Harper II.3
James Dodson
CHAPTER III.
FURTHER CONFIRMATION OF THE RADICAL VIEW AS TO THE LAW OF WORSHIP.
It is very extensively asserted that the rigorous law of worship which manifestly pervaded the Mosaic dispensation is relaxed in the New Testament, so as to permit devices of men to be introduced into worship, provided these do not conflict with any express command of God. In a certain sense we might admit this principle, for it is our belief that there is an express mandate God never repealed, but much confirmed in the New Testament, forbidding us to worship him in any way not appointed in his word; but in the sense attached to the words by those who put forward this view, I reject it utterly. That sense is, that we may adopt rites and forms in worship which God has not appointed, provided only that he has not in definite terms forbidden them. For instance, he has nowhere specifically forbidden the use of the sign of the cross in baptism, and, therefore, according to this principle, this sign, if deemed for edification, may be lawfully used in the baptismal service. And all those intimations found in the New Testament of the burdensome character of the ancient ritual, and of the liberty which marks the present dispensation, are supposed to be proofs of the abolition of the restriction which it has been shown was laid upon the worshippers of the former dispensation. Several strictures may be made on this notion, some of which I proceed to offer.
Page 14
I. We have neither occasion or disposition to deny that the worship of the New Testament is comparatively simple, and gloriously free from the minute exactions and prescriptions which formed so visible a feature of the worship of the legal economy.
II. Yet the Old Testament yoke of bondage did not consist in the restriction of the Israelites to forms of divine appointment, but in the multiplicity and some-times perplexing and galling nature of those divinely appointed forms. To be limited in our worship to the use of certain forms, so far from being necessarily a yoke, may be the truest freedom. Law and liberty are not incompatible. On the contrary, so far as mere creatures are concerned, there is no true liberty apart from law, and surely God can make laws for his creatures which shall be the very reverse of intolerable impositions.
The principle is to be spurned that it is a form of thraldom to be restricted in our worship of God to methods prescribed by himself. Nay, to a conscientious worshipper, it is a great relief to be so limited; for, in some respects, liberty is more trying than law. It is not law, but the quality of the law which can make a slave. To assume, as is so constantly done, that limitation in worship to divinely appointed modes, must be a yoke of a galling sort, is unwarranted by either Scripture or reason. For in some way God is to be worshipped, and who can be bold enough to question his ability to prescribe forms of worship that are more suitable to his dignity and our condition than any we could devise ourselves, or venture to maintain that to be restricted in worship to the prescriptions of Jehovah, is in itself a grievance?
III. The greater freedom of the present dispensation, so far as worship is concerned, lies not in the abrogation of the fundamental principle that God must be worshipped according to his own prescription, for that, we hold, is still in force; but in the abolition of many cumbersome forms and minute regulations, which for a time had a use, and the prescription instead of a simpler and less carnal ritual.
IV. So far, however, as God has signified the way in which he would now be worshipped, we are as truly bound to adhere to this as were the Israelites to observe with care the enactments of the Mosaic economy. The ritual is simpler, it is true, but it is not, therefore, less binding. Authority to add to it or take from it we have not, any more than had the Israelites in respect to the forms of their worship. The Apostolic Church was required to observe the ordinances as these were given by the Head of the Church. The Apostle Paul lays down the order for the observance of the Lord’s Supper, as it was meant to be observed in the precise form he indicated. In relation, also, to Church government, there was a fixed plan to be pursued in all the Churches. Paul concludes a warning against certain innovations in Church order, with the suggestive remark, “We have no such custom, neither the Churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16); no countenance being given to the notion that each Church might make its own customs.
All this, besides, is but the carrying out into practical detail the mind of Christ himself, who upbraided the Scribes and Pharisees in these terms, Matt. 15:9,
Page 15
“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” See also his utterances as recorded in Mark 7:7–13. His sayings as reported in the passages indicated, are of signal importance in their bearing upon the point under discussion, and therefore a few remarks on them may be in place here.
(1.) It must be noted that the occasion of the reproof administered by our Lord, was an inquiry by the Scribes and Pharisees as to the reasons why his disciples did not follow the tradition of the elders, in respect to the washing of hands before eating.
(2.) The custom, the neglect of which was counted censurable by the querists, was one which seemed very much in keeping with the dispensation then in force; for in it various ablutions, intended not so much to remove physical impurity, as to symbolize moral cleansing, and effect the removal of ceremonial pollution, had a place. Those who pled for some additions to the washings prescribed in the law, could plausibly argue that the proposed measures were not meant to supersede the legal ordinances, but rather to complete, protect and commend them, being of the same general import with them. They could urge that God had nowhere expressly forbidden the new expedients, and that, in a careless age, they might be of signal utility for preserving in the minds of men, a habitual sense of the authority of God, and of the difference between the clean and the unclean.
(3.) The reply of Christ to the inquirers suggests at least two ideas, namely, First, That the admission of human devices in the worship of God is apt to result in the setting aside of the positive enactments of God, for our Lord says, “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition,” and, moreover, “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” This is well illustrated in the diminution of reverence for the Sabbath, which seems to attend the recognition of Christmas and Saints’ days; Second, That in matters of worship the commandments or devices of men are inadmissable, being virtually treason against the Great King. This seems to be implied in the words, “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Here there is a sharp contrast made between the directions of men and those of God; regard for the former being represented as incompatible with due regard for the latter. So far as our worship is founded on mere human commands or counsels, it is a vain worship.
One zealous advocate of instrumental music, who moreover, professes loyalty to the Westminster standards, has ventured to make the suggestion that while it may not be lawful to teach “doctrines,” as distinguished from practical duties, on mere human authority, it may be lawful to teach certain modes of worship on mere human authority. Such a suggestion betrays sheer ignorance both of English and of Greek. The Greek word rendered “doctrines” denotes teachings of whatever kind, whether in relation to principles of theology, or of morals or to modes of worship, and the word “doctrine” in its old Latin sense, had precisely the same meaning, although it has come to be used in a semi-technical sense, as denoting a principle, rather than a precept.
Page 16
An argument of no small weight in favor of the Radical doctrine as to the law of worship, can be drawn from the consequences which legitimately flow from the practical application of the rival views. Once admit the principle which runs through those views, that we may on any pretense whatever, neglect or modify the prescriptions of God relative to his worship, and it is difficult to tell the issues to which, in course of time, that principle will conduct. The incense, mysterious bowings and genuflexions, the use of crosses and crucifixes, the sacred vestments, the lighting of candles in daylight, and numerous other symbolic additions, which Rome has made to the simple worship sanctioned in the New Testament, may easily be brought into the Church through the little aperture which the principle alluded to affords. But having devoted so much time already to the question as to the law of worship, I must now dismiss the subject.