The Regulative Principle of Worship

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”

Deut. 4:2

“In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

Mark 7:7

“Nadab and Abihu… offered strange fire before the Lord, which He commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord… the Lord spake, saying, ‘I will be sanctified in them that come near me, and before all the people I will be glorified.'”

Lev. 10:1-3

Subsections

Commentary on WCF 21.1
Circumstances

Order of Contents

What is the RPW?
Start
Articles 10+
Book 1
Confessions 5
Quotes 8+

Historical 2
Early Church 12
Rutherford: What is Regulated
Dt. 4:2, “Shall not add”
Beside the Word
Necessary
Some Circumstances are Regulated
Loose RPW 5
Attending Worship with Corruptions
Not Everything in a Worship Service must be Worship

A Simple Definition of The Regulative Principle of Worship:

A Simple Definition

The Regulative Principle of Worship is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone) as necessarily applied to, and encompassing, the Church’s worship.

We are to worship God only in the way that He says: by Scripture alone. Scripture tells us what worship pleases God. If something is religiously significant, and Scripture does not prescribe it, it is forbidden. God is holy and is not to by worshipped by the imaginations of men.

The Westminster Confession of Faith

“The light of nature sheweth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and doeth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.¹

But the acceptable way of worshipping 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, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.²”

¹ Rom. 1:20. Acts 17:24. Ps. 119:68. Jer. 10:7. Ps. 31:23. Ps. 18:3. Rom. 10:12. Ps. 62:8. Josh. 24:14. Mark 12:33.
² Deut. 12:32. Matt. 15:9. Acts 17:25. Matt. 4:9,10. Deut. 4:15-20. Exod. 20:4-6. Col. 2:23.

Where to Start?

Article

Williamson, G.I. – ‘The Scriptural Regulative Principle of Worship’ n.d. 37 paragraphs, with two appendices 13 paragraphs long together

This is the best introduction to the Regulative Principle of Worship (R.P.W.). Williamson briefly exposits all the major Biblical passages that teach the R.P.W., including 10 from the O.T. and 7 from the N.T.

The first appendix looks at how the historic, reformed church applied this Biblical principle of worship to particular acts of worship. The second appendix addresses the loose interpretation of the R.P.W. that is common today.

Book

Schwertley, Brian – Sola Scriptura & the Regulative Principle of Worship Buy (2000) 71 pp. with two appendices

This is the best, contemporary, full scale defense of the Regulative Principle of Worship. Schwertley proves it from scripture in extensive detail, corrects modern misinterpretations of it, and persuasively argues against other views of worship.

Articles

1500’s

Beza, Theodore – p. 1 in A Book of Christian Questions & Answers… (London, 1574)

1600’s

Ames, William – A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship… (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633), ch. 1

on sections 18-19, pp. 87-98

Ames’s opponents had quoted many early reformed divines respecting the ability of the Church to make ordinances about circumstances. While the quotes are very good, the opponents sought to use them to justify human, moral and religious ceremonies (such as a minister signing the cross in baptism, wearing a surplice, etc.). Ames upholds the quotes and responds to his opponents’ use of them.

on sections 20-21, pp. 99-106

Ames here replies to his opponents’ objections to the regulative principle of worship.

Rutherford, Samuel – ch. 1, section 17, ‘Whether not only all the traditions of the Papists, but even new offices, such as the domineering bishop, etc, human ceremonies and whatsoever is of positive observance in divine
worship contrived by the Antichrist or the bishops and prelates, conflicts with the completeness and perfection of the Scriptures? We affirm against the Arminians.’ in Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism: the Tables of Contents with Excerpts from Every Chapter tr. Charles Johnson & Travis Fentiman (1668 / 2019), pp. 44-49

Owen, John – pp. 44-50 of ch. 7 in A Discourse concerning Liturgies & their Imposition (London, 1662)

Collinges, John – ch. 4 in A Reasonable Account why some Pious, Nonconforming Ministers in England Judge it Sinful for them to perform their ministerial acts, in publick, solemn prayer by the prescribed forms of others… (London: 1679), pp. 71-92

