Gibson Public Worship I.

PUBLIC WORSHIP OF GOD.

CHAPTER I.

Public Worship of God—its Authority and Modes.

---

No more important or vital question, whether in relation to the way of a sinner’s justification before God, the manner of the believer’s approach to God in acceptable service, either in the discharge of private personal duty, or of public social worship in the church of the living God, can be raised than this—“How can a man come before the Lord, or bow himself before the most high God?” One great principle is applicable to every approach, viz., “All things by the law were purged with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.” This is still applicable to everything in which man can find acceptance with God. He must find it through the atoning and purifying blood of the Lamb, slain in perennial efficacy, before the foundation of the world. This is still the “fountain opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.”

The object we have at present in view will not embrace so wide a range, though it is one of vast moment to every

Page 8

pious and earnest servant of God. It is limited to one of the topics whose importance is above noticed, viz., to propound and answer the question, Wherewithal, or how shall men come before God in the public social worship of the sanctuary? Is it in forms and ways of their own devising, or in the way authorised and appointed by God Himself? One would suppose that, assuming that God has appointed a way, there could be no other question raised than this, What is that way? But is it so? And to what does the divine rule apply?

Our Lord Himself has given the answer, so far as the general principle is concerned, in that deeply interesting interview with the woman of Samaria, as picturesque and illustrative of eastern manners, as it is declarative of a grand and majestic principle regulating the way of man’s approach to “the one living and true God.” “Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what. We know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”

It is very plain from this passage that our Lord alike disapproves of and sets aside, not only all Samaritan intermixtures of Judaism and paganism, but all Judaic will-worship and traditionary accretions, as well as the whole outward system of authorised Judaic typical worship, reserving only for the church of the future, in all time and every place, that which could be described to be in reality

Page 9

“worship in spirit and in truth.” Accordingly, this was followed up by His inspired apostles, as the Spirit gave them utterance, even as He promised should be the case when He Himself was glorified.

It is reasonable to expect from such a Lawgiver, that when He laid down the abstract principle and rule affecting the whole human race in all future time, setting thus aside all that was outward, and local, and traditionary, He would at the same time indicate the way, or at least the source, from which His people would receive light and guidance. This He has done in His intercessory prayer for His disciples to the end of the world, “for all them who should believe on Him through their word.” John xvii. 17, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. . . . And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they may be sanctified through the truth.”

This way of the sanctification of God’s people, it is plain, must embrace all the means by which they can worship and serve God, and by which they can be accepted in so doing. THE WORD, then, and no human opinion, speculation, taste, or feeling, must constitute the rule and the directory—the unchanging Word of God, and not the spirit of the age, nor any demands either for the sensational or æsthetic, nor shifting times and seasons. The Spirit of God speaketh expressly to the reverse of following the spirit of the age. After unfolding the great way of justification, through the merits and righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ, originating in the unsearchable counsels of everlasting wisdom and love, Paul lays down the rule—“I beseech you, therefore, brethren. . . . Be not conformed to the world, αἰῶνι, the age.” This is a rule to regulate the whole Christian life, and shutting out, in its

Page 10

whole range, conformity to the age, and, above all, of course, in the direct service of the living God. To all who plead the demands of the age for their æsthetic fancies, the question is always applicable, “Who hath required this at your hand?” This is not a matter that can be classed in the category of things indifferent, such as whether a man is to eat herbs or eat flesh; or whether, as mere matter of human appointment, one man likes to do certain things on one day rather than on another. These have nothing either religious or moral in them, more than the colour of a coat or the shape of a hat. But even these must never be imposed on the human conscience as matter of obligation. To do so is the principle of all superstition, and of all religious tyranny, whether by priests or kings. Hence, on this ground, it was that the Puritans, both of England and Scotland, resisted the imposition of the “habits” or vestments, by authority. Both parties knew that in themselves such things were matters of indifference. But when imposed, whether by civil or ecclesiastical authority, the Puritans resisted the attempt and the principle alike, as Popish, and a tyrannical invasion of religious liberty, and of the rights of conscience. The Charleses and Prelatists held them to be indifferent, and punished the Puritans as rebels, because, as they alleged, they resisted lawful authority in things of no moment. Such is the result of the theory of indifference—in other words, of open questions in the church of God. Let serious thinking Christian men look to it. Politicians will care little for their scruples when it may be safe to hold them “troublers of Israel.”

This view does not imply that every man is to act according to his own liking in the public worship, and not to be

Page 11

the subject of blame either before God or His Church. His Grace of Argyle seems to carry his views of toleration rather far in a late lecture, when he quotes the words of Paul in the 14th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and applies them to things not altogether indifferent in their nature, but both moral and religious. He says:—

“How deep, how satisfying to the reason and the conscience, is the doctrine of St Paul in respect to sin, when he defines it to be sin against knowledge—disobedience to the light, whatever that may be, which is within us. ‘To him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.’ ‘All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.’ ‘Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.’ ‘Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.’ St James is not less explicit: ‘Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.’ How has the essential principle on which this teaching depends been forgotten, neglected, contradicted, in the language of theologians? What deep and wrongful offence has been cast on the true doctrines of the Cross?”

