Welcome to the reading of Anarchy in Worship
or Recent Innovations Contrasted with the Constitution of
the Presbyterian Church and the Vows of her
Office Bearers by Dr. James Begg, published originally
in Edinburgh in the year 1875.
This book is available at Stillwaters Revival Books
www.swrb.com and is read by W.
J.
Mincaro.
Every true minister of the gospel is a
watchman, as well as a pastor, and all
Christians are bound to defend truth and purity,
to endure hardness as good soldiers of Jesus
Christ, and to contend earnestly for the faith
once delivered to the saints.
When men act on other principles, Christianity is
but a name, a salt that has lost
its savor.
Still men trifle with religion.
Amidst hollow professions, some would, in a bad
sense, make the best of both worlds, and
instead of coming into collision with sin and
ungodliness, they would feign run quietly on opposite
rails, so as to avoid collision.
Even true Christians sometimes seek to anticipate the
rest of heaven by resting unlawfully here.
The wise, as well as the foolish, virgins
sometimes slumber and sleep, forgetting the solemn warning,
woe unto you when all men speak well
of you, for so did their fathers of
the false prophets.
The late eminent Dr. James Buchanan has justly
said, many sincere Christians dislike controversy, and so
far from engaging in it themselves can scarcely
allow that others should.
An enlarged view of the history of the
Christian church might serve to convince such persons
that all along it has been like a
beleaguered city, sometimes in danger from the assaults
of its enemies without, still more frequently perhaps
from carelessness or treachery within, and that at
no era has the truth been more gloriously
displayed or achieved nobler triumphs than when dangers
have called forth a vigorous and manly defense.
From the militant state of the church as
a public witness-bearer for God and His
truth, in a world which revolts from both,
the continuancing of controversy might have been expected,
but that it is appointed, and that too
within the visible church itself, for wise reasons,
we have the highest authority for believing.
There must be heresies or divisions among you,
that they who are approved may be made
manifest."
Our own day has furnished abundant illustrations of
the general truth thus so well stated, although
the worst is probably yet to come.
The point of attack from time to time
is varied, but the struggle continues unabated.
When Christian men have got somewhat accustomed to
defend one true position, the assault is directed
to another, and perhaps from a new quarter.
Although we shall not venture to apportion the
relative importance of great principles, it may safely
be affirmed that nothing can be more important
than questions connected with the acceptable worship of
God.
The question of the King of Moab must
ever be regarded with deep interest by true
Christians.
Micah 6, 6.
Wherewithal shall I come before God, and bow
myself before the Most High?
At one time this question engaged serious attention
in Scotland.
For two centuries it has been held to
be practically settled in the Presbyterian Church, but
it is now manifestly raised again from an
unexpected quarter, and must be settled anew.
Our subject at present is to discuss it
on its essential merits.
One, in connection with Scripture, and two, in
connection with the constitution of the Presbyterian Church
and the vows of its office bearers.
First, what is the doctrine of Scripture as
understood by Presbyterians in regard to the acceptable
way of worshiping God?
The importance of this question as practically settling
the whole debate needs not to be argued.
Man as a sinner, as all true Christians
will admit, has no right to approach into
God's presence at all.
The amity which previously existed in Eden was
broken up by the fall.
God drove out the man, and he alone
is entitled to say whether and on what
conditions he shall ever again be permitted to
approach his throne.
It is manifest presumption on the part of
fallen creatures to dictate to God either that
there shall be worship at all, or what
form it shall assume.
In entering the courts of earthly monarchs, even
where a right to enter is conceded, every
rule and form of the court must be
carefully observed.
And far more is this important in entering,
by gracious permission, into the immediate presence of
the King of kings and Lord of lords.
See thou do all things according to the
pattern showed thee in the mount, was the
command of God to Moses in Exodus 25.
God is greatly to be feared in the
assembly of the saints, Numbers 8.4. It
is in connection with worship that the solemn
question is asked, who hath required this at
your hands?
Hebrews 8.
Isaiah 1.2. It is in connection with
the second commandment which concerns the mode of
divine worship that the Lord says, I the
Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children,
even unto the third and fourth generation of
them that hate me.
Cora and his company were swallowed up for
disregarding the ordinance of God in regard to
worship.
It was in connection with this that Christ
drove the buyers and sellers out of the
temple, and that he said on another occasion,
in vain do they worship me, teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men.
It is important to understand clearly the true
scriptural principle of worship as laid down by
our Reformers, and to distinguish it from other
views and from counterfeits.
The principle of pure worship as held by
Presbyterians in opposition to other theories is set
forth clearly in our standards.
In the Westminster Confession of Faith, to which
the office-bearers of the Presbyterian Church are
bound, it is said in chapter 21, section
1, quote, the acceptable way of worshiping the
true God is instituted by himself, and so
limited by his own revealed will, that he
may not be worshipped according to the imaginations
and devices of men, or the suggestions of
Satan, or in any other way not prescribed
in the Holy Scriptures, unquote.
Some attempt to evade this has been made
by quoting another passage, chapter 1, section 6,
where it is said that, quote, there are
some circumstances concerning the worship of God and
the 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, unquote.
The two qualifications here, however, clearly define the
meaning of this statement, and prove that the
quotation is quite irrelevant.
The passage only refers to such unimportant matters
as are, quote, common to human actions and
societies, and it declares at the same time,
even in regard to such matters, that everything
must be, quote, according to the general rules
of the word, which are always to be
observed.
The larger catechism lays down the principle that
second commandment forbids, quoting from larger catechism question
109, quote, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and
any wise approving any religious worship not instituted
by God himself, unquote.
The shorter catechism, question 51, declares that the
second commandment, quote, forbid the worship of God
by images or any other way not appointed
in his word.
Two theories of worship, as opposed to the
monstrous corruptions of potpourri, were advocated at the
Reformation.
The one was that nothing should be introduced
into the worship of God, which was expressly
prohibited in Scripture.
This was much, but not enough.
The church, it is said, hath power to
decree rites and ceremonies, and yet it is
not lawful for the church to ordain anything
that is contrary to God's word written.
This, although embodying, as we think, an unfounded
claim insofar as the church is concerned, is
of true importance and a great step in
advance as compared with the darkness and assumptions
of potpourri, but it is far from being
all that is required to secure purity in
worship.
Many Presbyterians at present are so profoundly ignorant
in regard to this whole controversy that they
argue as if this were the principle of
their own church and of Scripture, and they
ask, with a foolish and stupefied air of
triumph, where God has, quote, prohibited instrumental music
and other corruptions of worship under the New
Testament dispensation.
But it is plain that this is not
our principle, and that it comes far short
of what is necessary to clear the worship
of God of human corruptions and abuses, inasmuch
as many things as crossing in baptism, kneeling
at communion, even the mass itself, are not
expressly prohibited in Scripture, and yet are manifestly
inconsistent with the purity of divine worship.
Hence, the true scriptural principle and that of
our church is that we must find a
divine warrant or prescription for everything that we
do in the worship of God.
It is not enough that a thing is
not forbidden.
It must be expressly commanded by God, and
that is a duty binding under the New
Testament dispensation, or it is absolutely inadmissible in
worship.
John Knox clearly announces and defends this principle.
Quote, all worshiping, honoring, or service invented by
the brain of man, says he, in the
religion of God, without his own express commandment,
is idolatry.
He continues, Fourth of God's scriptures will I
bring the witness of my words.
And first, let us hear Samuel speaking unto
Saul, after that he had sacrificed unto the
Lord upon Mount Gilgal, what time his enemies
approached against him.
Thou art become foolish, saith Samuel, thou hast
not observed the precepts of the Lord, which
he commanded thee.
Truly, the Lord had prepared to have established
this kingdom above Israel forever, but now thy
kingdom shall not be sure.
First Samuel 13, 13 and 14.
Let us consider, Knox continues, what was the
offense committed by Saul?
His enemies approaching, and he considering that the
people declined from him, and that he had
not consulted with the Lord, nor offered sacrifice
for pacification of the Lord's wrath, by reason
that Samuel, the principal prophet and high priest,
was not present, offered himself burnt and peace
offerings.
