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.

The second commandment embodies the principle that God is to be worshipped only in ways prescribed in Holy Scripture and that the Holy Scripture prescribes the whole content of worship, taught by Scripture itself. Before inquiring into the Scripture warrant for the principle in question, it may be in the interest of clarity and accuracy to attempt a more precise formulation of the principle. We may first state the principle positively, then set it in contrast to other views, and then mention certain qualifications of the principle.

Our initial statement of the principle is redundant. That God is to be worshipped only in ways prescribed in Holy Scripture is implied in the statement that the Holy Scripture prescribes the whole content of worship. The principle in question may then be stated simply by the latter proposition, i.e., the Holy Scripture prescribes the whole content of worship. By this is meant that all elements or parts of worship, all ways and modes of worship, all rites and ceremonies of worship, are prescribed by God Himself in His Word. This principle has universal reference to worship performed by men since the fall. In other words, it has equal application to the Old and the New Testament. It is also universal in that it is regulative of all types of worship, whether public, family or private. It is in order to observe the universality of this principle, although our special concern is with public worship under the New Testament.

This principle has been formulated in contrast to other views, particularly to the principle that anything not expressly forbidden in the Word of God is allowable in the worship of God. Quod Scriptura non vetat, permittit, "What Scripture does not forbid, it permits." This is the principle of the Romish Church, also of Lutherans and Anglicans embodied in Article 20 of the Church of England"The church has power to decree rites and ceremonies . . . and yet it is not lawful for the church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written." The doctrine of the Calvinistic churches clearly formulated in the Westminster standards is sharply opposed to this: Quod Scriptura non iubet, vetat, "What Scripture does not command, it forbids." The silence of Scripture is as real a prohibition as a positive injunction to abstain.

We may also contrast this principle with the ambiguously-stated principle that God is to be worshipped according to His Word. Of course it is true that God is to be worshipped according to His Word, but it is also true that the civil magistrate should administer his office according to the Word. In this sense, the worship of God would not be in principle regulated by the Word more directly than the conduct of civil government. Such is not the Calvinistic view of the character of the worship of God. Neither may we say that God's Word provides us with general principles of worship, but leaves the particulars of practice to the discretion of the Church. The whole content of worship includes the specific acts of worship as well as the broad principal basis of these acts. The Word of God, moreover, obviously prescribes specific acts of worship even in quite minute detail, in addition to laying down the general principles of worship. This principle may not be construed as admitting that Scripture itself opens up in the New Testament economy an area of liberty in the worship of God, within which area nothing is prescribed by God and everything left to the judgment of men. The admission of such an area of liberty is tantamount to asserting the un-Reformed principle that anything not expressly forbidden in Scripture is allowable in the worship of God. On the Reformed principle, no part of the content of God's worship can be regarded as belonging to the adiaphora, to the class of actions neither required nor forbidden by divine commandment. Whatever has not been commanded is ipso facto prohibited.

That no misunderstanding may exist with respect to this principle it is necessary to make two qualifications, both of which are stated in section six of the first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith. First, that which may be derived by good and necessary consequence from the express statements of Scripture is no less binding than an express command itself. Approved example has equal validity with a direct command, and even where approved example and express command may both be lacking or uncertain, as in the baptism of infants, necessary inference from the doctrine and commandments plainly set forth in Scripture may sufficiently warrant a practice of worship.

Secondly, there are "some circumstances concerning the worship of God . . . 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." That these circumstances constitute no part of the content of worship is clear from the following quotation from George Gillespie, who, in his Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies (1637), writes of the conditions "requisite in such a thing as the church hath power to prescribe by her laws: 1st. It must be only a circumstance of divine worship; no substantial part of it; no sacred, significant and efficacious ceremony. For the order and decency left to the definition for the church, as concerning the particulars of it, comprehendeth no more but mere circumstances."(1) Again he writes, "We say truly of those several and changeable circumstances which are left to the determination of the church, that, being almost infinite, they were not particularly determinable in Scripture; for the particular determination of those occurring circumstances which were to be rightly ordered in the works of God's service to the end of the world, and that ever according to the exigency of every present occasion and different case, should have filled the whole world with books. But as for other things pertaining to God's worship, which are not to be reckoned among the circumstances of it, they being in number neither many, nor in change various, were most easily and conveniently determinable in Scripture."(2)

