(1) That the law is perfect, and bindeth everyone to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience, forever; so as, to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin. (o)

(2) That it is spiritual; and so, reacheth the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul, as well as words, works, and gestures. (p)

(3) That one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments. (q)

(4) That, as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; (r) and, where a sin is forbidden the contrary duty is commanded: (s) so, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included; (t) and, where a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included. (u)

(5) That, what God forbids, is at no time to be done; (w) what he commands, is always our duty, (x) yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times. (y)

(6) That, under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded, together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto. (z)

(7) That what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavour that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places. (a)

(8) That, in what is commanded to others, we are bound according to our places and callings to be helpful to them; (b) and to take heed of partaking with others in what is forbidden them. (c)

like to point out the fact that the word psalm is not capitalized, as if this proves the word is used in some vague, generic sense. The problem with this argument is the simple fact that the authors [of] the Westminster Standards only capitalized the word Psalms when it was used as a title of the whole book.122

It is clearly evident that when the Westminster Divines referred to the title of the book of Psalms they used capitalisation. However, when they referred to an individual psalm or to a psalter (psalm book) they did not use capitalisation. So the fact that the word ‘psalm’ is not spelt with a capital in the Westminster Confession does not prove that it referred to any other songs outside the book of Psalms. 123

Of Publick Reading of the Holy Scriptures.
Of Preaching of the Word.
Of the Sacrament of Baptism.
Of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
Of Publick Solemn Fasting.
Of the Observation of Days of Publick Thanksgiving.
Of Singing of Psalms.

“The Reading of Scriptures with godly fear”
“the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the word”
“singing of psalms with grace in the heart”
“due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ”

Religious oaths and vows
Solemn fastings and thanksgivings

For the next Head of our Commission, ye know the Directory for Worship is settled long ago by the Parliaments of both Kingdoms. I confess it is not yet observed by all there so as it ought, yet it is observed by many, to the great good of that land. We shall only add to that head, the matter of the Psalms; all grant that there is a necessitie of the change of the old Paraphrase. This new Paraphrase was done by a Gentleman verie able for the purpose, but afterward it was revised by a Committee of the Assembly of Divines, accordingly to the original, and was approven by the whole Assembly (Cited in Baillie, 3.451).

I was glad to be a carrier of a Confession of Faith; also of a Psalter, which to my knowledge had cost the Assembly some considerable paines, and is like to be one necessary part of the three Kingdoms uniformitie” (Baillie, 3.12).

Wherfor in pursuance of the ends of the Covenant, in discharge of that trust which is committed to us, as lykwise that some of our number who ar now to returne into Scotland may be able to give farther accompt to the Parliament of that kingdome, and to the Commissioners of the Generall Assembly at Edinburgh (both being now assembled), we have taken this occasion (without the least presuming to prescribe any wayes or to impose conditions) to renew our most earnest desires to the Honourable Houses of Parliament, and to the reverend Assembly of Divines for their part, that all possible care may be taken, and greater diligence used, to expedite the begun Reformation and Vniformity, to supply and make up those parts that ar yet wanting, and to put on and make effectuall what is already agreed upon. More particularly we do desire that some effectuall course may be provided by Ordinance of Parliament for the taking of the Solemn League and Covenant, by all persons, as well as in all places of this kingdome, and some considerable penalty or punishment (such as the honourable Houses in their wisdome shall think fitt) may be appointed for such as refuse to take it (much more for such as reproach it or speak against it), and that by authority of both Houses of the Parliament of England, the Covenant, Confession of Faith, Directory of Worship, Forme of Government and Catechisms may be setled in Irland as well as in England, according to the first article of the Solemn League and Covenant. Wee also desire that the Catechisme (now before the Assembly of Divines) may be perfected so soon as is possible: that the Confession of Faith may be established by authoritie of Parliament and immediately therafter sent into Scotland (as the Directory of Worship wes), to be agreed unto by that Church and kingdome, it being the cheefest part of that Vniformity in Religion, which both kingdoms stand bound by Covenant to endevour: that course may be taken for the better observing the Directory of Worship, which is, in many places of this kingdome, either wholly or in diverse materiall points neglected. And becaus the singing of psalmes in Churches is a part of the publike worship of God, We desire that the Paraphrase of the Psalmes in meter, as it is now examined, corrected, and approved by the Assembly of Divines here, and by the Commissioners of the Gen. Assembly in Scotland, may be lykwise authorized and established by Ordinance of Parliament.” 131

