The substance of "The Puritan Principle of Worship" was delivered on December 18, 1957 at the Puritan Conference, London. The article was published serially in Blue Banner Faith and Life, vols. 14-16 (1959-61), edited by Johannes G. Vos. We have extensively reorganized the material for greater clarity of presentation. Editorial revisions by Sherman Isbell of this article and of its footnotes are not to be distributed to other web locations for retrieval, published in other media, or mirrored at other sites without written permission of Sherman Isbell.

In his well-known Medulla Theologiae (1628), the English Puritan William Ames, Professor at Franeker in the Netherlands, systematically discusses the principle of worship under the heading "De cultu instituto" ("Of instituted worship"). The following propositions illustrate the well-ordered argument and precise definitions characteristic of Ames' Medulla. An English translation, entitled The Marrow of Sacred Divinity, was published in London in 1642. "1. Instituted worship is the means ordained by the will of God, to exercise and further natural worship. 2. All such like means ordained of God are declared in the second commandment, by forbidding all contrary means of worship devised by men, under the title of graven and image: which seeing they were of old the chief inventions of men corrupting the worship of God, they are most fitly (by a synecdoche frequent in the decalogue) put instead of all devises of man's wit pertaining to worship."(46)

"10. No worship of this kind is lawful, unless it hath God for the author, and ordainer of it. Deut. 4:2 and 12:32; I Chron. 16:13 [sic]. 11. That is declared in those words of the commandment. Thou shalt not make to thyself: that is, of thine own brain or judgment, for although that particle to thyself, doth sometimes either abound, or hath another force: yet here the most accurate brevity of these commandments 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; Num. 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 himself 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 do we read that such a power was at any time given to any man by God, to ordain any worship at his own pleasure. Matt. 15:9. 14. Hence implicitly and by interpretation of God himself, we make him our God, and give the honor due to God to him, whose authority or ordinances we subject ourselves unto in religious worship. 15. In this respect also men are sometime said to worship the devil, when they observe those worships which the devil brought in. I Cor. 10:20; Lev. 17:7; Deut. 32:17. 16. But we must observe that worship 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 means which God hath ordained in this kind, some of them do properly, and immediately make to the exercising and furthering of faith, hope and charity; as public and solemn preaching of the Word, celebration of baptism and the Lord's Supper, and prayer. And some of them are means for the right performance of those former, as the combination of the faithful into certain 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 of worship and religion, which do 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 go 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 stamp also is that evasion whereby they say there is forbidden only addition of essentials, and not of accidentals: for first although there be accidents or certain 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 observed, Matt. 5:18-19. So additions which seem very small, are by the same reason to be rejected. Thirdly, Moses doth seal up even those laws of the place of divine worship, of the manner, of abstinence from blood, and the like which must needs be referred to accidental 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 do that which seems right in the eyes of the Lord, although some other may seem righter in our eyes. Deut. 12:25, 28. 23. There is opposed unto this instituted worship, as 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 general name called superstition. 25. Superstition is that whereby undue worship is yielded to God.(47) 26. For in superstition God is always the object, and the end in some measure, but the worship itself 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 excess 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 means of religion. 29. This excess 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 unclean and unlawful, and the like."(48)

"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 mystical 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 do order and decency pertain to holy things only, but also to civil duties, for confusion and indecency in both are vices opposite to that due manner which is required to the attaining the just end and use of them."(49)

William Ames was also the author of A Reply to Dr. Mortons Generall Defence of Three Nocent Ceremonies, Viz., the Surplice, Crosse in Baptisme, and Kneeling At the Receiving of the Sacramentall Elements of Bread and Wine (1622). In Ames' reply to chapter 1, section 2, he asserts the sufficiency of Scripture: "Whatsoever is objected in this section for the all-sufficiency or perfect fullness of the Scripture, I will take for granted, because nothing is denied by the defendant. It is granted therefore at the first entrance, that the Scripture condemneth whatsoever is done, not only against the warrant and direction of the Word, but also that which is done beside it."(50) The reply to section 5 discusses a passage in Calvin's Institutes, IV.x.30: "For Calvin's meaning was nothing less than to teach that Christ had given liberty unto men for to prescribe at their discretion mystical signs in the church [sic]: but only to dispose of such circumstances as in their kind are necessary, but in particular determination do vary. He instanceth in the next section the circumstance of time, what hour the congregation should meet: in the place, how large, or in what fashion the church should be built: in mere order, what Psalms should be sung at one time, and what another time. These and such like circumstances of order and comeliness, equally necessary in civil and religious actions are understood by Calvin: not significant ceremonies, proper unto religious worship, such as ours are now in controversy."(51)