His Grace gives a definition here of sin which neither Paul nor James ever gave, and then applies an inference of his own, from things that are no sin at all, to sin itself. In the first place, the Bible definition of sin is very different: it is, “Sin is the transgression of the law.” The law in its summary is, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,” etc., and “thy neighbour as thyself;” and Paul quotes in another place, as the foundation of the Redeemer’s work in redeeming us from its curse, the negative definition of sin, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.” These are the two sides of what constitutes sin, and hence the Westminster “theologians” most truly and justly, in their “Shorter Catechism,” which his Grace, as a Presbyterian, is doubtless well acquainted with, define sin to be a

Page 12

“want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.” Any one who will look at the law of God in any of its injunctions, whether as “Thou shalt,” or as “Thou shalt not,” will at once see the perfect accuracy of this definition. His Grace substitutes the “light within us,” for the clear law of God without us in the Holy Scriptures. But, again, his Grace applies the words of Paul to what is really “sin”—a transgression of the law of God; while Paul applies them to things that are no sin at all, viz., the human, or, if you will, Judaising distinction under the gospel of meats and drinks, and unauthorised and uncommanded days. We suspect that the “theologians” are more correct in this instance than his Grace. But we hardly think it fair, as the Duke does in his lecture, able and excellent in many respects as it is, to make all “theologians” indiscriminately answerable for all that he condemns, more than it would be to make his Grace answerable for the sentiments and doings of all dukes, or all dukes answerable for the sentiments of his Grace.

Further, the passage in Rom. xiv., as quoted and applied by the Duke of Argyle, is so far from lowering the standard of duty, or apologising, or inculcating charity for what is really sin, or contrary to the gospel (of which latter Paul says, “If any man preach any other gospel unto you, etc., let him be accursed”), that it makes it a sin in any man to eat or drink anything, or violate a day, about which he has doubt in his own mind; and declares, in relation even to the things in question, which are neither moral nor religious, that so tender must a man be in reference to offending God, that he must, even in such indifferent matters, “be fully persuaded in his own mind.” “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

Page 13

And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” He puts not the doubt on the side of God; but he takes the benefit of it to himself. This is the apostle’s idea of “sin,” very different from that of his Grace of Argyle.

We have this principle brought out in the Old Testament in the case of poor King Saul, for whom we have often felt great pity, as we have done for Robert Burns and Lord Byron—so far as mere natural feeling is concerned, men of noble genius and lofty natural sentiment, but withal thoroughly ungodly and wilful, and even low and gross, in their immoralities. But the infinitely compassionate Jehovah makes no apologies, and demands no charity, either for immorality or falsehood, though we are both to pity and to pray for those who are guilty either of the one or of the other.

The case of King Saul is both deeply interesting and solemnly instructive, as related 1 Sam. chap. xv. Saul was commanded to destroy Amalek, themselves, and their cattle, for their wickedness and cruelty. But Saul, in the exercise, as he thought, both of compassion and of religious wisdom, and encouraged by the people, thought and acted differently from the command of God: ver. 9–11, “But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly. Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying, It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel, and he cried unto the Lord all night.”

Page 14

The prophet had both pity and compassion, and prayed to God all night. But while he said, as his conduct showed, “What am I, that I should withstand God?” he neither sanctioned, nor did, nor apologised for, the unrighteous thing: ver. 13, “And Samuel came to Saul; and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the Lord; I have performed the commandment of the Lord. And Samuel said, What meaneth this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?” And though Saul repeatedly pleaded his good intentions, and laid the blame of his disobedience to the command of God on the people—nay, pleaded that he had obeyed the command of the Lord, as he had done, so far as he thought it expedient: the very principle in question of doing what he thought to be right, yet was he “not thereby justified,” for when Samuel placed the matter before the Lord, He gave Saul the solemn answer: ver. 22, “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the word of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he also hath rejected thee from being king.”

The Lord would not accept as pleasing in His sight what was uncommanded, even though good in itself; neither Saul’s will-wisdom nor his “will-worship;” and all his confession of sin and humiliation and entreaties had no effect whatever in setting aside God’s righteous judgment.

On a previous occasion Saul, to all appearance very sincerely, dreaded an assault of the Philistines before the Israelites had offered sacrifice and “made supplication unto the Lord,” and as Samuel had delayed his coming, he took

Page 15

the office into his own hand. “And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue,” etc. (1 Sam. xiii. 13, 14). Now all this “is written for our admonition.” “The things which were written aforetime were written for our learning:” so says the apostle Paul. Can we then despise them? In regard to the false worship of the Jews (Jer. xix. 5), God says, “which I commanded not nor spake it, neither came it into my mind.”