Attached Files

Psalmvspsalm.pdf (153.3 KB, 98 views)

Nor should this be omitted, since this practice was not enjoined by the Lord. Nevertheless, it is strictly urged, and sedulously observed by them, and holds a certain type of will worship7 at the very least, an observance rooted in the will that is not divinely ordained. God does not wish to be worshipped according to the precepts of men, Matt 15. He hates and abominates every act of worship which he did not institute. It cannot be denied, that these formulations are prohibited in the worship of God, and that they are not prescribed by God, either as a category, or individually. Assuredly they do not pertain to the circumstances of worship, but constitute a part of the worship itself. How, therefore, are they able to usurp it as though so commanded? Or how is it possible for anything added or enjoined by men as part of the worship of God when in fact it has not been instituted by God? It is fitting for us to remember the judgments inflicted against the sons of Aaron (Lev 10), against Uzziah (2 Sam 6), against the Bethlehemites (1 Sam 6), and against those who change anything in their worship of God.

God today is a jealous8 God and does not wish to permit anyone to alter worship of him with impunity. It is well known why we object to the Popes, when we dispute against their abuses in divine worship, and condemn them on account of their additions. Here, however, the change of manner which has been ordained by God is obvious, namely that the addition destroys. Moreover, when God permits, so that we worship in a natural manner in prayers, it is the case that we express the thoughts of our soul in our own words appropriate to them,9 and so utilize the ability freely conceded to us by nature. Not only does God permit this without ordaining a formula, but the Spirit has become our help and has promised the required resources. He makes it more than sufficiently clear that he wills us to address him without prescribed formulas using natural speech. Since therefore the matter so stands, to whom is it permitted to change this manner, to take away our liberty, to add or enjoin anything to the divine order, so that anyone, once the natural manner of addressing God is rejected, is bound to the words ordered and formulated by men? And who with good conscience is able to approve this corruption in divine worship, to embrace the addition, and to confirm it in his own practice? But enough of this.

In the fourth place, there is another public exercise that must be treated, and that is the hymn, doxology or the act of thanksgiving that is modulated through sound, or the singing of psalms, hymns or spiritual songs....

--------------------
7. Brown uses the Greek word ejqeloqrhskia~
8. Zelotypus, transliterated from the Greek zhlotupo~, meaning “jealous.”
9. Sc. “the thoughts of our soul.”

We cannot close out the 1940s without noticing the first of several historical works to be covered in this survey, which, while not uncritical of or even sympathetic toward the regulative principle, nevertheless are helpful in that they present it more or less accurately in the words of those who did hold to it. The late Horton Davies’ 1948 work, Worship of the English Puritans, which is based upon his 1944 Oxford dissertation, presented the Puritan view of worship with frequent citations from important works of the period. In a few years it had become a standard work.18 While his book is not above criticism,19 it was particularly important at the time as a means by which many were introduced to the Puritan (and Calvinistic) view of worship, and it continues to be an oft-cited work on the subject. The opening chapter lays out the difference in the worship views of Luther and Calvin, and clearly links the Puritan principle to that of the Genevan Reformer.

The real difference between the Lutheran and Calvinist reforms in worship may be summed up as follows: Luther will have what is not specifically condemned by the Scriptures; whilst Calvin will have only what is ordained by God in the Scriptures. That is their fundamental disagreement. It is of vital importance in the history of Puritan worship, since the Puritans accepted the Calvinist criterion, whilst their opponents, the Anglicans, accepted the Lutheran criterion (Davies, English Puritans, 16).