Here is the ground of all his iniquity,
and this proceedeth the cause of his ejection
from the kingdom, that he would honor God
otherwise than was commanded by his express word.
For he, being none of the tribe of
Levi, appointed by God's commandment to make sacrifice,
usurpeth that office not due to him, which
was most high abomination before God, as by
the punishment appeareth.
Consider well that no excuses are admitted by
God, as that his enemies approached, and his
own people departed from him.
He could not have a lawful minister, and
gladly would he have been reconciled to God,
and consulted with him of the end and
chance of his journey, and therefore he, the
king, anointed by God's commandment, maketh sacrifice.
But none of all these were admitted by
God, but Saul was pronounced false and vain.
For no honoring knoweth God, nor will accept
without it be the express commandment of his
own word to be done in all points.
And no commandment was given unto the king
to make or offer unto God any matter
of sacrifice, which because he took upon himself
to do, he and his posterity were deprived
of all honors in Israel.
Knox continues, disobedience to God's voice is not
only when man doeth wickedly contrary to the
precepts of God, but also when of good
zeal or good intent, as we commonly speak,
man doeth anything to the honor or service
of God, not commanded by the express word
of God, as in this matter plainly may
be aspired.
And that is principal idolatry, when our own
inventions we defend to be righteous in the
sight of God, because we think them good,
laudable, and pleasant.
We may not think us so free nor
wise that we may do unto God and
to his honor what we think expedient.
No, the contrary is commanded by God, saying,
Deuteronomy 4, 2, unto my word shall ye
add nothing.
Nothing shall ye diminish therefrom that ye may
observe the precepts of the Lord your God,
which words are not to be understood of
the Decalogue and moral law only, but of
statutes, rites, and ceremonies, for equal obedience of
all his laws requireth God.
Of this falsely conclude they, that Kirk may
do all that seemeth good for the glory
of God, and whatsoever the church doeth that
accepteth and approveth God.
I could evidently prove what they call the
Kirk not to be the Kirk, an immaculate
spouse of Jesus Christ, which doth not err.
But presently I ask if the Kirk of
God be bound to this perpetual precept, not
that thing which appeareth righteous in thine own
eyes shalt thou do, but what God hath
commanded, that observe and keep, Deuteronomy 12.
And if they will deny, I desire to
be certified who hath abrogated and made the
same of none effect.
My sheep hear my voice, and a stranger
they will not hear, but flee from him,
says the Lord.
To hear his voice, which is also the
voice of God the Father, is to understand
and obey the same.
And to flee from a stranger is to
admit no other doctrine, worshiping nor honoring of
God, than hath proceeded forth of his own
mouth, as he himself testifies, saying, All that
are of the verity hear my voice.
And Paul saith, The Kirk is founded upon
the foundation of prophets and apostles, which foundation
no doubt is the law and the evangel,
so that it may command nothing that is
not contained in one of the two.
For if so it doth, it is removed
from the only foundation, and so seetheth to
be the true Kirk of Christ.
Secondly, I would ask if that Jesus Christ
be not King and head of his Kirk.
This will no man deny.
If he be King, then must he do
the office of a King, which is not
only to guide, rule, and defend his subjects,
but also to make and statute laws, which
laws only are his subjects bound to obey,
and not the laws of any foreign princes.
Then it becometh the Kirk of Jesus Christ
to advert what he speaketh, to receive and
embrace his laws, and where he maketh end
of speaking or law-giving, here to rest.
So that all the power of the Kirk
is subject to God's word.
And that is most evident by the commandment
given of God unto Joshua, his chosen captain
and leader of his people.
In these words, Joshua 1, be strong and
valiant, that you may do according to the
holy law which my servant Moses commanded unto
thee.
Decline not from it, neither to the right
hand nor to the left.
Let not the book of the law depart
from thy mouth, but meditate in it both
day and night, that you may keep and
do all things according to that which is
written therein.
Here was it not permitted to Joshua to
alter one jot, ceremony, or statute in all
the law of God, nor yet to add
thereunto, but diligently to observe that which was
commanded.
No less obedience requireth God of us than
he did of Joshua his servant, for he
will have the religion ordained by his only
son Jesus Christ most strictly observed, and not
to be violated in any part.
Knox concludes, For that I find given in
charge to the congregation of Thyatira in these
words, I say unto you and to the
rest that are in Thyatira, who have not
the doctrine, meaning the diabolical doctrine before rehearsed,
and who knoweth not the deepness of Satan,
I will put upon you none other burden
but that which ye have.
Hold till I come.
Mark well, the Spirit of God calleth all
that is added to Christ's religion the doctrine
of the devil, and deep invention of the
adversary Satan, as also did Paul writing to
Timothy.
And Jesus Christ saith, I will lay upon
you none other burden than I have already,
and that which ye have observed diligently.
O God eternal, hast thou laid none other
burden upon our backs than Jesus Christ laid
by his word?
Then who hath burdened us with all these
ceremonies?
That is from Knox's works, volume 3, pages
35 through 42.
It is unnecessary to observe that the quotations
are from a translation of scripture anterior to
the present version.
This is a very clear, strong, and scriptural
statement of the doctrine of our Scottish Reformation
as founded on the Word of God.
And in this we shall afterwards prove all
the true sons of the Presbyterian Church have
ever agreed.
Now the question is this, is this a
true or a false principle?
If it be false, the Presbyterian Church for
three centuries has been under a strong delusion,
and all its office-bearers have been bound,
and are still bound, to maintain what is
not true.
If it be true, it ought to be
firmly maintained, and all worship for which a
divine warrant cannot be pleaded ought to be
opposed and discarded.
Till it is abandoned, every Presbyterian minister can
only be an honest man by maintaining it.
It is utterly vain and worse to dispose
of our solemn obligations by vague and pointless
declamation.
The position taken up by the Presbyterian Church
is either sound or unsound.
To the law and the testimony, if they
speak not according to this word, it is
because there is no light in them.
Isaiah 820.
And the only class of men more inconsistent
and criminal than those who leave such a
matter in doubt are those who, in accepting
office, profess to hold the doctrine of the
Presbyterian Church and promise to maintain it, but
who afterwards treat their solemn professions and vows
with faithlessness and disregard.
It is too much of the fashion in
the present day to speak as if men
might act in the worship of God according
to their own whim and fancy, and without
regard to His high and sacred authority.
Angels veil their faces in heaven whilst they
adore the majesty of the great God, but
guilty man speaks and acts as if nothing
were so light and trivial as an act
of worship, nay, as if he might convert
a professed act of worship into a source
of amusement.
We know nothing which so clearly proves the
deep and fearful depravity of man and the
abounding infidelity of the present day in the
midst of much high profession.
It is an illustration that blasphemy and truce
-breaking are closely connected.
1 Timothy 3, 1-6.
A dreadful story is told of the notorious
Claverhouse, that when asked how he would answer
for the murder of the pious Gersher Carrier,
he said, To man I can be answerable,
and as for God, I will take Him
into my own hands.
Whether this be true or not, it is
the very spirit in which many professing Christians
act in the matter of worship.
They forget the warning of God.
These things thou hast done, and I have
kept silence.
Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such and
one as thyself, but I will reprove thee,
and set them in order before thine eyes.
Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest
he tear you in pieces, and there is
none to deliver.
Psalm 1.
Is it possible to find a single instance
in Scripture of accepted worship that was not
prescribed by God?
In the first act of worship recorded after
the fall, we are told that the person
and offering of Cain were rejected, whilst those
of Abel were accepted.
Apart from the fact that a mere thank
-offering, although it might suit an angel or
an unfallen man, was totally unsuitable for a
sinner, it is clear that there was a
divine appointment of sacrifice pointing to the cross
of Christ.
For it is said, by faith Abel offered
unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.
Hebrews 11.
Now faith implies a revelation or a testimony
on which to rest, and it is evident
that by the first promise in Eden, and
the emblematical coats of skins implying that the
innocent must suffer that the guilty might be
clothed, the doctrine of substitution was taught to
our first parents before they were driven from
the scene of their transgression.