An even more precise definition of the circumstances that may be ordered by the church in connection with God's worship is given by John Owen in his Discourse Concerning Liturgies (1662). Owen distinguishes circumstances "such as follow actions as actions" from circumstances "which do not of their own accord, nor naturally nor necessarily attend them." The former kind of circumstances "not determined by divine institution, may be ordered, disposed of and regulated by the prudence of men. . . . As the action cannot be without them, so their regulation is arbitrary, if they come not under some divine disposition and order, as that of time in general doth. There are also some things, which men call circumstances, also that no way belong of themselves to the actions whereof they are said to be the circumstances, nor do attend them, but are imposed on them, or annexed to them, by the arbitrary authority of those who take upon them to give order and rules in such cases; such as to pray before an image or towards the east, or to use this or that form of prayer in such gospel administrations, and no other. These are not circumstances attending the nature of the thing itself, but are arbitrarily superadded to the things they are appointed to accompany. Whatever men may call such additions, they are no less parts of the whole wherein they serve than the things themselves whereunto they are adjoined. The schoolmen tell us that which is made so the condition of an action, that without it the action is not to be done, is not a circumstance of it, but such an adjunct as is a necessary part. But not to contend about the word, such additionals that are called circumstantial, are made parts of worship as are made necessary by virtue of command to be observed."(3) The qualification with respect to circumstances, far from weakening the force of the regulative principle of worship, rather sets in the sharpest focus the position that everything properly belonging to the content of worship must be the matter of divine commandment, not of human devising.

Having attempted a precise formulation of the principle regulative of worship, we may now turn to inquire as to the Scripture warrant for this principle. Before appealing to particular texts in which the principle is asserted, we should observe that it is a principle involved in several cardinal doctrines of the Word of God. The case for this principle rests not on a string of isolated proof texts, but upon the central concepts and doctrines of the Word of God. We shall content ourselves with stating five fundamental articles of our faith, from which this principle follows as a good and necessary consequence.

First, the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and are therefore sufficient for all the needs of the church.(4) It clearly follows from the accepted Reformed doctrine of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, that Scripture is the sole and sufficient rule for worship, particularly the worship of the church. If the prescriptions of worship contained in Holy Writ are sufficient, why add ordinances of worship for which there is no need? The attempt to avoid the force of this argument, by the assertion that Scripture itself opens up an area of liberty in which it prescribes nothing as to the content of worship, is vain. Such a position is a virtual denial of the sufficiency of Scripture, and is certainly not the view of Scripture on which the Calvinistic reformation in Geneva, France, the Low Countries, and the British Isles proceeded. Just such an idea of liberty would make allowance for Romish ceremonies retained by Lutherans and Anglicans but rejected universally by the Calvinists. The Calvinistic conception of the sufficiency of Scripture, which I trust my readers are prepared to acknowledge to be the scriptural conception, thus involves the regulative principle of worship. It is no accident that the regulative principle of worship makes its first appearance in the Westminster Confession in connection with the discussion of the sufficiency of Scripture.

Second, the sole object of worship is the absolutely sovereign God. The basic conception of Calvinism, God's absolute sovereignty, excludes worship of human devising. In anthropocentric systems of doctrine like Lutheranism, or Arminianism, the human will may be allowed to define the content of worship at least in part, even as it contributes in part to man's salvation. But in the theocentric system of Calvinism, the autonomy of man's will is rejected in the face of God's absolute sovereignty. This is true at every step of the way, with respect to worship as well as to the plan of salvation. Man's will may contribute nothing more to God's worship than to God's plan of salvation, and it is no accident that will-worship and rejection of the doctrine of salvation by grace alone flourish together. As Sovereign, God is the supreme Law-giver. As His sovereignty extends to His worship, so it is His sole prerogative to appoint the laws of His worship, to command of His subjects the way they ought to worship Him. Can it be anything other than presumption in a subject of the absolute Sovereign to offer as worship anything which has not been commanded? Can the inventions of the human will be set on the same level as the commands of the divine will as proper material of worship? That God shall allow worship other than what He has commanded is contrary to reason itself. Gillespie writes, "How absurd a tenet is this, which holdeth that there is some particular worship of God allowed, and not commanded? What new light is this which maketh all our divines to have been in the mist, who have acknowledged no worship of God, but that which God hath commanded? Who ever heard of commanded and allowed worship?"(5) The question raised by the Lord in Isa. 1:12 thus applies to all worship offered to Him: "When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand?"