Following Calvin, they [the Puritans] affirmed the sufficiency of Scripture as a directory of worship, as well as the repository of the saving knowledge of God (49).20

Davies summed up the Puritan “apologia” for their view of worship this way:

In their apologia their first position was inevitably the all-sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures for the ordering of worship. William Bradshaw writes in 1605:

‘IMPRIMIS they hould and maintaine 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 Churche, to bee 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 iustified by the said word, is unlawfull.’

Having stated their thesis in such bold terms, they proceed to justify it by quotations from the Scriptures. It is their invariable practice to find a warrant in Holy Writ for every postulate they make. Thus, believing themselves bound to the Word of God, they do not assert a mere opinion, or a reasonable conviction, but the declared will of God. What may appear as Bibliolatry to their successors or opponents is, in fact, their consistency.

The Scriptural citations warranting their main thesis are derived from both Testaments. Thus II Peter i 19–21 and II Timothy iii 15–17 urge the perfection of the Scriptures; while Matthew xv 9, 13, and Rev. xxii 19 are taken to forbid any man-made additions to the worship of God. Even more relevant and stronger proof-texts are found in the Old Testament. Exodus xx 4–6 (the Second Commandment), Joshua i 7, Deut. iv 2, xii 32, and Proverbs xxx 6 assert that God will not tolerate any additions to his worship since he is ‘a jealous God.’

Once their thesis is established, the Puritans then diligently search the Scriptures for evidences of the worship which God demands from his people. Their norm is the Apostolic Church and their aim is to re-establish its purity and simplicity in their midst. They believe that the worship of this church is characterized by six ordinances: namely, (i) Prayer; (ii) Praise; (iii) the proclamation of the Word; (iv) the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; (v) catechizing; and (vi) the exercise of Discipline … (50–51).

The dominant principle in Puritan worship is that only the worship prescribed by God in his Word is acceptable to the Divine Majesty. It is expressed in characteristic fashion by John Owen:21

‘The end wherefore God granted his word unto the church was, that thereby it might be instructed in his mind and will as to what concerns the worship and obedience that he requireth of us, and which is accepted with him. This whole Scripture itself everywhere declares and poseth, it declareth, that of ourselves we are ignorant how God is, how he might be worshipped, Isa. viii. 20. Moreover, it manifests him to be a “jealous God,” exercising the holy property of his nature in an especial manner about his worship, rejecting and despising every thing that is not according to his Will, that is not of his institution, Exod. xx. 4–6.’

The characteristic Puritan reverence for the Scriptures, as Dr. F. J. Powicke remarks,22 was carried to the point of Bibliolatry.’ This meant for every detail of worship Biblical sanction or silence was required (257–258).

Davies published a companion volume to this work forty years later, Worship of the American Puritans, 1629–1730 (New York: Peter Lang, 1990).23 In chapter one, “The Beginnings,” Davies describes the worship of early New England. Regarding New England Puritan worship, he writes: “One is impressed by the novelty of the worship in several ways. First and foremost, one notes the determination to use all the ordinances in their pristine purity as Christ’s commands in Scripture, thus to avoid the arrogance of human invention, which is idolatry condemned by the Second Commandment. It is this that accounts for the insistence on the biblical basis of all the ordinances. This leads to the denial of any formal liturgy and the demand for extemporaneous prayers, and it even determines the correct order for the different types of prayers” (Davies, American Puritans, 11). In chapter three on “The Theology of Worship,” Davies again paints the difference in Lutheran and Calvinian worship: “This was essentially not a philosophical theology, but a biblical theology, and in this way it showed its Calvinian heritage…. Calvin, by contrast, insisted that Scripture was to be dominant as God’s law in church and state. His principle was in reference to God: Quod non jubet, vetat (He forbids what He does not command). Thus Scripture was to be dominant, not only in faith and ethics, but as God’s law it must dictate church worship and polity. For Calvin the Bible was, in his own words, “la saincte parole et loi de Dieu,” the holy word and law of God. The Puritans followed Calvin in their insistence that sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) was the paramount and exclusive liturgical criterion” (23–24).24
--------------------
18. “The importance of the regulative principle of worship for the origin and essential character of the Puritan movement appears in the definition of Puritanism given by Prof. Horton Davies in his standard work on, ‘The Worship of the English Puritans’ (Chap. I. p. 1.)….” William Young, “The Puritan Principle of Worship,” In Servants of the Word [Puritan Conference 1957] (Southampton, England, 1958) 46.