In reply to section 12, Ames observes: "The last place of Scripture handled in this argument is Jer. 7:31, the force of which, as it pertaineth to the purpose in hand, is in the last words, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. The reason lieth thus (to take honorable Calvin's interpretation upon the place) seeing God under this title only condemneth that which the Jews did, because he had not commanded it them: Therefore no other reason need be sought for the confutation of superstition, than that they are not by commandment from God."(52) Replying to section 14, Ames cites Tertullian's comment: "That is prohibited which is not permitted."(53)

Responding to section 16, Ames makes these observations on I Cor. 14:26, 40: "All that is left unto the church's liberty in things pertaining unto God's worship, is to order them in comely manner. This is manifestly collected out of the place in question: so the defendant seemeth to grant, so P. Martyr understandeth it, as is to be seen in his commentary on I Samuel 14, which judgment of his cited and approved by Whitaker, . . . confirmed also by Junius against Bellarmine, . . . where he showeth that Christ is the only lawgiver that appointeth things in his church: and that he hath appointed all that are requisite: and that the church maketh no laws (properly so called) to appoint any new things to be used, but only canons, orders, directions, ordering in seemly manner those things which Christ hath appointed: and that if she addeth anything of her own, she doth decline. The reason is, because unto her is committed no authority of appointing new things, but a ministry to observe and do such things which Christ hath appointed. . . . This is also confirmed by sound reason, but in respect of the wisdom required in all lawmakers, and perfectly found in Christ, and also in regard of the nature of such institutions. For the former reason teacheth (as Aristotle sheweth Rhet. 1.3) that all which possibly may, should be appointed in the law by the giver of it, and nothing left unto the ministerial judges, but that which must needs be left, as matters of fact, etc. Now in the worship of God, all but particular circumstances of order, may easily be appointed (as in very deed they were) by our lawgiver Christ. As for the nature of such institutions, that doth also require so much: for whatsoever is above civility therein, if it be not a circumstance of order, it is worship, and therefore invented by unlawful will-worship. For whatsoever is used or acted by him that worshippeth God, in that act, it must needs be either grounded on civil humane considerations, and therefore civility: or an act and means of worship, and therefore worship: or the ordering and manner of disposing those acts and means, and therefore lawful, if lawfully and fitly applied: or else, at the least, idle and vain, and therefore to be avoided, according to that of Basil, sigastho de kai peritia en ekklesia theou, a sift cannot be given. By all this it may appear, that the authority of the Church is not to appoint what she will, no not of things in their own nature indifferent, and say they be in order, or for order; but only to order those things which God hath appointed.

"Thus far the proposition, or first part of my syllogism: the assumption followeth. But to appoint and use the ceremonies as we do, is not to order in comely manner any thing pertaining to God's worship. The reason, is because order requireth not the institution or usage of any new thing, but only the right placing and disposing of things which are formerly instituted. This appreareth 1. by the notation which is given of the word itself, which both in Greek and Latin is taken from the ranking of soldiers in certain bounds and limits of time and place . . . and 2. by the definitions which are given thereof, by philosophers and Divines. . . . 3. The same also is confirmed by our Divines, who usually giving instances of order, do insist in time, place, and such like circumstances, making a difference betwixt mystical ceremonies and order, many times condemning the one, and allowing the other as the divines of France and the low countries, in their observations on the Harmony of Confessions. . . . 4. By the context of the chapter, viz., I Corinthians 14, it plainly appeareth, that order is opposed to that confusion spoken of, verse 33, and therefore importeth nothing but that peaceable proceeding whereby they that should speak, speak one by one, and the rest attend, etc., verses 30-31.

"As for comeliness, that is nothing but the seemliness of order. For as P. Martyr saith in I Corinthians 11: it is such a tempering of actions as whereby they may more fitly attain their end. Otherwhere it may contain that natural and civil handsomeness, which is spoken of chapter 11:13, as it doth chapter 12:23, and so includeth all that which is grounded on civility, as a fair cloth and cup for the communion, a faire and firm vessel for baptism: but not the appointing of new mystical ceremonies, for then such ceremonies were commanded to all churches: . . . and then the apostolic assemblies should have worshipped God uncomelily. Thus we have proposition and assumption of our argument against the ceremonies confirmed out of this place, which the defendant chose as the only place that could be brought for them. Now I hope we may add the conclusion. Therefore to appoint and use the ceremonies as we do, is not left to the liberty of the church, i.e. it is unlawful."(54)