“To use a mean in an act of worship which God has neither by the light of nature directed, nor in his Word prescribed (no natural necessity compelling us so to do) is sinful:

But for us, or any of us to whom God has given the gift of prayer, ordinarily in prayer to perform our ministerial acts by the prescribed forms of others read or recited, were for us (no natural necessity compelling) in acts of worship to use means neither of God directed by the light of nature, nor by Him in his Word prescribed; Therefore.” – p. 71

Anonymous – Vindiciae Cultus Evangelici [A Vindication of Evangelical Worship]: Or the Perfections of Christ’s Institutions & Ordinances about his Worship, Asserted & Vindicated from All Ecclesiastical or Human Inventions (London, 1688) 52 pp.

The author was English and was writing in the English/Anglican context (p. 5), especially during the time after the Great Ejection of 1662 and the subsequent Acts of Indulgence. The writer, from his writing style, may appear to be a layman. He references positively Brownists (separatists) and the New England congregationalists on pp. 23-24.

The first half of the treatise about the necessity for the purity of God’s Worship is very good, however on pp. 34-35 to the end, his separatist streak comes out, which is both erroneous (according to Scripture and historic presbyterian writers of that age) and dangerous.

Rule, Gilbert – A Vindication of the Purity of Gospel-Worship (no date, no year) probably circa 1690

Rule (c.1629-1701) was a divine-right Scottish presbyterian and leader in establishing the Revolution Church of Scotland as presbyterian in 1690. This work is nowhere to be found on the net. It is mentioned in the Hew Scott’s Fasti Ecclesiae, in John C. Johnston’s Treasury of the Scottish Covenant and in Drysdale’s History of the English Presbyterians.

The work appears to have actually existed (though probably in a small print run) as it is mentioned in Samuel Palmer’s Non-Conformist’s Memorial, vol. 2 as being against George Rit[s]chel’s, Dissertation on the Ceremonies of the English Church (in Latin, London, 1661), evidencing that Palmer actually saw this work or knew something about it. Johnson likewise says that it was against the English-Popish Ceremonies.

1800’s

Binnie, William – ‘Who May Appoint Ordinances?’ in The Church, pp. 53-59

Binnie was a minister in the Free Church of Scotland.

1900’s

Isbell, Sherman – ‘Hear Ye Him’ (n.d.) 30 paragrahs

Isbell examines the New Testament evidence for the Regulative Principle of Worship.

2000’s

Coldwell, Chris – ‘Where Did the Term ‘Regulative Principle of Worship’ Come From?’ (2014) 30 paragraphs, this is a post at the Puritan Board, the third one down on the page.

Coldwell documents the idea of the Regulative Principle of Worship from 30 primary sources since the Reformation, though the popularization of the term appears to have been most concretely popularized by John Murray’s 1946, OPC Minority Report on Psalm Singing.

Schwertley, Brian – ‘The Neo-Presbyterian Challenge to Confessional Presbyterian Orthodoxy: A Biblical Analysis of John Frame’s Worship in Spirit & in Truth’ (2000) 36 pp.

This is an excellent dissection and refutation of the modern, loose views of the Regulative Principle of Worship common today

Smith, Frank & Chris Coldwell – ‘The Regulative Principle of Worship: Sixty Years in Reformed Literature’ in The Confessional Presbyterian, vol. 2 Here is the 4 page Introduction.

Smith, Frank & David C. Lachman – Reframing Presbyterian Worship: A Critical Survey of the Worship Views of John M. Frame & R. J. Gore (2005) 35 pp. in The Confessional Presbyterian, vol. 1

Williamson, G.I. – ‘The Regulative Principle of Worship’ (2001) 12 pp.

This is a short condensation of Williamson’s longer article above.

Barth, Paul – ‘What is the Regulative Principle of Worship?’ (2017) 29 paragraphs

Book

Silversides, David – The Worship of God: the Importance of Purity of Worship, the Westminster Directory of Public Worship & How Should Our Churches Worship Today Buy (1997) 71 pp.