19. “I find it surprising that so well informed a writer as Horton Davies suggests that the Puritans probably were not aware of ‘the cleavage between themselves and John Calvin’ and how their viewpoint differed from the practice of other Reformed churches [Davies, 48].… The facts are otherwise, and Davies really undermines his assertion on his page 112.” Rowland S. Ward, “The Directory for Public Worship Prepared by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster in the Year 1644,” Westminster Assembly 2004: A Conference on the Westminster Standards, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia Pa., November 21–22, 2004 (Unpublished; MS dated February 18, 2006) 2. Ward goes on to conclude, “I am quite satisfied there is no fundamental difference between Calvin and the Westminster men on worship. They are in agreement in the principle, and the differences in form and rubric are those which a church, in due subjection to Scripture, may maintain without schism.” Ward, 13.

20. Dr. Davies had previously published a more general, less detailed and popular work on worship, Christian Worship, its Making and Meaning (Wallington, U.K.: The Religious Education Press, Ltd., 1946). A second edition was issued as Christian Worship, its History and Meaning (New York: Abingdon Press, [1957]). He gives similar definitions (citing the 2nd edition): “In comparison with the Lutheran and Anglican reformations, which were conservative, his type of churchmanship and worship may seem radical, but it was considerably less so than that of the Puritans in England and the Quakers, so that it may be termed moderate as a mediating though logical view of worship. Whereas Luther was willing to retain all features of the medieval rite that did not conflict with the understanding of the gospel he obtained from the New Testament, Calvin held that what was
not prescribed by the Bible was positively forbidden to the Christian man. For this reason, although his forms of worship attempted to imitate the worship of the primitive Church, he was primarily concerned to design a form of worship with strong biblical authority” (55). “These criticisms, carried over from England and Scotland to North America by immigrants, have accounted for the dislike until recent times of precomposed forms of prayer and an ornate liturgy, among the heirs of the Puritans…. But this conception of worship is not a merely negative, dissenting, or niggardly view of worship. It must be recognized that these churches have made several positive contributions to worship. The most notable of them is the use of extemporary prayer” (67).

21. Davies is citing John Owen’s “A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God,” Works (Edinburgh: Goold ed., 1862) 15.450.

22. Davies is citing F. J. Powicke, “English Congregationalism in its greatness and decline (1502–1770),” in Essays Congregational and Catholic, issued in commemoration of the centenary of the Congregational Union of England and Wales, ed. Albert Peel (London: Congregational Union of England and Wales, 1931) 299.

23. Horton Davies, Worship of the American Puritans, 1629–1730 (New York: Peter Lang, 1990).

24. Davies also compares and contrasts Anglicanism and Puritanism in his magnum opus, Worship and Theology in England (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1961–1975) 1.69ff. He comments on the Puritan demand for a biblical warrant for all worship ordinances as follows: “Biblical fidelity could all too easily degenerate into Bibliomania in the more extreme forms of text-hunting and strained interpretation…. Disregarding such special pleading and hair-splitting interpretation as mere eisegesis, it must still be recognized that the value of providing a Biblical warrant for all the ordinances of Puritan worship was that each was directly related to the divine will, and that this gave these ordinances an august authority for those who used them, as the Puritans did, in the obedience of faith” (71).

