship of God, they are
most fitly (by a Synechdoche frequent in the Decalogue) put instead of
all devises of man's wit pertaining to worship. No worship of this kind
is lawful!, unlesse it hath God for the Author, and ordainer of it.
Deut. 4:2 and 12:32; I Chron. 16:13.
11.
That is declared in those words of the Commandment. Thou shall not make
to thy selfe: that is of thine own braine or judgment, for although that
particle to thy selfe, doth sometimes either abound, or hath another
force: yet here the most accurate brevity of these Commandements doth
exclude redundancy, and it is manifest that the vanity of man's
cogitations is excluded by other places of Scripture pertaining to the
same thing. As Amos 5:26; Numbers 15:39.
12.
The same is also declared by that universality of the
prohibition, which is explained in the Commandment by a distribution of
the things which are in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath, or in the
Waters under the Earth.
13.
For none beside God himselfe can either understand what will be
acceptable to him: or can add that virtue to any worship whereby, it may
be made effectual! and profitable for us; neither can there be anything
honorable to God which comes not from him as the author of it, neither
finally doe we read that such a power was at any time given to any man
by God, to ordaine any worship at his own pleasure. Matthew 15:9.
Excerpts
from some of these works appear later in this article [ed.]
14.
Hence implicitly and by interpretation of God himselfe, we make
him our God, and give the honour due to God to him, whose authority or
ordinances we subject our selves unto in religious worship.
15.
In this respect also men are sometime said to worship the Devil!,
when they observe those worships which the Devill brought in. I Cor.
10:20; Levit. 17:7; Deut. 32:17.
16.
But we must obseve that worhsip which God hath appointed with the
same religion, as we receive his word or will, or call upon his name.
Deut. 6:17-18 and 12:25, 28 and 13:18 and 28:14.
17.
The meanes which God hath ordained in this kind, some of them doe
properly, and immediately make to the exercising and furthering of
Faith, Hope and Charity, as publique and solemne preaching of the word,
celebration of Baptisme and the Lord's Supper, and prayer.
And
some of them are meanes for the right performance of those former, as
the combination of the faithful! into certaine Congregations or
Churches, Election, Ordination, and Ministration of ministers ordained
by God, together with the care of Ecclesiastical! Discipline.
18.
Those former are most properly the instituted worship of God; yet
the rest are also worship, not only in that general! respect, as all
things are said to be acts or worship and religion, which doe any way
flow from, or are guided by religion, but also in their special! nature,
because the adequate end and use of them is, that God may be rightly
worshipped.
19.
All these therefore both in general!, and in special! ought to be
observed of us as they are appointed by God; for God must be worshipped
by us with his own worship, totally and solely, nothing must here be
added, taken away or changed. Deut. 12:32.
20.
That is a very empty distinction, whereby some goe about to
excuse their additions.
That only addition corrupting and not addition conserving is
forbidden; because every addition as well as detraction is expressly
opposed to observation, or conservation of the commands of God, as being
a corruption. Deut. 12:32.
21.
Of like stampe also is that evasion whereby they say there is
forbidden only addition of essentials, and not of accidental^:
for first although there be accidents or certaine adjuncts of
worship, yet there is no worship to be simply called accidental!,
because it hath in it the very essence of worship. Secondly, as the
least commands of God even to Iotas and Tittles are religiously to be
obseved, Matt. 5:18,19. So additions which seeme very small, are by the
same reason to be rejected. Thirdly, Moses doth scale up even those
lawes of the place of Divine worship, of the manner,
of abstinence from blood, and the like which must needs be referred to
accidentall worship if any such be, with this very caution of not adding
or taking away. Deut. 12:32
22.
This observation is in a special manner called obedience, because
by it we doe that which seems right in the eyes of the Lord, although
some other may seem lighter in our eyes.
Deut. 12:25, 28.
23.
There is opposed unto this instituted worship, and unlawful!,
that will-worship which is devised by men.
Matt. 15:9; Col. 2:23.
24.
The sin which is committed in will-worship, is by a generall name
called superstition.