Another book by Ames which was representative of Puritan thought is A Fresh Suit against Human Ceremonies in God's Worship. In section 12 ("Concerning that phrase, Jer. 7:31 etc. You do that which I commanded not"), Ames commented: "1. In the twelfth section, we are to inquire, whether and how that consequence in God's worship, be good: I have not commanded this; therefore, you may not do it. The defendant and rejoinder say it is not good, except by not commanding, be understood forbidding as Lev. 10:1, Deut. 17:3. Which is thus far true, that except some forbidding be included, or (as the rejoinder speaketh) imported in that not commanding, not commanding cannot make a thing unlawful. But that is the very question whether in things proper to religion, not commanding, doth not include some kind of forbidding. 2. The place mentioned by the rejoinder: out of Lev. 10:1 doth most strongly make against him. For the sons of Aaron are there condemned, for bringing strange, or ordinary fire to God's worship, as doing that which God had not commanded, and yet had not otherwise forbidden, than by providing fire proper to his worship, and not appointing any other to be used in the tabernacle, and this is the very plea which we make against ceremonies of humane institution, in God's worship."(55)

Ames also wrote a recommendatory preface to William Bradshaw's English Puritanism, Containing the Main Opinions of the Rigidest Sort of Those That Are Called Puritans in the Realm of England (1605). Bradshaw's first chapter set forth what the Puritans taught "Concerning religion, or the worship of God in general." "Imprimis, they hold and maintain, that the Word of God contained in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, is of absolute perfection, given by Christ the head of the Church, to be unto the same, the sole canon and rule of all matters of religion, and the worship and service of God whatsoever. And that whatsoever done in the same service and worship cannot be justified by the said Word, is unlawful. And therefore that it is a sin to force any Christian to do any act of religion or divine service, that cannot evidently be warranted by the same. 2. They hold that all ecclesiastical actions invented and devised by man, are utterly to be excluded out of the exercises of religion, especially such actions as are famous and notorious mysteries of an idolatrous religion, and in doing whereof, the true religion is conformed (whether in whole or in part) to idolatry and superstition.

"3. They hold that all outward means instituted and set apart to express and set forth the inward worship of God, are parts of divine worship, and that not only all moral actions but all typical rites and figures ordained to shadow forth in the solemn worship and service of God, any spiritual or religious act or habit in the mind of man, are special parts of the same. And therefore that every such act ought evidently to be prescribed by the Word of God, or else ought not to bee done, it being a sin to perform any other worship to God, whether external or internal, moral or ceremonial, in whole or in part, than that which God himself requires in his Word. 4. They hold it to be gross superstition, for any mortal man to institute and ordain as parts of divine worship, any mystical rite and ceremony of religion whatsoever, and to mingle the same with the divine rites and mysteries of God's ordinance. But they hold it to be a high presumption to institute and bring into divine worship such rites and ceremonies of religion as are acknowledged to be no parts of divine worship at all, but only of civil worship and honor. For they that shall require to have performed unto themselves a ceremonial obedience, service and worship, consisting in rites of religion to be done at that very instant that God is solemnly served and worshipped, and even in the same worship make both themselves and God also an idol. So that they judge it far more fearful sin to add unto, and to use in the worship and service of God, or any part thereof, such mystical rites and ceremonies as they esteem to be no parts or parcels of God's worship at all, than such as in a vain or ignorant superstition, they imagine and conceive to be parts thereof."(56)

Notes

(46) William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity, bk. 2, chap. 13, p. 269, in The Workes of William Ames (London: John Rothwell, 1643). A recent translation is The Marrow of Theology, ed. and trans. John D. Eusden (Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1968).
(47) William Ames, Medulla S.S. Theologiae, editio quarta (London: [T. Cotes], 1630), p. 337: "Superstitio est, qua Deo cultus indebitus exhibetur."
(48) Ames, Marrow of Sacred Divinity, pp. 271-73.
(49) Ibid., pp. 274-75. Further discussion of these outward circumstances is found in chapter 14 ("Of the manner of divine worship"), sections 20-27, of the Marrow.
(50) William Ames, A Reply to Dr. Mortons Generall Defence of Three Nocent Ceremonies, Viz., the Surplice, Crosse in Baptisme, and Kneeling At the Receiving of the Sacramentall Elements of Bread and Wine (n.p., 1622), p. 1.
(51) Ibid., p. 3.
(52) Ibid., p. 6.
(53) Ibid., p. 7, citing Tertullian, De corona 2.4.
(54) Ibid., pp. 9-12.
(55) William Ames, "The Dispute About Human Ceremonies," pp. 23-24, in A Fresh Suit against Human Ceremonies in God's Worship (n.p., 1633).
(56) William Bradshaw, "English Puritanism," in Several Treatises of Worship and Ceremonies (London: 1660), pp. 35-36 of sec. 4.

Go to the next installment:
The Puritan Principle of Worship: Part VI