Confessions

Order of Contessions

Hungarian Confessio
Sandomierz
Irish Articles
Scottish Confession
Colloquy of Thorn

Hungarian Confessio Catholica 1562

Reformed Confessions of the 16th & 17th Centuries, ed. James Dennison, Jr. (RHB, 2010), vol. 2, pp. 559-60

“Concerning the Worship of God

We call upon God in Spirit and in truth, in true faith, in accordance with the Word of the Lord in Christ Jesus, and worship Him inwardly and outwardly with the deeds commanded by God. For God is not worshipped by human doctrines, mandates, and works, but only by those which He Himself commands and effects by His Holy Spirit through faith and the Word (John 4; Matt. 5; Isa. 29; Rom. 14).

We, therefore, confess that the worship of God is the work commanded by God, performed by the Holy Spirit in the elect, with confidence in the Mediator, in Spirit and in truth that we should obey God, celebrate, and acknowledge God (Rom. 12). So the fathers and the councils teach (Ex. 34; Matt. 4; Deut. 6).”

Sandomierz Confession 1570

Reformed Confessions of the 16th & 17th Centuries, ed. James Dennison, Jr. (RHB, 2012), vol. 3, p. 214

ch. 16, ‘On Faith & Good Works’

“For we confess that good deeds grow out of living faith, through the work of the Holy Spirit, and are done by believers according to the purposed rule of God’s Word… Indeed, God is least pleased with such devotion and deeds as people invent according to their own minds beyond God’s Word.

Regarding this we have the testimony of St. Paul, and Christ Himself also said, ‘They praise Me in vain while teaching human ordinances and commands’ (Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7). Therefore we reject all such erroneous devotion and deeds which are not commanded by God, and we diligently observe those which are commanded in God’s Word.”

The Irish Articles 1615

Reformed Confessions of the 16th & 17th Centuries, ed. James Dennison, Jr. (RHB, 2014), vol. 4, p. 99

“52. All worship devised by man’s fantasy, besides or contrary to the Scriptures (as wandering on pilgrimages, setting up of candles, stations, and jubilees, pharisaical sects, and feigned religions, praying upon beads, and such like superstition), has not only no promise of reward in Scripture, but contrariwise, threatenings and maledictions.”

Scottish Confession 1616

Reformed Confessions of the 16th & 17th Centuries, ed. James Dennison, Jr. (RHB, 2014), vol. 4, p. 115 Robert Howie, the principal of St. Mary’s College, St. Andrews (now St. Andrews University), was the primary, if not exclusive, author of this confession.

“As concerning the worship of God, we confess and affirm that all religious worship or service is only to be given to God, as His proper due and glory, which He will communicate to no other; believing firmly that God is to be worshipped only according to His own will, revealed in His word.

And, therefore, we abhor all will-worship, all invocation of saints or angels, all worshipping of images, crucifixes, relics, and all other things which are beside the true God.”

Colloquy at Thorn 1645

Article 1, ‘Of the Rule of Faith & Worship’ in ed. James Dennison, Jr., Reformed Confessions of the 16th & 17th Centuries… (RHB, 2014), vol. 3, p. 208

“The Holy Scripture, given by God in the books of the Old Testament through Moses and the prophets, and in the books of the New Testament through the evangelists and apostles, is the only infallible and absolute guide and rule of Christian faith and worship, enjoined to ministers of both church and state.”

Quotes

Order of

Luther
Vermigli
Calvin
Knox
Fulke
Zanchi
Polanus
Perkins
Gillespie
Baxter
Binning
Owen
Cunningham
Fentiman

1500’s

Martin Luther

on Gen. 21:4; 22:3 & 13 in Luther’s Works, vol. 4, pp. 103, 135, 140 See also as quoted in William Ames, A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633), Manuduction, ch. 12, ‘Concerning Worship’, p. 140.