25.
Superstition is that whereby undue worship is yielded to God (Superstitio
est, qua Deo cultus indebitus exhibetur).
26.
For in superstition God is always the object, and the end in some
measure, but the worship it selfe is unlawful!.
27.
It is called undue worship, either in respect of the manner or
measure, or in respect of the matter and substance of the worship. In
the former manner the Pharisees offended about the Sabbath, when they
urged the observation of it as touching the outward rest, above the
manner and measure appointed by God. And they also offended in the
latter manner, in observing and urging their own traditions. Mark 7:8.
28.
Hence superstition is called an excesse of religion, not in
respect of the formal! power of religion, because so none can be too
religious; but in respect to the acts and meanes of religion.
29.
This excesse is not only in those positive exercises, which
consists in the use of things, but also in abstinence from the use of
some things, as from meats, which are accounted uncleane and unlawful,
and the like.
33.
Religious teaching by Images is condemned, first, because they
are not sanctified by God to that end . . . . "
34.
Of like kind with Images, are all those ceremonies, which are
ordained by men for mysticall or religious signification.
35.
For such ceremonies have no determinate power to teach, either by
any power put into them by nature, or by divine institution: but they
can receive none by humane institution, because man can effect this
neither by commanding, seeing it is beyond his authority, nor by
obtaining, seeing GOD hath promised no such thing to him that asketh.
36.
Neither can men take to themselves any authority in ordaining such
ceremonies from that, that it is commanded to all Churches, that all
things be done decently, and in order. I Cor. 14:40. For neither the
respect of order nor decency requires, that some holy things should be
newly ordained, but that those which are ordained by God, be used in
that manner, which is agreeable to their dignity, neither doe order and
decency pertaine to holy things only, but also to civil duties, for
confusion and indencency in both are vices opposite to that due manner
which is required to the attaining the just end and use of them..."
Further
discussion of these outward circumstances is found in Ch. XTV, Sees.
20-27.
In
his treatise on Gospel-worship (1648), Jeremiah Burroughs gives the
following account of the strange fire offered by Nadab and Abihu:
"But
had God ever forbidden it? Where do we find that ever God had forbidden
them to offer strange Fire, or appointed that they should offer only one
find of fire? There is no Text of Scripture, that you can find from the
beginning of Genesis to this place, where God hath said in terminis, in
so many words expressly, you shall offer no fire but one kind of fire.
And yet here they are consumed by fire from God, for offering strange
fire. I find in the 30th of Exodus verse 9 that there they were
forbidden offering strange Incense, but I do not find that they were
forbidden offering strange fire. In Levit. 6:13 and divers verses in
that Chapter, we find that God had appointed that they should keep
constantly the fire on the Altar burning, and never to let it go out:
Now that was it seems God's intention that therefore they should make
use of that fire, and that fire only. God would have them to pick out
his meaning: God sent fire down from heaven upon the Altar, so in the
latter end of the ninth chapter God sent down fire from heaven, and gave
them a charge to keep that fire on the altar constantly, and never to
let it go out: so that it seems God would have them pick out his
meaning, that because he had sent down fire from heaven upon the Altar,
and gave them power to keep that constantly, God would have them to
understand, that what Incense or Sacrifice he would have the use of fire
in, it should be only that fire and no other, though God did never say
to them directly in these words, You shall make use of this fire and no
other, but God would have them to understand this. That's their sin
therefore in offering of strange fire." (Gospel-Worship, p. 3).
Burroughs
proceeds to formulate the regulative principle of worship as follows:
That in God's Worship there must be nothing tendered up to God but what
he hath commanded, whatsoever we meddle with in the Worship of God, it
must be what we have a warrant for out of the Word of God." (Ibid.
p. 8).