The year 1977 also saw the appearance of perhaps the earliest thesis to make use of the term regulative principle in relation to a study of Puritanism. This was Robert D. Jarman’s “The Regulative Principle of Scripture: The Origin of a Cardinal Doctrine in the Early Elizabethan Puritan Movement.”80 The body of the paper consists of the chapters: “The Regulative Principle in the Vestiarian Controversy,” “The Regulative Principle and the Presbyterian Movement,” “The Regulative Principle in the Reign of Edward VI,” “The Regulative Principle in the Reign of Queen Mary,” and “The Regulative Principle up to the Reign of Henry VIII.” Jarman concludes his research thus:

At the very outset we stated our intention of contributing something to the debate over Puritan origins that has been continuing for several years. We drew attention to the importance of the Puritan doctrine of scriptural authority known as the regulative principle. We suggested that its importance was such that if we could trace its origin we would be able to draw certain conclusions as to the parallel question of the origins of Puritanism as [a] whole. The following closing remarks are made in the light of the evidence that has been presented.

Firstly, we feel that sufficient evidence has been given to substantiate our claim that the regulative principle was a cardinal doctrine of the early Elizabethan Puritan movement. Establishing this point implies the existence of a parallel between the origins of the regulative principle and that of Puritanism as such.

Secondly, such evidence as we have presented suggests strongly that the origins of the regulative principle are to be sought in the continental theologians, particularly Zwingli and Calvin.81 We suggest that they both consciously taught and practised the regulative principle, so that their churches at Zurich and Geneva, together with other churches on the continent that followed their example, provided an object-lesson in what could be achieved through its application to church life and practice.

Thirdly, we suggest that there are definite links between these continental Reformed churches and the Puritan movement in England. While not calling Hooper a Puritan, his links with Zurich are clear, and his example was an inspiration to the later Puritans. John Calvin’s thought was brought to England in different ways, through the printing of books, through the provision of theological education at the Geneva Academy, but most powerfully by those Marian exiles who came to Geneva, and saw and heard for themselves. Here we refer to men like Whittingham, Gilby, Goodman, Lever, and Wood. In addition to these links, there was the influence and example of strongly reformed churches in London and other areas, in the reigns of both Edward VI and Elizabeth.

Lastly, while acknowledging the continuing survival of Lollard principles, as also the work of Tyndale, Frith and others, we feel that the provenance of the regulative principle on purely English soil cannot be adequately documented or proven. This by implication must weaken the claims of earlier historians as to the influence of Tyndale, Frith and the Lollards in the rise of Puritanism. In a similar way, the claims of Trinterud and Clebsch82 would seem to need modification in the light of what has been presented.

We do not claim that Puritanism was simply imported into England from Zurich and Geneva. Yet we cannot agree with those who claim that Puritanism was a solely English phenomenon. There needs to be a balance in these views, and our suggestion is, that the seed of a principle that was essentially foreign in its origin fell upon ground prepared for its reception. If we wish to illustrate by further reference to our symphonic analogy, we may say that the theme composed in its fundamental motifs by Zwingli and Calvin, that rose gradually from a background theme to become a leading motif in the Puritan symphony, was played enthusiastically by those who had an innate feeling and appreciation for the music they played (129–131).

------------------------

80. Robert D. Jarman, B.A., “The Regulative Principle of Scripture: The Origin of a Cardinal Doctrine in the Early Elizabethan Puritan Movement. A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts with a Major in Church History and the History of Christian Thought at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Deerfield, Illinois, June, 1977.” Serving as Chairman of the two-man committee that approved the thesis was Mark A. Noll

81. Jarman wrote earlier: “Our purpose here is to show that Calvin from his earliest days as a reformer, up to the most mature expression of his thought in the 1559 edition of the Institutes consistently taught and applied the regulative principle of scripture.” Jarman, 111.