From the very first, therefore, acceptable worship was
coupled with God's appointment of sacrifice, and with
the principle that without shedding of blood there
is no remission.
Hebrews altars of earth or stone, and when
an elaborate system of worship was introduced embodying
still clearer types and emblems of the coming
Messiah and his work, nothing was left to
the invention of Moses, although so eminent in
wisdom, and though although God spake to him
as a man speaketh to his friend, the
most minute arrangements were made by God in
regard to all parts of worship down to
the pins of the tabernacle.
And he said to Moses in Exodus 25,
See thou do all things after the pattern
showed thee on the mount.
God said, Deuteronomy 1232, Whatsoever I command you
observe to do it, thou shalt not add
thereto nor diminish from it.
When David gave instructions to Solomon in regard
to building the temple, it is said he
gave the pattern of all that he had
by the Spirit, and at the end he
repeats this divine appointment as follows, All this,
said David, the Lord made me understand in
writing by his hand upon me, even all
the works of this pattern.
First Chronicles 28.
Every deviation from this, even in the smallest
particular, and even when a good motive might
have been pleaded, was condemned and resented by
God.
By and by this system with all its
peculiarities as having served its purpose was done
away with, and we emerge into the clearer
light of the New Testament dispensation as foretold
by Christ to the woman of Samaria.
But the same principle still continues and is
clearly enforced.
Christ commands his apostles to go and teach
all nations, but still it is with this
solemn injunction, teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you, Matthew 28 20.
It is not whatsoever I have not forbidden.
They were simply ambassadors for Christ, acting under
written and limited instructions, which were also in
the hands of all the people, that all
might judge how far they acted in accordance
with them.
Accordingly, when the Apostle Paul gives instructions in
regard to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper,
he says, I have received of the Lord
that which I also delivered unto you.
There is no permission to be found in
the word of God to alter, add to,
or modify the ordinances of Christ.
Revelation 22 18 and 19.
If any man shall add unto these things,
God shall add unto him the plagues which
are written in this book.
And if any man shall take away from
the words of the book of this prophecy,
God shall take away his part out of
the book of life and out of the
holy city, and from the things which are
written in this book.
Now we are not proving this for the
sake of the office bearers of the Presbyterian
Church.
They have all solemnly vowed that according to
their convictions, these are the principles of Scripture,
which they will defend to the utmost of
their power.
To do anything else, therefore, to make any
other profession, without abandoning the office which they
received in connection with their previous avowal, is
simply an act of perjury, fitted to bring
disgrace on the Christian Church, and to give
the enemies of the truth cause to blaspheme.
Every Presbyterian office bearer is as much bound
as we are to maintain and vindicate these
principles, and neither directly nor indirectly to connive
at their subversion.
We live, however, unfortunately, in a day when
truce-breaking is not uncommon, and when many,
instead of following no divisive courses according to
their solemn vows, seem to make the promotion
of innovation and the worship of God one
of their favorite employments.
Religion is wounded in the house of her
professed friends.
We can imagine nothing more fitted to eat
like a canker into the faith and morals
of the community.
For the sake of others, therefore, and especially
of the Christian people at large, we feel
bound to speak.
Starting from the general principle of Scripture thus
explained in regard to worship, its application is
simple.
What worship has God prescribed under the New
Testament dispensation, the temple and all its services
being done away?
This is set forth with equal plainness in
the Westminster Confession of Faith.
21.5. Quote, The reading of the Scriptures
with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable
hearing of the word in obedience unto God
with understanding, faith and reverence, singing of psalms
with grace in the heart, as also the
due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments
instituted by Christ, are all parts of the
ordinary religious worship of God.
Besides religious oaths and vows, solemn fastings and
thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are in their
several times and seasons to be used in
a holy and religious manner.
Unquote.
Anything else or different from this, and especially
anything borrowed from heathenism or the abolished temple
services, such as pretended priests, altars, altar cloths,
incense, symbolical vestments or instrumental music, are entirely
without divine warrant and therefore unlawful.
The same thing may be said of all
man-pleasing sensationalism, solo singing, with any of
the peculiarities of the theater transferred without divine
warrant into the worship of the Christian Church.
The worship of the New Testament Church, unlike
that of the temple, is based on the
worship of the synagogue.
That worship consisted of singing, prayer, with reading
and expounding the scriptures.
All priests, incense, instruments of music and sacrifices
were discarded.
And our worship, now that the temple is
completely destroyed, must be the simple worship of
the synagogue under the clearer light of the
New Testament, conducted in the name and by
the authority of Christ, and under the solemn
impression that God is a spirit, and they
that worship him must worship him in spirit
and in truth.
John 4.24. It is worthy of observation
not only that this is the only appointed
worship under the New Testament, but that it
was undoubtedly the worship practiced by the Apostles
and early Christians.
The very meaning of our being Presbyterians, moreover,
as distinguished from Congregationalists, is that the details
of worship shall be uniform and settled by
a central authority, so that in going from
church to church, as from room to room
in one great house, we shall not be
distracted in our devotions by diversity and individual
crotchets, as when there was no king in
Israel, but every man did that which was
right in his own eyes.
To this uniformity, as well as purity of
worship, all the office bearers of the Presbyterian
Church are solemnly pledged they are bound to
follow no divisive courses, although it is notable
and painful at present to find that many
are setting this solemn obligation at defiance.
Still, we need not wonder, for it is
equally remarkable that a parallel may be found
to all classes of modern innovators in worship
in the history of the Church as given
in the Word of God, and especially under
the Old Testament.
Take a few illustrations of this.
We have, first of all, the presumptuous and
blasphemous innovator.
We have in Scripture some striking illustrations of
the extent to which impious man, in the
spirit of the first temptation, ye shall be
as gods, will exalt himself against the authority
of God.
Nebuchadnezzar, the king, sets up an image of
gold in the plain of Dura in the
province of Babylon.
Then a herald cried aloud, To you it
is commanded, O people, nations, and language, that
at what time ye hear the sound of
the cornet, flute, harp, sackbutt, psaltery, dulcimer, and
all kinds of music, ye fall down and
worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar, the king,
hath set up.
And whoso falleth not down and worshipeth shall
the same hour be cast into the midst
of a burning, fiery furnace.
Darius virtually claimed to be a god himself,
nay, greater than God, making, quote, a firm
decree that whosoever shall ask a petition of
any god or man for thirty days, save
of himself, should be cast into the den
of lions.
We are not to suppose, however, that this
is peculiar to heathenism.
Aaron, who took part in the old idolatry,
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, whose wicked and presumptuous
proceedings are recorded in the sixteenth chapter of
Numbers, and Jeroboam, who erected the golden calves
at Dan and Bethel, acted in a precisely
similar spirit.
It was the predicted peculiarity of the man
of sin and son of perdition that he
was to sit in the temple of God
and show himself to be God.
He was to oppose and exalt himself above
all that is called God and worshipped.
The very essence of false worship, even under
a profession of Protestantism, consists in setting aside
the divine arrangements in the house of God
and substituting our own.
This is potpourri in the germ, no matter
under what name.
The great Andrew Melville, addressing the Parliament of
Scotland in 1606, proclaims the principle of our
church to this effect.
Quote, Now therefore, my lords, convened in this
present Parliament under the most high and excellent
majesty of our dread sovereign, to your honors
it is our exhortation that ye would endeavor
with all simpleness of heart, love, and zeal
to advance the building of the house of
God, reserving always to the Lord's own hands
that glory which we he will communicate neither
to man nor angel to prescribe from his
holy mountain a lively pattern according to which
his own tabernacle should be formed, remembering always
that there is no absolute and undoubted authority
in this world except the sovereign authority of
Christ the King, to whom it belongeth as
properly to rule the kirk according to the
good pleasure of his own will, as it
belongeth to him to save his kirk by
the merit of his sufferings.