"For
this speech of Moses is upon occasion of the Judgment of God upon
Aaron's sons for offering strange fire: They offered fire that God had
not commanded. Hence I say that all things in God's worship must have a
warrant out of God's Word, must be commanded. It is not enough that it
is not forbidden. I beseech you observe it: it is not enough that a
thing is not forbidden, and what hurt is there in it? But it must be
commanded. I confess in matters that are Civil and natural, there this
may be enough. If it be but according to the rules of prudence, and not
forbidden in the word; we may make use of this in Civil and natural
things. But now when we come to matters of Religion, and the Worship of
God; we must either have a command or somewhat out of God's Word by some
consequence drawn from some command wherein God manifests his will;
either a direct command, or by comparing one thing with another, or
drawing consequences plainly from the Words. We must have a warrant for
the Worship of God. One would have thought that these Priests offering
Incense to the true God, what hurt was there in taking other Fire? But
there was no command for it, and therefore it was not
accepted."(Ibid. p. 9).
Burroughs
adopts the standard Puritan distinction of elements and circumstances of
worship, terming the latter "natural and Civil helps."
"It is true that there are some thing in the Worship of God that
natural and Civil helps, and there we need not have any Command: As for
instance; when we come to worship God the congregation meets, they must
have a convenient place to keep the Air and weather from them: now this
is but a natural help, and so far as I use the place of worship at a
natural help, I need have no Command." A further important
distinction is made between those natural circumstances just described
and significant circumstances or ceremonies which require a warrant.
Further developing the example of a place of worship, Burroughs writes:
"But if I will put any thing in a Place beyond what it hath in its
own nature, there I must look for a Command. For if I account one place
more Holy than another; or to think that God should accept of worship in
one place rather than in another: this is to raise it above what it is
in its own Nature. So that when any Creature is raised in a Religious
way above what it hath in it by Nature: If I have not Scripture to
warrant me I am therein Superstitious. It's a very useful rule for to
help you: If any Creature that you make any use of in a way of Religion
beyond what it hath in its own Nature, if you have not some warrant from
the Word of God (whatsoever specious shew there may be in it) it is
tuperstition." (Ibid.)
OBJECTIVITY
IN WORSHIP
The
regulative principle when applied provides objectivity in worship. By
objectivity in this connection is meant simply conformity to the law of
God as opposed to subjectivity or rather to subjectivism in worship.
There is no doubt a good sense of subjectivity in worship, the sincere,
reverent attitude of the true worshipper. This desirable subjectivity,
however, will tend invariably to that worship which is agreeable to the
Will and Word of God. Opposed to this is subjectivism in worship,
worship arising not from the revealed Will of the Lord, but from the
desires, inclinations, imaginations and decisions of men.
Subjectivism is precisely what the Reformers and Puritans termed
will-worship.
An
increasing trend toward subjectivism in worship has marked the practice
of professing Protestantism since the seventeenth century. This trend
corresponds with a general trend in modern thought and life. The Puritan
principle in the 16th and 17th centuries was insisted on in opposition
to the tyrannical exercise of power on the apart of an authoritarian
Church. In the 20th century, while authoritarian churches still display
their characteristic traits, the glaring evil especially in Protestant
circles, in unbridled license on the part of individuals and groups
within the churches. The Puritan principle stands as a principle of
order and of liberty between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy in
worship. The extremes in this instance as in others have a common root
error more expressly manifest in the one than in the other extreme.
Tyranny has in it the seeds of anarchy. Anarchy may reveal itself at a
later stage of development than tyranny, but it reveals more clearly the
root evil that expresses itself in tyranny as well. That evil is
departure from the ways of the living God. Rabbi Duncan has well said
that there is but one heresy and that is antinomianism. Legalism itself
can be regarded as a disguised type of antinomianism. The Puritan
principle is not legalism, for it neither inculcates salvation by works
nor does it admit of any impositions beyond the commandments of God.
Legalism whether in Judaism or Christianity has involved essentially the
rejection of sovereign grace and of the sufficiency of God's Word.
Puritanism, far from being legalistic in this proper usage of
"legalism," is the one system that has in its distinguishing
principle opposed legalism most consistently. If Puritans have sometimes
fallen into legalistic errors, this lapse is in spite of, not the
natural result of their allegiance to the regulative principle of
worship.
