Three or Four Englishmen

In considering the case which contemporary Presbyterians make for uninspired hymns, we may for a moment consider the notions about worship and revelation which we find in the English dissenting minister Isaac Watts (1674-1748). Both as a hymn writer and as an essayist advocating man-made songs, Watts is perhaps more responsible than anyone else for removing the singing of Psalms from the Christian church in the English-speaking world.(21) It is noteworthy that Watts argued that little in New Testament worship was based on biblical prescription.

Watts, in his Rational Foundation of a Christian Church (1747) addresses the question of "Whether a christian church may not appoint or determine circumstances and ceremonies of worship and order, which are left undetermined in the New Testament, and require them to be observed?" Watts seems to defer to the regulative principle of worship, saying that a church has no license, either by the light of reason or Scripture, to invent new ceremonies of divine worship. However, his primary concern seems to be for toleration, and for respect for the conscience: "Nor has it a right to impose on the consciences of men any such self-invented modes or circumstances of worship, so as to make them holy things, or to oblige any single Christian to comply therewith."(22)

A most remarkable element in his teaching about worship, and one which distances him from the great dissenter of a previous generation, John Owen (1616-83), is the role given to reason in determining the features of the church's worship, and the limited place which he assigns to a word of institution in the Scriptures. Christian churches, he writes, are to be raised in the same manner as any other civil society, "upon the plain nature and reason of things."(23)

"So natural a scheme of social religion as this, does not need long and express forms of institution, after the great doctrines and duties of the christian faith and life are plainly revealed and received. All that is found in the New Testament relating to christian churches, so happily corresponds with these dictates of the light of nature, and the affairs of the civil life, that it has made these rules much more plain, and easy, and practicable, than those of the jewish religion, or perhaps of any other religion, that pretends to divine revelation. This scheme is built on the eternal reasons and relations of things, as well as the word of God. The particular positive prescriptions relating to christian churches are but few, while the general duties of christian fellowship are such as the light of nature and reason seem to dictate to all societies whatsoever."(24)

To illustrate how far a church is formed by the light of nature, Watts proposes an extended "similitude," in which three or four Englishmen residing in China, determining "to behave as becomes Englishmen, agree to meet once a week, to pay some special honours to their absent king. The day which they appoint for their assembly, is the day of the accession of their king to the throne, in its weekly return. They agree therefore to choose one person amongst them, who shall spend an hour or two every week, in setting before them what honours they owe to the king of England. Besides this, once in a month, suppose they meet together, according to an appointment of their prince, to eat a morsel of bread, and drink a glass of wine together, in memory of some great benefit which the whole nation of England received by a difficult and bloody enterprise of the king's son, when, in former years, he took a voyage from England to China. "(25)

Obviously there is a wide divergence between what Watts thought reason could be relied upon to teach about appropriate worship, and the positive sanctions which the Westminster Assembly found in the Bible. The most serious consequence of Watts' reliance upon reason was his lapse into a form of unitarianism. Watts judged that the single divine essence implies that the three persons have no distinct minds or wills. To explain the pre-temporal undertaking by which Christ agreed to do the work of a redeemer, Watts concluded that Christ's human soul existed before the incarnation. In the judgment of Jonathan Edwards, "According to what seems to be Dr. Watts' scheme, the Son of God is no distinct divine person from the Father. So far as he is a divine person, he is the same person with the Father. But how does this confound our minds, instead of helping our ideas, or making them more easy and intelligible!"(26)

The most influential consequence of Watts' confidence in reason was the diminished role given to biblical sanctions in the church's worship. Says Watts, "Under the New Testament the ceremonies distinct from natural religion, whether real actions or mere modes and circumstances of action, are few and easy, such as the washing with water in baptism, and eating bread and wine at the Supper of the Lord, to which we may add the observation of the first day of the week, in memory of our risen Saviour."(27) When Watts thought that so little was regulated by the Scriptures, it is small wonder that he thought men were free to introduce uninspired songs into the church's worship.

One can see how great a shift had taken place in the space of a generation, when we read Owen addressing this very question of what sanctions for worship are found in the New Testament. "Whereas sundry of these things are founded in the light and law of nature, as requisite unto all solemn worship, and are, moreover, commanded in the moral law, and explications of it in the Old Testament, how do you look upon them as evangelical institutions, to be observed principally on the authority of Jesus Christ? They are to be observed on the account of his authority and command only. The principal thing we are to aim at, in the whole worship of God, is the discharge of that duty which we owe to Jesus Christ, the king and head of the church. If we perform any thing in the worship of God on any other account, it is no part of our obedience unto him, and so we can neither expect his grace to assist us, nor have we his promise to accept us therein; for that he hath annexed unto our doing and observing whatever he hath commanded, and that because he hath commanded us: Matt. 28:20. This promised presence respects only the observance of his commands.