All other authority is so entrenched within the
marches of divine commandment that the least overpassing
of the bounds set by God himself bringeth
men under the fearful expectation of temporal and
eternal judgments.
In reference to the special innovation against which
he was protesting, Melville says, quote, This is
that pattern of an altar brought from Damascus,
but not showed to Moses in the mountain,
and therefore it shall fare with it as
it did with that altar of Damascus.
It came last into the temple and went
first out.
Remember, my lords, that in times past your
authority was for Christ and not against him.
Ye followed the light of God and strived
not against it.
And like a child in the mother's hand,
ye said to Christ, Draw us, and we
will run after thee.
God forbid that ye should now leave off
and fall away from your former reverence born
to Christ, in presuming to lead him whom
the Father hath appointed to be a leader
of you, and far less to trail the
holy ordinances of Christ by the cords of
your authority at the heels of the ordinances
of men.
And speaking to ministers and others, he says,
quote, We would humbly and most earnestly beseech
all such to consider first that the kingdom
of Jesus Christ, the office bearers and laws
thereof, neither should nor can suffer any derogation,
addition, diminution, or alteration besides the prescript of
his holy word by any inventions or doings
of men, civil or ecclesiastical.
That's from the Protest of Andrew Miller and
Others, 1606.
See the appendix to the first volume of
Stevenson's History of the Church and State of
Scotland, pages 216 to 221.
Number two, the popularity hunting innovator.
When vital religion is low, men attempt to
make up for the want of spiritual life
by external and carnal appliances, whilst ministers, destitute
of moral courage, are ready to humor the
wishes of the people, instead of standing up
boldly for the authority of God.
The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear
rule by their means, and my people love
to have it so.
And what will ye do in the end
thereof?
Jeremiah 531.
In Aaron we have a type of this
class of cowardly innovators.
In the absence of Moses, he became the
instrument of a corrupt people.
When Moses came down from the mount, he
saw with indignation the idolatry of the Jews
and the golden calf which Aaron had made.
And he said to Aaron, What did this
people unto thee that thou hast brought so
great a sin upon them?
Exodus 32 21.
And Aaron said, speaking still, in as craven
a way as Adam did, after his fall,
O let not the anger of my Lord
wax hot.
Thou knowest the people, that they are set
on mischief.
For they said unto me, Make us gods
which shall go before us.
For as for this Moses, the man that
brought us up out of the land of
Egypt, we want not what has become of
him.
And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any
gold, let them break it off.
So they gave it me.
Then I cast it into the fire.
And there came out this calf.
Exodus 32 21 through 24.
How many cowardly errands have we in the
present day courting popularity of a very unworthy
kind by sacrificing alike the honor of God
and their own ordination vows?
What noble examples on the other side have
we in Elijah, David and the three children,
as well as in the great apostle Paul,
who withstood Peter to the face when carried
away by the fear of man which bringeth
a snare, and elsewhere said, Galatians 2 5,
To whom we gave place by subjection?
No, not for an hour.
In the case of Uzziah of old, we
have an illustration at once of human presumption,
ministerial faithfulness, and divine judgment following the disregard
of God's appointment in worship.
Let's read from 2 Chronicles 26 verses 16
through 22.
But when he was strong, his heart was
lifted up to his destruction.
For he transgressed against the Lord his God,
and went into the temple of the Lord
to burn incense upon the altar of incense.
And Azariah the priest went in after him,
and with him fourscore priests of the Lord
that were valiant men.
And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said
unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah,
to burn incense unto the Lord, but to
the priests, the sons of Aaron, that are
consecrated to burn incense.
Go out of the sanctuary, for thou hast
trespassed, neither shall it be for thine honor
from the Lord God.
Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer
in his hand to burn incense.
And while he was wroth with the priests,
the leprosy even arose up in his forehead
before the priests in the house of the
Lord, from beside the incense altar.
And Azariah the chief priest and all the
priests looked upon him, and, behold, he was
leprous in his forehead.
And they thrust him out from thence.
Yea, himself hasted also to go out, because
the Lord had smitten him.
And Uzziah the king was a leper unto
the day of his death, and dwelt in
a several house, being a leper, for he
was cut off from the house of the
Lord.
Speaking recently to one of our modern innovators,
he said, The people desire the change.
A most unworthy reason, even if true.
In most cases, the minister himself is the
chief ringleader in charge, but when he acts
from the unworthy motive of courting popularity, we
can scarcely imagine anything more base in a
servant of Christ.
One is your master, says our blessed Lord,
and no man can serve two.
We are far from saying that anything should
be done for the purpose of giving unnecessary
offense, but we have a higher object at
which to aim.
We dare not act in the church of
God without a divine prescription, and a minister
especially must add to his faith courage.
Be not afraid of their faces, said God,
lest I confound thee before them.
If any man is ashamed of me and
my words, of him will the Son of
man be ashamed when he cometh in his
own glory, and in his Father's glory, and
with all the holy angels.
At all times in the world, but especially
in the church at the present day, there
is nothing so lacking as moral courage.
Few men comparatively think for themselves, and still
fewer dare to say what they think or
to act independently.
They go in crowds and simply float with
the tide.
They are most unwilling to hold their faces
to any wind of opposition, as the tide
brings in bits of cork and driftwood and
carries them out again or leaves them high
and dry.
So it is with many modern Christians, and
even with not a few Christian ministers.
They cry for open questions, are terrified by
the idea of fashion, fear everything and everybody
except Him whom they should fear.
The old Scotch worthy is alleged to have
said, My friends, the dead fish ganged in
the water.
It takes this even fish to gang up
the water.
An apt image and an exact description of
many whom we see around us.
We have often admired the unflinching tenacity with
which Romish priests cling to very unpalatable dogmas,
a wonderful contrast to many Protestants.
It reminds one of the saying of the
great actor to the minister, We speak fiction
as if it were truth, and you speak
truth as if it were fiction.
It is this self-seeking, soft and molluscus
nature, this feeble and compromising spirit, this lack
of stern principle proceeding both from ignorance and
the want of faith, that is the oppogrium
and disgrace of many in the Protestant ministry.
Young ministers especially go down to their congregations
often with a sad sense of dependence, and
forgetting their ordination vows, while sometimes making high
professions, they allow themselves to be guided and
overborne by fussy and pretentious people into introducing
or sanctioning innovations.
They would never have been martyrs.
They mainly aim at man-pleasing with a
view to an easy life or the gratification
of human ambition.
It is in reference to this that the
Apostle introduces his earnest repudiation, If I yet
please men, I should not be the servant
of Christ.
Next comes the politic and scheming innovator.
He acts from a desire to make the
worship of God subservient to his own wicked
or worldly ends.
He is represented by Balaam, who loved the
wages of unrighteousness, and yet carried forward all
his schemes in connection with offering sacrifices to
God and high professions, by Jezebel, who overturned
the true worship of God and persecuted Elijah,
and yet decloak her foul proceedings in the
case of Naboth, saying, Proclaim a fast, and
set Naboth aloft amongst the people.
By Jehu, who departed not from the sins
of Jeroboam, and yet professed to be a
great church reformer, crying, Come, see my zeal
for the Lord.
But this class of innovators is represented in
great fullness by Jeroboam the son of Nebat,
who made Israel to sin.
He had seized on the throne, and it
occurred to him that if the people continued
to worship at Jerusalem, his political influence would
be weakened, and therefore he boldly proceeded to
overturn all the arrangements which God had made,
to change the place, the time, and the
mode of worship, to set up the most
degrading idolatry to be conducted by his appointed
priests, and at periods, according to first Kings,
devised of his own heart.
When God interposed in judgment, he boldly attempted
to arrest the power of omnipotence, and to
punish the divine messenger.
The whole narrative is most worthy of being
carefully studied.
It is as follows.
1 Kings, chapter 12, beginning at verse 25.
Then Jeroboam built Shechem in Mount Ephraim, and
dwelt therein, and went out from thence, and
built Penuel.
And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall
the kingdom return to the house of David.