The
trend toward subjectivism may be illustrated in a multitude of
particulars. Observance of days other than the Christian Sabbath or
Lord's day (and seasons of Thanksgiving and humiliation) has increased
with alarming rapidity. The evils of superstition and idolatry that have
come to be connected with the Church observance of Christmas and Easter
are notorious. Subjectivism in these instances attaches itself
parasitically to observances originally imposed by an authoritarian
Church while in other instances it invents days suited to the modern
spirit that aims beyond all else at the glory of man. Motherhood, war
and labour make inroads upon the Sabbath and on the purity of God's
worship in general, while a hundred or rather thousands of lesser
humanistic spirits hover about particular occasions in the activities of
the modern churches. A Sabbath for the Lodge in on Church and in memory
of Robert Burns in another! A peculiarly idolatrous form of deviation
from the regulative principle in some circles at present is the erection
of "worship centres" and particularly the use of pictures of
Christ in worship is a blatant violation of the 2nd commandment. Many
other applications and implications of the regulative principle could be
mentioned. The Puritans were concerned with ceremonies (of which the
three innocent ones singled out were the use of the surplice, kneeling
at the Communion and the sign of the cross in Baptism) and with the
imposition of liturgies. Since the 18th century, however, a major
deviation from the regulative principle in the direction of unbridled
subjectivism concerns the musical aspect of the service of worship. The
flood of uninspired lyrics commonly miscalled hymns or gospel songs
which has inundated a declining Protestant Church has been matched by
other musical accompaniments that have transformed Churches into
theatres and concert halls featuring preludes, postludes, interludes and
who knows what else of the same species?
The
godly William Romaine was one of Zion's faithful watchmen in the 18th
century who raised voice and pen in protest against the crowding out of
divinely authorized and inspired Psalmody by the introduction into
public worship of humanly composed ditties suited to tingle the itching
ear and to allure the carnal mind. Romaine's words of apology in his
"Essay on Psalmody" may well be quoted by one who would
introduce this subject in the 20th century, Evangelical Churches.
"I
know this is a sore place, and I would touch it gently, as gently as I
can with any hope of doing good. The value of poems above Psalms is
become so great, and the singing of men's words, so as quite to cast out
the Word of God is become so universal (except in the Church of
England), that one scarce dares to speak upon the subject: Neither would
I, having already met with contempt enough for preferring God's hymns to
man's hymns, if a high regard for God's most blessed word did not
require me to bear my testimony, and if I did not verily believe, that
many real Christians have taken up this practice without thinking of the
evil of it; and when they come to consider the matter carefully will
rather thank me, than censure me, for freedom of speech." Romaine's
"Essay on Psalmody" (1775) in Works (1847 ed.), p. 990.
Romaine
explains his position as to the use of hymns referring to Isaac Watts in
particular. "Let me observe then that I blame nobody for singing
human compositions. I do not think it sinful or unlawful, so the matter
be scriptural. My complaint is against preferring men's poems to the
good word of God, and preferring them to it in the Church. I have no
quarrel with Dr. Watts, or any living or dead versifier. I would not
wish all their poems burnt. My concern is to see Christian congregations
shut out divinely inspired Psalms, and take in Dr. Watts' flights of
fancy, as if the words of a poet were better than the words of a
prophet, or as if the wit of a man was to be preferred to the wisdom of
God. When the chruch is met together in one place, the Lord God has made
a provision for their songs of praise--a large collection and great
variety-and why should not these be used in the church according to
God's express appointment? I speak not of private people or of private
singing, but of the Church in its public service. Why should the
provision which God has made be so far despised, as to become quite out
of use? Why should Dr. Watts, or any hymn maker, not only take the
precedence of the Holy Ghost, but also thrust him entirely out of the
Church? Insomuch that the rhymes of a man are now magnified above the
Word of God, even to the annihilating of it in many congregations."
(pp. 990f.)