“The papists reproach us severely because we do not accept their self-chosen works and forms of worship. This, however, is a theological issue for us, lest we enter upon a kind of life or work concerning which we do not have God’s express command.”

“This is one main principle of the doctrine we profess (against the forged superstitions of the Papists) that we undertake no work in the things which appertain unto worship concerning which we have not an express commaund of God: No man can boast of the performance of any worship unless he be wholly as it were clothed and confined within the compass of the Word.”

Peter Martyr Vermigli

Commentary on 1 Kings 8:65 as quoted in Latin by George Gillespie, English-Popish Ceremonies (1637), bk. 3, ch. 7, p. 121

“In rites and ceremonies divinely instituted, it is not lawful for man by his choice to add or detract anything.”

“Ritibus et ceremoniis divinitus institutis, non licuit homini suo arbitrio aliquid adiicere aut detrahere.”

John Calvin

Commentary on Rom. 12, verse 1

“‘Your reasonable service’: This sentence, I think, was added, that he might more clearly apply and confirm the preceding exhortation, as though he had said, — “Offer yourselves a, sacrifice to God, if ye have it in your heart to serve God: for this is the right way of serving God; from which, if any depart, they are but false worshippers.”

If then only God is rightly worshipped, when we observe all things according to what He has prescribed, away then with all those devised modes of worship, which He justly abominates, since He values obedience more than sacrifice. Men are indeed pleased with their own inventions, which have an empty show of wisdom, as Paul says in another place; but we learn here what the celestial Judge declares in opposition to this by the mouth of Paul; for by calling that a reasonable service which He commands, He repudiates as foolish, insipid, and presumptuous, whatever we attempt beyond the rule of his Word.”

‘Epistle to the English King’; the Latin is quoted in George Gillespie, English-Popish Ceremonies (1637), bk. 3, ch. 7, section 14, p. 121

“The Lord’s Supper is such a sacrosanct thing that any human addaments polluting it is impious.”

“Caenam Domini rem adeo sacrosanctam esse, ut ullis hominum additamentis eam conspurcare sit nefas.”

John Knox

“A Letter to the Queen Dowager, Regent of Scotland, 1556” in The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing (Edinburgh: James Thing, 1845), pp. 69-84. Also quoted in George Gillespie, English-Popish Ceremonies (1637), bk. 3, ch. 7, section 11, pp. 118-19

“Before the coming of his well-beloved Son in the flesh, severely He punished all such as durst enterprise to alter or change his ceremonies and statutes, as in Saul, Uzziah, Nadab, Abihu, is to be read.

And will He now, after that He has opened his counsel to the world by his only Son, whom He commands to be heard, and after that by his Holy Spirit, speaking by his apostles, He has established the religion in which He will his true worshippers abide to the end, will He now I say admitt men’s inventions in the matter of religion, etc.?

For this sentence he prouounces: Not that which seems good in thy eyes, shalt thou do to the Lord thy God, but that which the Lord thy God commanded thee, that do thou: Add nothing unto it, diminish nothing from it. Which sealing up his New Testament He repeats in these words: ‘That which ye have, hold till I come,’ etc.”

William Fulke

Annotations on Phil. 2:10 as quoted in George Gillespie, English-Popish Ceremonies (1637), bk. 3, ch. 7, section 14, p. 122

“We must do in religion and God’s service not that which seems good to us, but that only which He commands. Dt. 4:2; 12:32.”

Jerome Zanchi

Of the Law of God, 1.14 in Theological Works (1619), vol. 2, pt. 4, cols. 362-63, see also 502; also as quoted in Latin by George Gillespie, English-Popish Ceremonies (1637), bk. 3, ch. 7, section 14, pp. 121-22, with a further elaboration in English.

“In the external worship which God requires, or in ceremonies, nothing by us is to be contrived out of our head.”