If this people go up to do sacrifice
in the house of God at Jerusalem, then
shall the heart of this people turn again
unto their Lord, even unto Rehoboam king of
Judah, and they shall kill me, and go
again unto Rehoboam king of Judah.
Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two
calves of gold, and said unto them, It
is too much for you to go up
to Jerusalem.
Behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee
up out of the land of Egypt.
And he set the one in Bethel, and
the other he put in Dan.
And this thing became a sin, for the
people went to worship before the one, even
unto Dan.
And he made an house of high places,
and made priests of the lowest of the
people, which were not of the sons of
Levi.
And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth
month on the fifteenth day of the month,
like unto the feast that is in Judah.
So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the
calves that he had made.
And he placed in Bethel the priests of
the high places which he had made.
So he offered upon the altar which he
had made in Bethel, the fifteenth day of
the eighth month, even in the month which
he had devised of his own heart, and
ordained a feast unto the children of Israel,
and offered upon the altar, and burnt incense.
And, behold, there came a man of God
out of Judah, by the word of the
Lord unto Bethel.
And Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn
incense.
And he cried against the altar in the
word of the Lord, and said, O altar,
altar, thus saith the Lord, behold, a child
shall be born unto the house of David,
Josiah by name, and upon thee shall he
offer the priests of the high places that
burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall
he burn upon thee.
And he gave a sign the same day,
saying, This is the sign which the Lord
hath spoken.
Behold, the altar shall be rent, and the
ashes that are upon it shall be poured
out.
And it came to pass, when King Jeroboam
heard the saying of the man of God,
which he cried against the altar in Bethel,
that he put forth his hand from the
altar, saying, Lay hold on him.
And his hand, which he put forth against
him, dried up, so that he could not
pull it in again to him.
The altar also was rent, and the ashes
poured out from the altar according to the
sign which the man of God had given
by the word of the Lord.
The ancient struggles in regard to worship in
Scotland originated chiefly in political considerations, whilst recent
changes by which the Protestant churches have been
tormented seem to have originated also mainly in
political craft on the part of the leading
innovators.
The Romanizing clergy of England are aiming at
the restoration of superstitious worship with a view
to abandoning Protestantism and an ultimate union with
the Romish and Greek churches, all terminating, as
they anticipate, in a reunion of Christendom and
in a greatly augmented sacerdotal power.
The innovators in the established Church of Scotland,
as represented by their chief leader, hope to
strengthen their position by drawing nearer to the
powerful Church of England.
They have been carrying forward an underhand system
of revolution with a view to this result.
The movement points direct southward, said a naval
minister.
At last assembly the innovators gave a rehearsal
in Edinburgh of the new and ritualistic worship,
by which many eyes were opened.
One of them has lately been advocating the
keeping of Pash and Ewell.
Others, who don't look so far before or
around them, pretend that by making the churches,
quote, attractive, unquote, although by means of Romish
and heathen observations their ignorant flocks may perhaps
be pleased, and the position of the clergy
strengthened.
One rather distinguished minister lately avowed that by
having an organ he saved himself much effort
in the preparation of sermons, although preaching the
gospel is a minister's grandest and most distinctive
work.
Some who hate the truth have taken advantage
of this idea to suggest that sermons should
be done away with altogether, or at least
entirely separated from the new so-called devotions.
Thus we should be hurried back to the
darkness of the Middle Ages and fully realize
the old idea of dumb dogs that could
not bark, sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber,
Isaiah 5610.
To do the whole class justice they do
not rise above the level of Jeroboam and
their reasons.
They seldom pretend to plead a divine warrant
for their newfangled innovations.
The whole movement is, by this class, not
obscurely manifested to be of the earth earthly.
It appeals to human expediency and worldly wisdom
and not to the word of God.
Number four.
The aesthetic innovator.
He also is a lover of expediency and
a lover of pleasure more than a lover
of God.
He professes to imagine that you can charm
a sinner as you can charm a serpent
by the power of music.
He mistakes an effect on the nerves for
an impression on the soul.
And disregarding the divine authority would make religion
to consist to a large extent in man
-pleasing and in an appeal to the senses
of men, to their sight, hearing and smell.
He turns the church into a theater for
human gratification, irrespective altogether of any pretense of
divine appointment.
Here, however, an explanation may be necessary.
We are no advocates for uncomfortable churches, slovenly
worship or dull preaching.
We feel the full force of the appeal
of David.
Shall I dwell in a house of cedar
whilst the ark of God abides in curtains?
Every enlightened conscience must be alive to the
divine remonstrance.
Is it time for you, O ye, to
dwell in your sealed houses, and this house
lie waste?
Nor are we advocates for poor singing and
slovenly services.
The whole congregation should sing with heart and
soul.
The whole children should be thoroughly taught to
sing.
And the entire services, including the preaching, should
be instinct with power and spiritual life.
It is the want of all this which
often furnishes the pretext for unscriptural changes.
What we object to is every departure from
scriptural simplicity and uniformity of worship, and every
notion that the soul of man can be
savingly or permanently benefited by an appeal to
the senses.
Above all, we object to symbolism.
Take heed to yourselves, Deuteronomy 4, lest ye
corrupt yourselves.
For ye saw no manner of similitude in
the day when God spake unto you out
of Horeb, only ye heard a voice.
At a soldier's funeral you see the effect
of somber strains, and afterwards and suddenly of
more sprightly music.
The prophet Ezekiel tells us that he was
to those amongst whom he labored as the
lovely song of one that hath a pleasant
voice, or that playeth well upon an instrument.
But no permanent good result was produced.
They heard his words, but they did them
not.
Ezekiel 33.32 So far from imagining that
mere outward splendor of worship is fitted to
produce a permanently beneficial effect, the experience of
the world demonstrates that the very reverse is
the case, and that if ye wish to
see men and women twice dead to any
serious impression, ye will find it amongst the
votaries of sumptuous worship, those both performers and
listeners who alternate between the church and the
theater.
Those of old who chanted to the sound
of the viol, and invented to themselves instruments
of music like David, Amos 6.5, were
the same persons who drank wine in bowls,
and were not grieved for the affliction of
Joseph.
And those who took the timbrel and harp,
and rejoiced at the sound of the organ,
were the same who said unto God, Depart
from us, we desire not the knowledge of
thy ways.
Ruskin, speaking of the high refinements of the
Hindus, of the horrors of the Indian mutiny,
and of the noble part acted by the
Highlanders, who have an utter abhorrence of aesthetic
worship, says, Out of the peat cottage came
faith, courage, self-sacrifice, purity, and piety, and
whatever else is fruitful in the work of
heaven.
Out of the ivory palaces came treachery, cruelty,
cowardice, idolatry, bestiality, whatever else is fruitful in
the work of hell.
This, however, is not peculiar to heathenism.
Italy is the grand headquarters of gorgeous worship,
and Rome, the chief center in the world
of ecclesiastical spectacles and sumptuous music, has been
described as the most wicked of modern cities.
Dean Alford, after a residence in the imperial
city, bears the following testimony, Quote, It is
not too much to say that the present
moral and religious state of Rome is a
foul blot on modern Christendom, and hardly to
be paralleled even amongst the darkest passages in
the history of our race.
The poet has said, Far to the right,
where Apennine ascends, bright as the summer Italy
extends, but small the bliss that sense alone
bestows, and sensual bliss is all the nation
knows.
In florid beauty groves and fields appear, man
is the only growth that dwindles here, though
grave, yet trifling, zealous, yet untrue, and even
in penance planning sins anew, while low delights
succeeding fast behind in hateful meanness occupy the
mind.
My soul, turn from them, turn thee to
survey, where rougher climbs, a nobler race displays.
It is not the climb, however, but the
Christian principle and the spiritual worship that have
made the difference.
The simple worship of Scotland, coupled with a
full exposition of the word of the living
God, has been the means under God of
elevating the common people of our land, with
its barren soil and inhospitable climate, to a
moral and intellectual elevation which has left effeminate
and sensuous nations far behind, and it will
be the greatest crime if this is exchanged
for what is called aesthetic worship, appealing to
the senses, but not improving the soul.