Romaine
writes of Watts not with rancour but with magnanimity, but is unsparing
of the followers of Watts who eliminated the Psalms from the service of
praise. Watts never intended to thrust the Psalms from the Church. His
words quoted by Romaine from the preface to the hymns are these:
"Far be it from my thoughts to lay aside the book of Psalms in
public worship; few can pretend so great a value for them as myself; it
is the most artful, most devotional, and divine collection of poesy; and
nothing can be supposed more proper to raise a pious soul to heaven,
than some parts of that book; never was a piece of experimental divinity
so nobly written, and so justly reverenced and admired." Romaine
remarks: "Happy would it have been for the Christian world, if his
followers had stopped just where he did. He declares it was far from his
thoughts to do what they have done. It never came into his head to lay
aside the book of Psalms in public worship. Think of this and weigh it
carefully, ye that idolize Dr. Watts, and prefer his poems to the
infallible Word of God. It would be well for you, if you valued psalms
as much as he did: for he says none valued them more. Then you would
have looked upon them in his light: for having already in your hands the
most devotional and the most divine collection, you would not have
thought of any other, knowing that it was impossible to have a better,
but you would have used this, and would have found it too, as Dr. Watts
did, the most proper to raise the soul to heaven. Blessed sentinels! I
honour the memory of Dr. Watts for this glorious testimony. I can say
nothing that can bear harder upon those persons, who, contary to his
opinion, have entirely left off singing the Psalms of God in the Church.
He never intended to countenance such a practice. He declares it was far
from his thoughts, yea, he abhorred the very thought, and in so saying
he has upon record condemned it. Here I rest the matter. .. Farewell.
May Lord guide you into all truth." (pp. 9%f.) Romaine's
magnanimity does not deter him from quoting references to Watts' Jingle
and Watts' hymns from Mr. Hall and Rev. T. Bradbury respectively (p.
999).
Watts
was responsible for two innovations in the service of sung praise, both
in the direction of subjectivism in worship. He prepared Imitations of
the Psalms to supersede the metrical versions commonly used in the
Puritan churches. The more drastic innovation was the introduction of a
collection of hymns of his own private composition. Watts defends both
of these departures from the standard Puritan practice in his
"Short Essay Toward the Improvement of Psalmody" and attempts
to produce Scripture warrant for the introduction of uninspired hymns,
appealing to references to the new song in Rev. 5:9 and 14:3 and to the
Song of Moses and the Lamb in Rev. 15:3. Puritan exegesis of these texts
will be produced later from a work by John Cotton of New England. The
modernizing subjectrvist motive appears more clearly in Watts' plea for
what may seem to be the lesser departure from the old ways, namely the
provision of imitations of the Psalms. Watts argues as follows for
modifying and mutilating the text of the Psalms as used in singing:
"Where there are any dark expressions and difficult to be
understood in the Hebrew songs, they should be left out in our psalmody,
or at least made very plain by a paraphrase. Where there are sentences
or whole psalms, that can very difficultly be accommodated to our times,
they may be utterly omitted. Such is Ps. 150, part of the 38th, 45th,
48th, 40th, 68th, 81st, 108th and some others as well as a great part of
the song of Solomon." (Watts' Works, 1700 London Ed. Vol. VII, p.
7.) One may judge for oneself whether such language is consistent with a
fullblooded witness to the inspiration, authority, and perfection of
Holy Scripture as expressed in II Timothy 3:16,17. Watts' attempt to
distinguish the use of the Psalter in singing from that in reading does
not meet this objection. If reverence for the Word of God should induce
the reader to retain an unmutilated text despite difficulties of a
subjective nature, why alter the text on account of such difficulties
for purpose of singing? Watts goes so far as to include the beautiful
expressions of Ps. 84:3,6 among "passages which were hardly made
for Christian lips to assume without some alteration." The defense
of uninspired hymnody entails a modification of the regulative principle
of worship, in transferring the content of praise from prescribed matter
to a thing indifferent. In answering the objection that there is no
instance in Scripture of a human composure sung by the people of God,
Watts appeals to the general considerations he has argued from Scripture
and adds the words "Since we perform many circumstances of worship
under the influence of a general command without express and special
examples" (pp. 17,18) Aside from the apparent confusion of good and
necessary consequences of general commands with circumstances fo actions
in worship which may be adiaphora, the remark itself betrays an attitude
of unwillingness to regulate the details of worship by the Scripture
pattern. In the conclusion, after admitting that his arguments will not
be found conclusive, he quotes Romans 14:2. In identifying Psalmsingers
with weaker brethren, Watts shows that he regards the content of praise
as belonging to the Adiaphora. This is to say, the regulative principle
of worship does not apply. In settling such a question the judgment of
man is decisive rather than the appointment of the divine Will. In this,
even more than in the innovations themselves with their far-reaching
consequences, lies the deepest deviation of Watts from the Puritan
position with respect to worship.