"Some men are apt to look on this authority of Christ as that which hath the least influence into what they do. If in any of his institutions they find any thing that is suited or agreeable unto the light of nature, - as ecclesiastical societies, government of the church, and the like, they say, are, - they suppose and contend that that is the ground on which they are to be attended unto, and so are to be regulated accordingly. The interposition of his authority they will allow only in the sacraments, which have no light in reason or nature; so desirous are some to have as little to do with Christ as they can, even in the things that concern the worship of God!"(28) Owen also writes about specific New Testament prescriptions,(29) and about the extent of the regulative principle's control over new covenant worship.(30)

The Circumstances of Worship

Bahnsen's argument that singing in worship requires no distinct biblical justification assigns a different meaning to the terms used by the framers of the Westminster Confession in defining what the Bible allows in divine worship. Whereas "element" or "part" designated for them the particular ordinances, such as "singing of psalms," Bahnsen uses "element" to indicate the broad functions of worship. And while Bahnsen declares that a circumstance of worship does not require a biblical justification, the confessional teaching is that only those circumstances which are devoid of religious significance require no warrant from the Scriptures. Bahnsen says, "Is singing a separate 'element' of worship or a 'circumstance' of worship? If the latter, it does not require Biblical warrant according to the regulative principle. I have argued that singing is simply one means to (one circumstance through which to) pray, praise, exhort or teach - rather than an element of worship itself."(31)

It will be instructive to compare the remarks on the regulative principle which John Murray, Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary, composed for the 1946 report of the Committee on Song in the Public Worship of God, of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). In that year the Committee delivered a partial report, in which the regulative principle was defined; this partial report won the support of all members of the Committee.(32) In 1947 the Committee submitted two reports. The 1947 majority report sought to show that the regulative principle does not entail the rejection of uninspired hymns; a minority report, written by Murray,(33) argued that "there is no warrant in Scripture for the use of uninspired human compositions in the singing of God's praise in public worship."(34)

It is significant that Murray was also responsible for that portion of the Committee's 1946 report which provides the fundamental statement of the regulative principle. That Murray wrote the opening section, headed "The teaching of the Subordinate Standards respecting the Regulative Principle of Worship," is clear from the manuscript text and cover letter, both in Murray's handwriting, which are preserved among his papers in the archives of Westminster Seminary. In the letter to the other members of the Committee, Murray says: "I thought it necessary to enter into some detail in view of questions raised at our last meeting." This statement of the Reformed regulative principle deserves recognition in the corpus of Murray's writings.(35)

Murray emphasizes three qualifications which, according to the Confession, must be met if anything is to be exempted from the regulative principle's sweeping prohibition. The relevant passage in the Confession (I.vi) reads: "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, 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. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, 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."

Murray says that the exception stated in the Confession "cannot apply to anything that enters into the worship itself but only to certain conditions under which the worship is given or conducted." In other words, the exception does not apply "to any substantial part or element of the worship," but only to circumstances. Further, "the exception stated applies only to some circumstances. The effect of this restriction is to allow" that not only the elements, but also certain religiously-significant circumstances of worship, may be mandated in God's Word. And finally, the exception stated applies only to the circumstances which are "common to human actions and societies," namely, those "circumstances that are not peculiar to worship." Murray instances "order and length of service, for since human societies are mentioned it is natural for us to think of the meetings of such societies in this connection." Murray concludes that "the authority of Scripture is necessary for the whole content of worship."(36)

At this point in his argument, Murray inserted a paragraph from George Gillespie (1613-48), which appears in Murray's manuscript, but was dropped from the Committee's 1946 report.(37) The words which Murray quoted from Gillespie are germane to any consideration of what the authors of the Westminster Confession meant by its reference to the circumstances of worship. The manuscript paragraph reads: "It is of interest to quote from George Gillespie in this connection: 'Besides all this, there is nothing which any way pertaineth to the worship of God left to the determination of human laws, beside the mere circumstances, which neither have any holiness in them, forasmuch as they have no other use and praise in sacred than they have in civil things, nor yet were particularly determinable in Scripture, because they are infinite; but sacred, significant ceremonies, such as cross, kneeling, surplice, holidays, bishopping, etc., which have no use and praise except in religion only, and which, also, were most easily determinable (yet not determined) within those bounds which the wisdom of God did set to his written word, are such things as God never left to the determination of any human law.' (The Presbyterian's Armoury, vol. I, p. xii)."(38)