In the Cotter's Saturday Night, speaking of the
simple heart worship of Scotland, it is justly
said, Compared with this, how poor religious pride
and all the pomp of method and of
art, when men display to congregations wide religion's
every grace, except the heart, the power incensed,
the pageant will desert, the pompous strain, the
sacerdotal stole, but happily in some cottage far
apart will hear well-pleased the language of
the soul.
Aught in his book of life, the inmates
pour and roll.
Two things, besides, are forgotten when men speak
of making the worship of Scotland, quote, attractive,
even if it were lawful.
The one is that we cannot, without a
total change of system, gratify all aesthetic tastes,
and that otherwise we are merely preparing men
for prelacy or potpourri.
The old enemies of Presbyterianism see this, and
are naturally jubilant, as if their baleful reign
might possibly soon to be renewed.
The words of the late Bishop Forbes in
a recent charge are significant, although far from
accurate in matters of fact.
The Scottish landowner pays nothing to the church
that is his own, and Presbyterianism has no
necessary connection with mean buildings, although it rejects
all symbolism and Romish peculiarities.
Here is the extract from this recent charge
to which we refer, quote, We must hope
that the day will soon come when, as
has been pointedly said, the Scottish landowner shall
cease to support a church he does not
attend, and attend a church that he does
not support.
Another hopeful sign in Scotland is the increased
attention to outward propriety in religious worship, and
the death of that mode of thought which
maintained that the greatest devotion was maintained by
the greatest simplicity, the practical result of which
was that churches were built like barns, and
divine service was conducted in a very slovenly
fashion.
The change is remarkable.
Everywhere around us, even in systems with which
we have no theological affinity, we see the
aid of architecture being invocated in the construction
of churches, and the unattractive forms of Presbyterian
worship are being modified by the introduction of
chanted psalms, organs, and other accessories of divine
worship which would have horrified the last generation.
All this must surely be in the right
direction.
It will develop that aesthetic taste in religion
which can only be gratified in the church.
Bishop Souther of Aberdeen indulges in a similar
line of remark.
But besides this, to adopt the course indicated
implies a total revolution in that system of
enlightened and intellectual worship out of which a
main glory of Scotland has hitherto sprung.
In a recent number of the Palmol Gazette,
the following sensible observations occur, having a direct
bearing on the high common education and manly
intellectual worship by which our land has been
distinguished, as compared with the aesthetic and barren
mummeries of other lands.
Mental indolence is a bad thing, and people
would be a great deal happier and probably
better if they would avoid it.
A sound and effective popular education is the
only remedy which Mr. Gladstone can suggest for
the indolence he deplores, and he hopes great
things from it.
Well, we are not so sanguine remembering that
school training is only the first step in
education.
It does what Sir Walter Scott said a
knowledge of languages did.
It puts tools in men's hands.
There is little good done in teaching a
man to read unless he forms a habit
of reading.
The Scotch had been made an educated people,
not because the habit was general of teaching
children the three R's.
That was all very well, but it was
only preliminary.
The Scotchman, even in humble life, found himself
in an atmosphere of theory which compelled him
to exercise his reasoning faculties.
Sir Walter Scott's pictures of ploughmen and humble
dependents who were expert theologians are no fancy
sketches.
Whatever he said of Calvinism, it was at
least a theory of human life and destiny
which was wrought into the very bone and
muscle of their Scottish natures.
Its tenants brought the meanest peasant into direct
contact with the most recondite problems.
When this was the case, there was no
place for mental indolence, and the example of
Robert Burns, stored with a mythology of Christianity
peculiar to Scotland, shows how real was the
process of training.
Burns had no particular aptitude for theology, but
he could not help his mind being furnished
through the influences that surrounded him, and which
invigorated intellect even where the dogmas they represented
it were disbelieved.
It is of little use telling English peasants
and ploughmen to go ahead and be like
their Scotch fellows, now that they have the
means of education provided for them, but that
is only half the work.
You must give them habits of thought and
introspection.
You must bring them to take a living
interest in some reality or what will represent
reality to them.
When once their energies are stimulated by exercise
in this way, you may hope that they
will shake off mental indolence and find in
thinking and reading a better attraction than in
lolling, loitering, whistling, playing marbles and other trifling
occupations.
But where is the prospect of any such
provision?
Far less any appetite for it.
The great mass of the clergy either teach
the Christian myths as something too sacred, too
good for human nature's daily food, or excite
interest by ecclesiastical costumery, which is not even
made to seem alive or to represent any
living idea.
Anything more hardening and deadening than such a
mode of dealing with religion, the strong feelings
connected with which must always make it the
most powerful medium through which the feelings of
the mass of the community are excited, could
not be invented."
The recent introduction of sensuous and sensational worship,
instead of tending to elevate the Scotch character,
is only training men for frivolity, apostasy, and
roam.
Many are ready to imagine, however, that alterations
in the worship of God must be excusable,
if not laudable, if done from a good
motive.
Even this last proof of ignorance is knocked
away by the clear evidence of Scripture.
This is, therefore, our last character, number five,
the well-meaning innovator.
We are not sure that a numerous class
are to be ranked under this head, and
especially we deny that ministers and others who
have avowed the Presbyterian principles of worship and
undertaken solemn obligations and connections therewith are entitled,
when they break their vows, to take shelter
under the plea of good intentions.
But what is greatly important is that even
when we have reason to believe that men
have a good motive, this will not excuse
the slightest deviation from the will of God
in the matter of worship.
We presume that Uzzah, whose case is recorded
in 2 Samuel 6, verses 6 and 7,
may be said to afford as good an
illustration of a well-meaning innovator as any
we read of or can well imagine.
It is said, When they came to Nachan's
threshing floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to
the ark of God and took hold of
it, for the oxen shook it.
And the anger of the Lord was kindled
against Uzzah, and God smote him there for
his error, and there he died by the
ark of God.
This is most solemn and instructive.
We can also imagine a good motive pled
on behalf of the buyers, sellers, and money
changers at the gate of the temple.
They might have alleged that by supplying current
money and sacrifices to those who had come
from a distance to the temple, they were
actually and zealously promoting the worship of God.
But they had no divine warrant.
God Himself had made no such arrangement, and
the tables of the money changers were overturned,
whilst those men, whatever were their motives or
intentions, were scourged and driven from the temple
by an indignant Savior, who said, Take these
things hence, make not my father's house an
house of merchandise.
Saul pleaded a good motive when he said
he had spared the best of the sheep
and of the oxen to sacrifice unto the
Lord.
But Samuel, in the name of the Lord,
immediately retorted, Hath the Lord as great delight
in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying
the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and
to hearken than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because thou hast rejected the word of the
Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being
king.
The sum and substance, therefore, of the whole
argument from Scripture is that no worship should
be offered to God except such as He
Himself has appointed.
There must be simple, absolute, unquestioning obedience to
God.
This cannot be too strongly pressed in the
present day, when men in defiance of Scripture
and their own solemn engagements are attempting to,
quote, improve the worship of God by their
own inventions.
He that turneth away his ear from hearing
the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.
On the other hand, God says of those
that choose the things that please Him and
take hold of His covenant, even unto them
will I give in mine house and within
mine walls a place and a name better
than of sons and daughters.
I will give them an everlasting name that
shall not be cut off.
Also the sons of the stranger that join
themselves to the Lord to serve Him and
to love the name of the Lord, even
them will I bring to my holy mountain
and make them joyful in my house of
prayer.
But as a complete contrast to this, go
ye now, says the Lord, unto my place
which was in Shiloh, where I set my
name at the first, and see what I
did to it for the wickedness of my
people Israel.
The wickedness specially referred to was all connected
with false worship concerning the introduction of which
God says, I commanded them not, neither came
it into my heart.
Hence their fearful punishment.
Under the whole heaven was not done as
was done upon Jerusalem.
For the same reason those who have enjoyed
the full light of the New Testament dispensation
and in such a land as Scotland should
hear and fear and learn not to act
presumptuously.