PURITAN
TEACHING REGARDING CONTENT OF SUNG PRAISE
A
consideration of authentic Puritan teaching with respect to the content
of sung praise will now be in order. Mention may be made first of all of
the witness of the Puritans at the Westminster Assembly of Divines both
in the mention of singing of Psalms among the authorized elements of
worship and in the concern for a metrical Psalter which could be a
faithful rendering of the text of the Psalms.
In
his work on Singing of Psalms a Gospel-Ordinance (1647), John Cotton,
teacher of the Church at Boston in New-England, finds it necessary first
of all to justify vocal singing in the worship of God. He gives the
following proofs in justification of the practice (p.2).
Proof.
1. The commandment of the Lord by Paul, Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; I Cor.
4:15, 16. The content of song and manner of singing are not here
defended, but in Cotton's words, "That singing of Psalms in the New
Testament, is to be dispensed in Christian Churches, not only with
inward grace in the heart, making melody to the Lord; but also with
outward audible lively voice."(p.3). Cotton replies to various
objections raised against the appeal to the Pauline texts. One objection
is to the effect that no spiritual gift is exercised in the singing of
the letter of the Psalms. Cotton replies that "Singing of Psalms is
accompanied and blessed of God (by his grace) with many gracious
effects, above nature or art" (p. 4). "Singing of a spiritual
song, prepareth to prophecy, by ministering the Spirit, II Kings 3:15. .
. The minstrells playing, if it had not been accompanied with a
spiritual song, it could not have conveyed such a spiritual
blessing." (p. 5) Cotton reasons in like manner from I Samuel
10:5,6. "For prophecy is an utterance only of the Word of God, and
of the things of God contained in it; which Instruments without voyce
cannot doe. Nor had their playing with Instruments been a means of
conveying the Spirit to Saul, had not their voyces concurred and sung
with their Instruments." (Ibid.)
Singing
of Psalms honours God with our glory, i.e. our tongue, Ps. 108:1, Ps.
57:7,8. To the objection that "these gracious effects and fruits of
singing Psalms do plead as much for singing and playing with instruments
as for singing with voyces," Cotton gives several answers, the
third of which is of particular interest as providing a main ground for
the Puritans' rejection of instrumental music in worship: "Singing
with Instruments, was typical!, and so a ceremoniall worship, and
therefore is ceased. But singing with heart and voyce is morall worship,
such as is written inthe hearts of all men by nature: As to pray in
distress, so when we are merry, and have cause of solemn thanksgiving
unto God, then to sing Psalms, which the Holy Ghost by the Apostle James
approveth and sanctifieth, James 5:13. Or suppose singing with
instruments were not typicall, but only an external solemnitie of
worship, fitten to the solace of the outward senses of children under
age, (such as the Israelites were under the Old Testament Gal.
4:,1,2,3). Yet now in the growne age of the heires of the New Testament,
such externall pompous solemnities are ceased, and so external! worship
reserved, but such as holdeth forth simplicitie, and gravitie; nor is
any voyce now to be heard in the Church of Christ, but such as is
significant and edifying by significance, (I Cor. 14:10, 11, 26), which
the voyce of Instruments is not." (Ibid., pp. 5f.).