“in externo cultu qui Deo debetur, seu in ceremoniis nihil nobis esse ex nostro capite comminiscendum”

1600’s

Amandus Polanus

‘Analytical Theses on Colossians, containing the Exordium of the Epistle’, pt. 1 (on Col. 1:1-11) $3 Download tr. Jonathan Tomes (Basel: Johannes Schroeter, 1601)

“XLII. Those who walk in a manner worthy of the Lord are those who, throughout the course of their lives, follow the will and guidance of God, denying their own desires and the dictates of the flesh, as befits children of the heavenly Father and imitators of God. The consequences are:

1. There is no legitimate religious worship, no good work, unless it is done according to the will and commandment of God.

2. No matter how great the zeal for worship and works that deviate from the will and commandment of God, they are nothing but a great course leading away from the eternal goal of salvation.”

William Perkins

‘A Warning Against the Idolatry of the Last Times, & an Instruction touching Religious or Divine Worship’ in The Works (d. 1602; London: Legatt, 1626), vol. 1, p. 698

“…the rule of the worship: and that is that nothing may go under the name of the worship of God which He has not ordained in his own Word and commanded to us as his own worship. For we are forbidden under pain of the curse of God, either to add or to take away anything from the precepts of God, in which He prescribes his own worship. (Dt. 12; 8:32)”

George Gillespie

English-Popish Ceremonies (1637), bk. 3, ch. 7, section 14, p. 122

“And thus have we made good our argument that the lawfulnss of the ceremonies cannot be warranted by any ecclesiastical law. If we had no more against them, this were enough, that they are but human additions and want the warrant of the Word.

When Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire before the Lord (Lev. 10:1), and when the Jews burnt their sons and their daughters in the valley of the son of Hinnon, howsoever manifold wickedness might have been challenged in that which they did, yet if any would dispute with God upon the matter, He stops their mouths with this one answer, ‘I commanded it not, neither came it into my heart.’ (Jer. 7:31)”

Richard Baxter

Five Disputations of Church-Government & Worship (London: R.W., 1659), 5th Disputation, ch. 2

pp. 408-9

“§36. More particularly:

1. God has not left it to the power of man to add to the Ten Commandments any universal precept for obedience.

2. Nor to add to the Lord’s Prayer and other holy Scripture, any general article of request to God.

3. Nor to add any officers to his Church, that are strictly divine, or for divine uses.

4. Nor to add any substantial ordinance of worship.

5. Nor to add any substantial part of holy discipline.

6. Nor to institute any new sacrament in the Church, or anything that has the nature of a sacrament, though it have not the name.”

p. 422

“§65. The sum of all that I have said is this, that man may determine of modes and circumstances of worship, necessary and commanded in genere, but not determined by God in specie. But to make new worship-ordinances, or institute sacraments, or sacramental signs, or any thing else, for which in genere he has no commission, this is simply unlawful.

§66. But this is not all: There is a second thing unlawful also; and that is the misdetermining of those same modes and circumstances, which he is authorized to determine. For he is (as is said) to do it by God’s General Rule. Here therefore we must thus conclude:

1. That every misordering of such great affairs is the sin of them that do it.
2. But yet that the subject is not exempted from obedience by every such mistake of the governor: but by some, he is.”

Hugh Binning

The Common Principles of Christian Religion… ([Glasgow] 1666 / 1667), on Jn. 4:24, 2^nd Sermon, pp. 131-32

“…the most part of men have some form in worshipping God and please themselves in it so well that they think God well-pleased with it; but few there are who know indeed what it is to worship Him in a manner acceptable to his majesty: Now you know it is all one not to worship Him at all, as not to worship Him in that way He likes to be worshipped: Therefore the most part of men are but self-worshippers, because they please none but themselves in it, it is not the worship his soul has chosen, but their own invention, for you must take this as an undeniable ground, that God must be worshipped according to his own will and pleasure, and not according to your humor, or invention; therefore his soul abhors will-worship, devised by men out of ignorant zeal, or superstition, though there might seem much devotion in it, and much affection to God, as in the Israelites sacrificing their children, what more seeming self-denial? And yet what more real self-idolatry; God owns not such a service, for it is not service and obedience to his will and pleasure, but to men’s own will and humor: therefore a man must not look for a reward but from Himself.