Wherefore, we receiving a kingdom which cannot be
moved, let us have grace, whereby we may
serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.
For our God is a consuming fire.
The only plausible thing said in answer to
all this is that David in the 150th
Psalm commands us to praise the Lord with
psaltery, harp, stringed instruments, and organs, without entering
fully into the questions, two answers to this
seem obvious.
First, that if this argument is good, and
if the language means more than a figurative
and earnest exhortation to praise the Lord with
heart and soul, it proves too much.
We should like to know how these objectors,
for example, interpret the following verses in Psalm
66, 13-16, as read or sung in
the Christian church.
I will go into thy house with burnt
offerings.
I will pay thee my vows, which my
lips have uttered, and my mouth has spoken,
when I was in trouble.
I will offer unto thee burnt sacrifices of
fatlings, with the incense of rams.
I will offer bullocks with goats.
Is all this to be interpreted literally?
If not, why not?
And why is the 150th Psalm to be
literally interpreted?
And if all are to be interpreted literally,
why not all?
Why not are all these things observed?
If men will only apply their minds to
the solution of this problem, they will find
a key to the right interpretation of the
150th Psalm.
But even in that Psalm itself, they may
find a key to solve the difficulty.
David, in the same Psalm, commands us to
dance, as well as to use instruments of
music.
Praise him with timbrel and dance.
We know from 1 Samuel 6 that David
himself danced before the Lord with all his
might.
But we presume that the obligation to dance
in worship is not insisted on by these
objectors in the Christian church, although if their
argument be good for anything, it goes all
this length.
Moreover, if it be an argument at all,
it leaves no discretion.
If it is an injunction, it is an
imperative injunction, leaving no discretion either as to
the duty enjoined, nor as to the instruments
to be employed.
If this view is to be taken, the
Presbyterian church has been for centuries neglecting a
solemn and imperative duty.
All this, however, will not be seriously maintained.
But secondly, this cannot possibly be the meaning
of the passage, for Christ, whose word it
is, and his apostles, by universal admission, use
no instruments of music in New Testament worship.
They sang and enjoyed singing, and their authority
must be held to be conclusive.
No instruments, moreover, were used in the worship
of the Christian church for at least eight
centuries.
Every minister and office-bearer of the Presbyterian
church is excluded from consistently using such an
argument by his solemn vow that he will,
quote, assert, maintain, and defend to the utmost
of his power, unquote, a purity of worship,
from which, as he perfectly well knows, all
instruments have ever been absolutely excluded.
This brings us in the second place to
consider the question of worship in the light
of the history and constitution of the Scottish
church, which is part two.
We have already proved that John Knox, the
great reformer of Scotland, not only held that
true and acceptable worship must be in strict
accordance with and express and clear appointment by
God, but that all other worship was idolatrous,
as implying a worshipping by men of their
own wills and inventions rather than of God.
Andrew Melville also, as we have proved, held
the same view.
Craig's Catechism, first printed at Edinburgh in 1581,
proves the same thing.
An abridged edition was published for general use,
and in this form it was used in
the Church of Scotland till superseded by the
Westminster Catechisms.
Under the second commandment, Craig's Catechism says, Question,
What thing is forbidden here in general?
Answer, All corrupting of God's service by the
inventions of men.
Question, What thing is craved here?
Answer, That we worship God according to his
word.
Question, What kind of service craveth he of
us?
Answer, Both inward and outward service.
Question, May we not serve him externally as
we please?
Answer, No, for that kind of service is
cursed idolatry.
When we come down to the Westminster assembly
by which our present standards were framed, it
is unnecessary to repeat how clearly these standards
embody the same principle, that pure and acceptable
worship must be prescribed or appointed by God
himself.
But it may be important to bring out
the clear evidence which we have, that during
the second reformation our ancestors insisted on uniformity
of worship, and that our commissioners at Westminster
and the assembly at Scotland regarded their principle
of worship as clearly excluding instrumental music and
all other things abolished, along with the peculiarities
of the temple service.
By an act of the assembly of Scotland
1643, a directory for worship was appointed to
be prepared and reported to next assembly, to
the intent that unity and uniformity might be
observed throughout the kingdom and all parts of
the public worship of God.
Our commissioners to the Westminster assembly, including the
most eminent ecclesiastics then in Scotland, reported on
May 20, 1644, that plain and powerful preaching
had been set up, and the great organs
at Paul's and Peter's in Westminster taken down,
and all by authority in a quiet manner
at noonday without tumult.
In answer, the General Assembly here, June 4,
1644, writes to the assembly at Westminster, We
were greatly refreshed to hear by letters from
our commissioners there with you of your praiseworthy
proceedings, and of the great good things the
Lord hath wrought among you and for you.
Shall it seem a small thing in our
eyes, that the door of a right entry
unto faithful shepherds is opened?
Many corruptions, as altars, images, and other monuments
of idolatry and superstition, removed, defaced, and abolished,
the service book in many places forsaken, and
plain and powerful preaching set up, the great
organs at Paul's and Peter's taken down, that
the royal chapel is purged and reformed, sacraments
sincerely administered and according to the pattern in
the mount.
From this it is clear that the Westminster
divines, and our own church in those days,
would have made short work with the dunce
case, and with all questions of instrumental music
and worship.
This was certainly regarded as one of the
corruptions of potpourri.
It was one of the last corruptions introduced,
dating only from about the eighth century, and
never having found admission into the Greek church
at all.
It seems to have had a very short
existence in Scotland during the reign of Romish
superstition, which preceded the Reformation.
Calderwood says of James I of Scotland about
1420, he brought into divine service a new
kind of chanting and music wherein he was
expert himself.
They placed a great deal of religion and
curious singing in those days.
The organs were not known in Scotland before
his time.
It may moreover also be stated that the
homilies of the Church of England condemned the
use of organs in worship, and that instruments
were so completely removed during the period which
succeeded the Westminster assembly that at the Restoration
there could scarcely be found in England either
organists or organ builders.
It is also an important fact that, alarmed
by the stool of Jenny Geddes, no change
took place in the worship of the Church
of Scotland even during the persecution and reign
of prelacy from 1661 till 1688.
The noble version of the Psalms which we
still sing was in use, to the exclusion
of human hymns, during all that time, whilst
instruments of music were utterly unknown.
When the Glorious Revolution took place in 1688,
not only were the prolatical system and the
royal supremacy and matters ecclesiastical formally abolished, but
the Act 1690 ratifies and incorporates the whole
Westminster confession of faith as part of the
law of the land, as well as the
standard of the Church.
The Act 1693, entitled Act for Settling the
Quiet and Peace of the Church, enacts as
follows.
Their Majesties, with advice and consent foresaid, statute
and ordain that uniformity of worship and of
the administration of all public ordinances within this
Church be observed by all the said ministers
and preachers, as the same are at present
performed and allowed therein, or shall be hereafter
declared by the authority of the same, and
that no minister or preacher be admitted or
continued for hereafter unless that he subscribe to
observe and do actually observe the foresaid uniformity.
There cannot be the smallest doubt what the
worship was that is here referred to, and
this obviously implies that all the modern clerical
innovators in worship in the established Church have
forfeited their civil rights, and that by the
enforcement of this law they might be expelled
from their beneficence.
We are going to skip over a few
pages and go over to page 44, because
what we are skipping is some interesting historical
matters dealing with the Scottish Church, which I
commend to you to read, but in the
interest of time on this tape we are
going to go now to page 44 and
continue from there.
The purity of worship practiced in the Presbyterian
Church ever since the Reformation has not been
thrust upon her from without.
It has been the result of her own
view of Scripture and of her own deliberate
choice.
Nay, it has been maintained by a determined
and heroic struggle for ages on the part
of her noblest sons.
The appointment of all her ministers besides is
only made conditionally, the condition being that before
their settlement or acquiring any rights they shall
abound and subscribe their adherence to all her
distinctive principles and peculiarities.
To allege that they may afterwards set these
avowals at defiance and still retain their offices
is to outrage morality and overthrow the liberty
of the Church and her congregations.
