Harper II.1
James Dodson
PART SECOND.
The Competing Theories Considered.
CHAPTER I.
INQUIRY TOUCHING THE LAW OF WORSHIP.
Having presented the different theories as to the relation of instrumental music to worship in the present dispensation, and furnished a sketch of the main arguments available in behalf of the imperative and optional theories, it is now in place to scrutinize those arguments; and show our reasons for rejecting the theories in support of which they are advanced, and accepting the theory of prohibition.
As there exist, however, different views in reference to the fundamental law of worship; as this diversity of views contributes to the shaping of the conclusions reached in regard to the legitimacy of the instrumental service, and as this divergence of opinion must be continually recurring and confronting us as we proceed in the discussion, I will devote a few pages at this stage of our investigation to the consideration of this question. What is the fundamental principle or law for the regulation of worship? As to the law which should regulate the mode of worship, there are at least four distinguishable views, which are as follows:
I. The Romish. This is to the effect that the Church, which now means virtually the Pope, has authority to prescribe modes of worship, subject only to this limitation, that none be enjoined which is forbidden in either the Scriptures, or the patristic traditions in the custody of the Church. Forms and ceremonies decreed in this spirit are held to be binding upon the conscience.
II. The Anglican. The tenor of this view, is that the Church, guided by the general principle, “Let all things be done decently and in order,” may decree rites and ceremonies additional, though not contrary to the express or plainly implied enactments of Scripture, and that forms so decreed are authoritative over the conscience. The only appreciable difference between this and the Romish view is that this recognizes the Scriptures alone as the limiting standard, whereas by
Page 9
as a standard of faith and practice; while, besides, he regards certain apocryphal writings as included in the Scriptures.
III. The Lutheran, or Compromise view. The substance of this view is that the Church may adopt certain rites and forms of worship which have not been appointed in the word of God, provided that no one who is conscientiously opposed to them shall be forced to compliance, or be subjected to censure for his non-conformity. This position was taken by some of the earlier Puritans in England, who were not disposed to protest seriously against some ornamental additions to the Scriptural forms of worship, but were averse to compulsion in the matter, and disinclined to say that they felt bound in conscience to compliance. In course of time the Puritans reached clearer views and firmer footing; the doctrine about to be announced having gained acceptance with them.
IV. The Westminster, or Radical view. The essence of this doctrine is that no form of worship is admissible without divine appointment, and that every form so appointed, is carefully to be observed according to prescription.
I have called this the “Westminster” view, because it is the law of worship recognized expressly in the formularies drawn up by the famous “Assembly of Divines” convened at Westminster Abbey, London, in the seventeenth century.
The doctrine in question, however, was not broached first by that Assembly. It was the doctrine of Calvin, of most of the Reformed Churches of the Continent, and of the Church of Scotland, and had been acted upon by them before the sitting of the Westminster Assembly.
That the Westminster Confession and Catechisms teach the view just stated needs, perhaps, to be proved, inasmuch as many who profess adherence to them, and are recognized as authoritative expounders of them, appear to write and act as if no such principle had been enunciated in those documents. Some attention, will, therefore, be bestowed upon this point.
In Chapter I, Section 6, of the Confession of Faith, occur these words:—“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory and 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.”
Again, in Chapter XXI, Section 1, the following declaration is made:—“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 or devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.”
Turning to the Larger Catechism, the same doctrine we find expressed in the answers to questions 108 and 109. In answer to the former question, which is, “What duties are required in the second commandment?” it is said, “The duties required in the second commandment, are the receiving, observing and keeping pure and entire all such religious worship and ordinances as God has instituted in his word.” To question 109, which is, “What are the sins forbidden in the
Page 10
second commandment?” the reply is given, “The sins forbidden in the second commandment are all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and any wise approving any religious worship not instituted by God himself; * * * all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it or taking from it, whether invented or taken up by ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony, sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.”
The Shorter Catechism gives forth a similar sound; for in answer to question 50, “What is required in the second commandment?” it is said, “The second commandment requireth the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed in his word;” while to question 51, “What is forbidden in the second commandment?” the answer rendered, is, “The second commandment forbiddeth the worshipping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his word.”
These statements are so precise and clear that to mistake their meaning would seem well nigh impossible, and that meaning is that every part and form of lawful worship is appointed by God, and that whatever lacks this appointment is forbidden.