The quotation is from Gillespie's A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies.(39) First published in 1637, the book asserts that the Anglican worship practices not commanded in Scripture are neither necessary, expedient, lawful nor indifferent. In 1643 the Church of Scotland sent Gillespie to the Westminster Assembly, where he became famous for his contributions to the Assembly's debates and negotiations about the government and worship of the church. He also was among the few who from the beginning had a hand in the writing of the Westminster Confession. While "the chief authorship of the Confession of Faith" may be assigned to the seven English divines on the drafting committee, the four Scottish commissioners, Gillespie, Rutherfurd, Baillie and Henderson, "were appointed as equal partners in every stage of the Confession's preparation. They participated on the original large committee for the Confession of Faith; they worked on the drafting committee; and at least one to be consulted by the wording and perfecting committee before reporting any changes to the Assembly."(40) Some of the language and thoughts of sections v and vi of the Confession's first chapter are closely paralleled in Gillespie's posthumously published Treatise of Miscellany Questions, where Gillespie handles many of the subjects he debated at the Assembly.(41)

Gillespie says that the mere circumstances of worship which are not governed by Scripture are those things which "have no other use and praise in sacred than they have in civil things, nor yet were particularly determinable in Scripture, because they are infinite." Now, the text of worship song certainly falls within the category of things which are of sacred significance, "which have no use and praise except in religion only." Further, it is obvious that the text of worship song is something which Scripture might readily determine, namely by the provision of a collection of songs within the canon. We shall shortly consider the validity of arguments that God has left the church to use its own words in worship song, as in prayer. For the moment, it is important to observe that the words of worship song belong to the substance of worship, and therefore whether or not the church is confined to a canonical text is something which God appoints in the Scriptures.

Notes
(21) Robin A. Leaver, "Isaac Watts's Hermeneutical Principles and the Decline of English Metrical Psalmody," Churchman 92, no. 1 (1978): 59.
(22) Isaac Watts, The Works of Isaac Watts, selected by [David] Jennings and [Philip] Doddridge, comp. George Burder (1810; reprint ed., New York: AMS Press, 1971), 5:706.
(23) Ibid., p. 701.
(24) Ibid., pp. 703-4.
(25) Ibid., pp. 701-3.
(26) Edwards, Works, 2:509.
(27) Watts, Works, 5:709.
(28) Owen, A Brief Instruction In The Worship Of God, in Works, 15:478-79.
(29) Ibid, pp. 477-78 and passim.
(30) Ibid, pp. 449-50, 462-65 and 467-71.
(31) Bahnsen, "Exclusive Psalmody," p. 51. Cf. pp. 49 and 53.
(32) William Young, "Introduction," in The Scriptural Warrant Respecting Song As Stated In The Minority Report Of The Committee On Song (Vienna, Va.: Publications Committee, Presbyterian Reformed Church, 1993), p. i.
(33) Ibid.: " it was written entirely by Prof. Murray."
(34) John Murray, "Minority Report of the Committee on Song in the Public Worship of God," Minutes of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, May 22-28, 1947, p. 65.
(35) The section appears on pp. 101-105 of Minutes of the Thirteenth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, May 21-28, 1946, and on pp. 4-7 of the current OPC reprint, Our Songs in God's Worship (Philadelphia: Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, n.d.). The cover letter is found in the John Murray Papers, Montgomery Library, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. William Young, who signed the Committee's minority report in 1947, writes in a letter of May 25, 1993, to the present writer: "Section A of the 1946 report is clearly the work of John Murray. Section C is evidently based on parts of my report on the scripture proof of the regulative principle, except for the addition to C in the 1947 report, in which I did not concur." Thus, the largest proportion of the 1946 report defining the regulative principle was composed by the two men who dissented from the majority's argument in 1947.
(36) Murray, "Minority Report," pp. 101-2.
(37) The deleted sentences would have appeared at the close of section I on p. 102 of the Minutes of the Thirteenth General Assembly, or after section A on p. 5 of the reprint, which has restyled the sections.
(38) John Murray Papers, Montgomery Library, Westminster Seminary.
(39) George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies, ed. Christopher Coldwell (Dallas: Naphtali Press, 1993), p. xli.
(40) Jack B. Rogers, Scripture in the Westminster Confession (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), p. 176.
(41) Ibid., pp. 316-19 and 333-37. Cf. Benjamin B. Warfield, The Westminster Assembly and its Work
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1931), pp. 175-76.

Go to the next installment:
IV. Singing of Psalms: Circumstances of Worship