We have many other passages in Scripture to sanction and enforce the great principle, not only that we must not violate the direct commands of God in our service, but must not presume to offer Him unauthorised worship, and which He “hath not required at our hand.” The reasons are clear. He is too exalted and majestic for sinful mortals to take such matters into their own hand, and to serve Him with their own inventions. If He has revealed Himself at all to ignorant and guilty men, surely it is reasonable to think He would reveal how He should be approached and served. If He has done so, and provided all the means, it is the height of presumption in human beings either to add to or take from what He has appointed. “What things soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish therefrom” (Deut. xii. 32). Our Lord Himself hands down this great principle and command in His commission to His apostles, and through them to the church to the end of the world. Matt. xxviii. 18, 20, “And Jesus came and taught them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,

Page 16

baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I HAVE COMMANDED YOU: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” His voice as the great Lawgiver and Head of His church, from the beginning to the end, is one and the same. He does not say, You are not to teach what I have forbidden, but you are to teach to observe and do what I have commanded, and neither “add thereto, nor diminish therefrom.”

Hence the Westminster divines, in words as accordant with reason and the nature and fitness of things as with the written Word of God, lay down, on the subject of religious worship, the following propositions (Confession of Faith, chap. xxi.):—“The light of nature showeth that there is a God who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doeth 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 imagination and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, OR ANY OTHER WAY NOT PRESCRIBED in the Holy Scripture.”

The first principle is binding on all true Presbyterian ministers and elders throughout the world, who have in all countries owned the Westminster Confession of Faith as the confession of their faith; and, as Bible truth, it is binding on all men. The special application to the particular modes of public worship, and the way in which it has been complied with by many who have solemnly pro-

Page 17

fessed it, may be afterwards considered. Meantime we remark, that this principle, instead of being a principle, either of oppression on the one hand, or slavish submission on the other, is the great charter of Christian liberty, and of the elevated dignity of Christ’s freemen; while the opposite principle is not only the badge, but the instrument of tyranny on the one hand, and of slavish submission to the impositions and inventions of men on the other. It is no slavery, and no degradation to submit to the commands, and walk according to the rules prescribed by the Majesty of heaven and earth. “I will walk at liberty, because I seek thy precepts,” said David. “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,” says our Lord; paraphrased by the pious and immortal William Cowper thus:

“He is the freeman whom the truth makes free,

And all are slaves beside.”

This is verified by the whole facts alike of individual and of social history, civil and ecclesiastical. What is the history of individual and monkish fanaticism? Not a history, in the first instance, of bad men, but the history of good men following their own inventions, and putting in practice their own devices, and being “wise above what was written;” and the whole issuing in the excesses of folly, and the most enormous crimes of lust and murder. What is the history of the whole gorgeous and burdensome, and even puerile, ceremonial and ritual of Rome, now being copied and imitated in the Church of England at the present moment? Not the history of things positively forbidden by the Bible in so many words, but the history of things which are “not prescribed in Holy Scripture.” If one man is at liberty to plead for his own invention,

Page 18

because it is not forbidden in the Bible, why may not another do the same for his, and forthwith set it up, on the principle that all is lawful in the worship of God which is not forbidden? What right have the anti-ritualists of England, unless they adopt our principle, to disturb the public peace by their present opposition? Nay, what right have such parties to oppose the ritual of Antichrist himself?

Very different is the case when the Christian man and the Christian church can demand, “By what Bible authority do you these things? and who gave you this authority?”

Would that the professing church of Christ—would that Christian men might seriously ponder, in the first instance, the great principle to which we have given expression in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith. It is one which seems to us just, reasonable, and scriptural, and of unspeakable importance to the liberty and highest interests of the Christian church, and their only security against the irruptions of the Papacy, and the introduction of its worst practices into the Church of England. We tell them, and tell all men, that history, experience, and rational reflection, show that men waste their breath against all such inventions, and gratuitously disturb the peace both of Church and State, if they cannot plead the authority of the Word of God for what they are doing; and what is more, they disturb it in vain—for “will-worship,” sanctioned, will have its own way, and human nature, “priest and people, love to have it so.” Oh, many will say, men are too enlightened in this nineteenth century to submit to these things! Are they? Let what is passing in England declare, and in Scotland too. Popery in all lands has had

Page 19

men of as high talent, intellectual cultivation, and artistic taste as ever graced the ranks of Protestantism. But what have they done, or what will they do, against the follies and vices of Romanism? They give their power, their talent, and their influence “to the Beast,” and the “Beast” gives his “wealth” to them, and the poor people are the victims of their delusions. But these things will not all happen in our day! Will they not? These things have begun; and although the infidel powers are rising against the Pope’s secular dominion, and it may be overthrown, as it was in France for a time;—what then? It will rise again, unless it be consumed by the Word and Spirit of God; by the breath of His mouth and the brightness of His coming. Rome was not built in a day, and it is only a piece of unchristian selfishness to plead this fact for unauthorised inventions in the worship of God.

We hope in some succeeding chapters to apply the principles above discussed and laid down to the questions of human hymns and instrumental music in the worship of God, and to examine the alleged scriptural and historical arguments in their favour, both in earlier and later times, whether in Scotland and England, or in other lands; and to examine and test the value, as compared with the Psalms of David, of some English and Scotch Hymn Books, Presbyterian and otherwise.