Proof
2. The examples of Christ himself, and of his saints and Disciples in
the New Testament. "Christ himselfe with his Disciples sung a
Psalme or an Hymne together, in the end of the administration of the
Lord's Supper, Matt. 26:30. And Paul and Silas are said to have sung a
psalme in the prison, so as the Prisoners heard them, Acts 16:25. Now if
in singing they had only spiritually rejoiced, and not expressed their
joy and their song in audible and lively voyce, the prisoners could not
have heard them. The stranger doth not know nor meddle with the
spiritual! joy of the heart, Prov. 14:10." (Ibid. pp. 7f.). In
reply to the objection that Matt. 26:30 could as well be translated They
praysed God' as They sung an Hymne,' Cotton observes: "It is more
probable, than any reason can wave, that Christ and his Disciples did
shut up the Lord's Supper with singing one of their Hebrew Psalms: so as
the Jewes were wont to shut up their Celebration of the Passover (as
their own Records tell us) with singing Psalme 111 with the five other
Psalmes next following together. But all that I now intend is to show
that Christ and his Disciples sang together, and therefore with the
voyce as well as the heart." (p.8)
Proof
3. The Prophecies of the Old Testament, foretelling and persuading such
a duty in the New, Isa. 52:8: with the voyce together shall they sing.
And that is foretold of the times when the feet of the Messengers of
glad tydings shall be beautiful, who shall say unto Zion, Thy God
reigneth. Which Paul explaineth of the times of the Gospel. Rom.
10:14." (p. 10). Cotton also adds references to Ps. 100:1,2 and Ps.
95:1,2 and shows that both of these Psalms relate to the worship of the
New Testament Church.
Against
this appeal to O. T. texts, the objection was raised that since singing
in the O. T. is associated with the use of Instrumental Music, these
texts do not refer to singing in the N.T. Church. Cotton replies,
referring to Psalm 95:12, "Here is now no mention of making a
joyfull noise with Instruments, but the Psalmes. And therefore the
making a joyfull noise with Psalmes doth still continue, even on our
Lord's dayes: when making a joyfull noyse with Instruments continueth
not, but is laid downe in silence: save only so farre as it is kept
alive in the antitype, the affections of our hearts (Our Praecordia)
making melody with the songs and professions of our lips, and with the
gracious and peaceable conversation of our lives." (p. 12).
Following
upon his elaborate argument in support of vocal singing in the worship
of God, Cotton proceeds to the heart of the matter, the content of sung
praise in worship, or as he expresses it, "the matter of the
Psalmes to the sung" (p. 14). He refers to "some who do not
scruple singing with the voyce. . . but singing of the Psalmes of David
now in these dayes of the New Testament" and summarizes their
opinion: "As concerning David's Psalmes were penned for Temple
worship, during the Paedogogy of the Old Testament. But now in the dayes
of the New Testament, when God hath promised to pour out his Spirit upon
all flesh, now the whole worship of God should be carried on, not by set
formes of Psalmes (no more than by set formes of prayer) but by
personall spirituall gifts, whereby some one or other of the members of
the Church, having received a Psalme by the inditement of the Spirit, he
singeth it openly in the publique Assembly of the Church, and the rest
of the brethren say Amen to it in the close." (Ibid. pp. 14f.)
Ignoring
at the present stage of discussion the question as to who should sing,
Cotton states his view as to the matter to be sung:
1.
That not only the Psalmes of David, but any other spirituall
songs. Songs recorded in Scripture, may lawfully be sung in Christian
Churches, as the song of Moses, and Asaph, Heman and Ethan, Solomon and
Hezekiah, Habbakkuk, and Zachary, Hannah, and Deborah, Mary and
Elizabeth, and the like.
2.
We grant also, that any private Christian, who hath a gift to
frame a spirituall song, may both frame it, and sing it privately for
his own private comfort, and remembrance of some speciall benefit, or
deliverance: Nor doe
we forbid the private
use of an Instrument of Musick therewithall;
So that attention to the instrument, doe not divert the heart
from attention to the matter of the Song.
|