No man is forced to become one of
her ministers.
All enter into office and take the necessary
vows with the most unconstrained freedom, and if
they are afterwards dissatisfied and wish to introduce
novelties, they are at the most perfect liberty
to withdraw and join a more congenial fellowship.
Honest men, on finding that they cannot fulfill
their vows, will surely adopt this alternative, will
withdraw and take the consequences.
It is vain to say that the innovations
at present in question are small.
Even if this were true, it would only
form an aggravation of the offense as proving
to how small a temptation men have yielded
in their rage for novelty and change.
We must not forget that their vow in
the sight of God is not merely to
avoid great changes.
They have solemnly promised to follow no divisive
courses from the worship which has been authorized
and practiced in the Church, but on the
contrary to defend that worship to the utmost
of their power.
Still, the change in question is not a
small matter.
It crosses the line betwixt appointed and discarded
observances, betwixt simple and aesthetic devotion.
It gets into the region of sensuous and
sensational worship.
It breaks open the floodgates and exposes the
Church to an inundation of error and change.
It is equally vain to plead the example
of other Presbyterian churches, since we should avoid
their errors instead of copying their defects.
It was the boast of our early Reformers
that the Constitution of our Church was taken
from no church on earth, not even from
Geneva, but only from the Word of God,
and we have no reason from the history
of our country to regret what they did,
but rather to bless God for this noble
peculiarity.
The vows of our ministers, besides, have not
to do with other churches, but exclusively with
our own.
It is surely not too much to expect
that the morality of the Church shall not
sink below the level of that of the
marketplace.
It is said that the word of our
merchants should be as good as their bond,
but if a man's bills are dishonored, he
is next found in the Gazette.
Why should it be otherwise in the Church
and with ministers of the gospel?
All who wish well to Christianity must desire
that the chair of truth should never be
degraded by the falsehood and inconsistency of its
occupants.
Whenever it turns out otherwise, surely the duty
of the Church is clear.
It is much better, moreover, that she should
resolutely maintain her own authority, restrain her unworthy
office bearers, and vindicate the purity of her
worship, than that any appeal should become necessary
to the courts of law to repel wanton
aggression and force men, even when a majority
in individual congregations, to indulge their unwarranted tastes
in worship, if at all in a separate
place and at their own expense.
The present state of things cannot continue.
Men speak of liberty, but liberty can only
exist where it is regulated by law.
If every man or every majority in a
congregation are to do as they please, Presbyterianism
is impossible, and the liberty of some is
the bondage of the rest.
Every consideration points in the direction, therefore, of
standing in the old ways, the word and
authority of God, our desire to obtain His
blessing which maketh rich and addeth no sorrow,
the consideration that our land has prospered greatly
by the blessings of God in connection with
the old and time-honored worship of our
fathers, the certainty that if changes under false
principles are tolerated, they will gradually diverge into
wider extremes.
The fact that these innovations degrade the worship
from its grand manly simplicity and must form
a formidable obstruction to reunion amongst the Presbyterians
of Scotland, that they are essentially revolutionary in
their nature and throw a complete discredit upon
the ordination vows of church office-bearers and
upon those who administer and take them, all
these and other considerations combine in demanding that
those who administer the affairs of our churches
should act with enlightened and impartial firmness.
If not, if the office-bearers of the
churches follow a carnal policy and impose vows
which they allow to be disregarded, and the
church, instead of the citadel of truth, becomes
a stronghold of corruption and falsehood, not only
must the church establishment become indefensible, but such
a state of things must eat as doth
a canker, and there is a dark prospect
before our land and our children.
We may well ask, is the long struggle
of centuries in Scotland to have such a
disgraceful end in these days of boasting?
Was it for this that Knox and Melville
braved the fury of monarchs, and that our
noble covenanters on the hills of Scotland were
shot down by a merciless soldiery, professing their
unalterable adherence to the worship, doctrine, and government
of the Presbyterian church?
Surely it has not come to this, although
this may suit the unworthy views of a
degenerate few.
At all events, we know what the ultimate
end of the struggle will be.
The truth of God and the God of
truth must and shall triumph, and at the
evening time there shall be light.
Let us say in the language of noble
Samuel Rutherford, trusting in Him who has been
our dwelling place in all generations, the bride
shall yet sing as in the days of
her youth, salvation shall be her walls and
bulwarks, the dry olive tree shall bud again,
and the dead dry bones shall live, for
the Lord shall prophesy to the dry bones,
and the Spirit shall come upon them, and
we shall live.
On waiting, says he again, had ever a
blessed issue, and to keep the word of
God's patience keepeth still the saints dry in
the water, cold in the fire, and breathing
and blood-hot in the grave.
There may be, there probably will be, again
a mighty struggle in Scotland on this vital
question of worship.
The age is becoming luxurious and irreligious, and
the luxury and music of the drawing-room
are being transferred to the church.
Some good people foolishly imagine that because vital
religion is all-important, divine order is quite
immaterial.
Family religion is neglected.
The holy word of God is impiously decried.
Anarchy of all kinds is growing.
Intemperance, Sabbath-breaking, crime and pauperism, impurity, dishonesty
and frivolity, partly as the result of ecclesiastical
disorganization, are only too rife.
Designing men are fostering the confusion, whilst all
lessons seem lost on some who the cause
of evil only plunge the deeper into the
vortex of change.
To an intelligent Scottish patriot the state of
is sad yet hopeful.
Whilst multitudes are standing consistently on the old
ground, blind Presbyterians are helping forward the defection,
and ancient foes are imagining that Presbyterianism is
a feat or is about to abdicate.
The adherents of prelacy are not unnaturally looking
up again as if their day of triumph
were at hand, but the end is not
yet.
The great mass of the Scotch people are
uncontaminated.
Upwards of eighty percent of them are still
avowed Presbyterians.
Information will soon lead to resistance.
What is wanted is more of the Spirit
of God guiding to all truth, purity, Christian
firmness and consistency, and at the same time
to Christian love.
The mist of confusion will pass away, and
we may fondly hope to see the time
when the scattered children of not shall yet
be reunited on sound principles, and Scotland again
become as in her better days a delightsome
land and a beacon of light to the
world around.
To secure this, let us earnestly work and
pray.
This Reformation audio track is a production of
Stillwater's Revival Books.
You are welcome to make copies and give
them to those in need.
SWRB makes thousands of classic Reformation resources available,
free and for sale, in audio, video, and
printed formats.
It is likely that the sermon or book
that you just listened to is also available
on cassette or video, or as a printed
book or booklet.
Our many free resources, as well as our
complete mail-order catalog, containing thousands of classic
and contemporary Puritan and Reform books, tapes, and
videos at great discounts, is on the web
at www.swrb.com.
We can also be reached by email at
swrb.com, by phone at 780-450
-3730, by fax at 780-468-1096, or
by mail at 4710-37A Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada, T6L 3T5.
You may also request a free printed catalog.
And remember that John Calvin, in defending the
Reformation's regulative principle of worship, or what is
sometimes called the scriptural law of worship, commenting
on the words of God, which I commanded
them not, neither came into my heart.
From his commentary on Jeremiah 731, writes, God
here cuts off from men every occasion for
making evasions, since he condemns by this one
phrase, I have not commanded them, whatever the
Jews devised.
There is then no other argument needed to
condemn superstitions, than that they are not commanded
by God.
For when men allow themselves to worship God
according to their own fancies, and attend not
to his commands, they pervert true religion.
And if this principle was adopted by the
Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship, in
which they absurdly exercise themselves, would fall to
the ground.
It is indeed a horrible thing for the
Papists to seek to discharge their duties towards
God, by performing their own superstitions.
There is an immense number of them, as
it is well known, and as it manifestly
appears.
Were they to admit this principle, that we
cannot rightly worship God, except by obeying his
word, they would be delivered from their deep
abyss of error.
The Prophet's words then are very important, when
he says, that God had commanded no such
thing, and that it never came to his
mind.
As though he had said, that men assume
too much wisdom, when they devise what he
never required, nay, what he never knew.