Third, the total corruption and deceitfulness of the human heart disqualifies man from judging what is to be admitted into the worship of God. It may be that before the fall our first parents had written on their hearts the law of worship, and by looking within the depth of their own beings could read off the commandments of God. Yet even then, they were not without direct external communication of the will of Him who walked and talked with them in the garden. Since the fall, however, though the human conscience still witnesses in all men that worship is due to the Supreme Being, no information can be gained from the heart of man as to how God is to be worshipped. The idolatry and superstition, not only of the heathen in their blindness, but also of the professing Christian church enjoying the full light of God's Word, sufficiently demonstrates this to be the case. It goes without saying that the unregenerate consciousness, blind to spiritual things, is unfit to determine matters concerning the worship of God. Worship that is the invention of the heart of men, every imagination of the thoughts of which is only evil continually, in the nature of the case cannot be acceptable to a holy God. What requires, however, to be emphasized is that the regenerate consciousness is no more fit than the unregenerate to decide what may be introduced into God's worship. The regenerate, it must be remembered, ever groan under the burden of sin that dwells in them, and therefore should well know that their understanding and will are not to be trusted to determine what is acceptable worship before God. The enlightened understanding is content to learn God's precepts, and the renewed will to walk in them, but the regenerate heart as such cannot desire to make the slightest addition to God's commandments. Whenever true believers have acted inconsistently in this respect, they have invariably allowed great corruption to be introduced into God's sanctuary.

Fourth, Christ is the sole Head and King over His body, the church. In the exercise of His headship and kingship, the Lord Jesus Christ has appointed the ordinances of His house. This applies in particular to the public worship of the New Testament church. How may a minister of Christ with a clear conscience administer any rite or ceremony of worship in the Lord's house without warrant from his Lord and King? To add human inventions to Christ's express commands is to usurp an authority which is not ministerial, but which is tantamount to placing the doctrines and commandments of men upon the same level as the commands of the Lord Jesus.

The pretense that the humanly invented modes of worship are optional, whereas Christ's commands are mandatory, is to no avail. We have already noted the absurdity of distinguishing two kinds of worship, prescribed and allowed. It is also worthy of note that in practice no difference is made between the two types of worship. Hymns of human composition and divinely-inspired Psalms are sung the one after the other, as if the one were offered to God in obedience to the Lord's appointment as much as the other. Furthermore, the people are led to feel that the one type of worship is of the same character as the other and that they are no less bound to engage in the one than in the other. Quite apart from the evil of singing the word of man alongside of God's Word, we would now stress the inevitable binding of the conscience of the ordinary worshipper by the inventions of men, as soon as those inventions are given the same place as divine institutions which truly bind the conscience. In this connection it should be observed that the regulative principle of worship, far from abridging the scope of genuine Christian liberty, is the preeminent safeguard of Christian liberty in matters of worship. It is this principle that has again and again liberated Christ's little flock from the impositions of man in the worship of God. Deliverance from human tyranny, and complete subjection to Christ's commands, are involved in one another, and these two are but the negative and positive elements of Christian liberty in the worship of God.

Fifth, in the same connection the character of the church's constitution should be kept in view. Even as the doctrine, government and discipline of the church have been prescribed by Christ, so also has its worship. May any doctrine be taught which the great Prophet has not revealed? May any new office or function be added to the government of the church that the Head of the church has not provided for? May anything be counted an disciplinary offense but that which Christ has declared to be such in His Word? So also, may anything be added to the content of His worship that He has not prescribed?

We may sum up the above argument from the central teachings of Scripture in the words of William Cunningham: "The truth of this principle, as a general rule for the guidance of the church, is plainly enough involved in what Scripture teaches, concerning its own sufficiency and perfection as a rule of faith and practice, concerning God's exclusive right to determine in what ways He ought to be worshipped, concerning Christ's exclusive right to settle the constitution, laws and arrangements of His kingdom, concerning the unlawfulness of will-worship, and concerning the utter unfitness of men for the function which they have so often and so boldly usurped in this matter."(6)

Notes

(1) George Gillespie, A Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies (Edinburgh: Robert Ogle, and Oliver and Boyd, 1844), p. 130.
(2) Ibid., p. 131.
(3) John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1850-53), 15:35-36.
(4) II Tim. 3:16-17.
(5) George Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies, p. 118.
(6) William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1862), p. 33.

Go to the next installment:
The Second Commandment: Part II