Now it is not only will-worship when the matter and substance of the worship is not commanded of God, but also when a commanded worship is not discharged in the appointed manner: Therefore, O how few true worshippers will the Father find? True worship must have truth for the substance and spirit for the manner of it: else it is not such a worship as the Father seeks and will be pleased with; divine worship must have truth in it, that is plain, but what was that truth, it must be conformed to the rule and pattern of worship, which is God’s will and pleasure revealed in the word of truth, true worship is the very practice of the word of truth, it caries the image and superscription and command upon it, which is a necessary ingredient in it, and constituent of it. Therefore if thy service have the image of thy own will stamped on it, it is not divine worship, but will-worship. Thus all human ceremonies and ordinances enjoined for service of God, carry the inscription not of God, but of man who is the author and original of them, and so are but adulterated and false coin, that will not pass current with God…”

John Owen

A Discourse concerning Liturgies & their Imposition (London, 1662), ch. 7, p. 46

“…that which these and the like [Scripture] testimonies unanimously speak unto us, is this, that the will of God is the sole rule of his worship, and all the concernment of it, and that his authority is the sole principle and cause of the relation of any thing to his worship, in a religious manner; and consequently that He never did, nor ever will allow that the wills
of his creatures should be the rule or measure of his honor or
worship, nor that their authority should cause any thing to hold
a new relation unto Him, or any other but what it has by the
law of its creation. As this is the sum and substance of the Second Commandment…”

1800’s

William Cunningham

The Reformers & the Theology of the Reformation (Edinburgh, Scotland: Banner of Truth, 1989 reprint), p. 36

“Men, under the pretense of curing the defects and shortcomings, the nakedness and bareness, attaching to ecclesiastical arrangements as set before us in the New Testament, have been constantly proposing innovations and improvements in government and worship. The question is, How ought these proposals to have been received?

Our answer is, There is a great general scriptural principle which shuts them all out. We refuse even to enter into the consideration of what is alleged in support of them. It is enough for us that they have no positive sanction from Scripture.”

2000’s

Travis Fentiman

“Editor’s Extended Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025), p. 50

“Nor can the context of public worship be completely divorced from the ethical sphere of common life, because the most fundamental law of nature is to pursue good and avoid evil (Ps. 34:14; Amos 5:14; 1 Pet. 3:11). This natural law, inherent to us, falls under moral obedience to God in the First Commandment. But public worship ordinances, being ceremonial in nature, and the Regulative Principle of Worship, are secondary to that and less fundamental, flowing out of the Second Commandment.

Further, the good of persons’ salvation, besides being grounded in the First Commandment, also derives in significant part from the moral Sixth Commandment, both of which may override the ceremonies of the First Table of the Law. Thus moral obedience and serving the good of the cause of the Gospel (including through the principles we have been discussing) underlies, penetrates, takes precedence over and foundationally supports public worship. To deny this and affirm the opposite is to wrench the Great Commission backwards (Mt. 28:18–20).”

Historical Theology

On the Puritans

Young, William – ‘The Puritan Principle of Worship’ published serially in Blue Banner Faith & Life, vols. 14-16 (1959-1961) The substance of this article was delivered on Dec. 18, 1957, at the Puritan Conference, London.

Young quotes or references on the topic: Calvin, Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Westminster Confession, Knox, Gillespie, Perkins, Ames, Bradshaw, Burroughs, Owen and Romaine. Young has a section on the content of sung praise, where he quotes Cotton, Byfield, Manton and Calvin.

Adjemian, C. – “John Owen on the Regulative Principle” (2002) 7 pp.

Adjemian summarizes Owen’s doctrine from six main places in his Works: Christologia (vol. 1), Duties of Pastors & Duties of Laity (vol. 13), Discourse Concerning Liturgies (vol. 15), A Discourse Concerning Evangelical Love, Church Peace & Unity (vol. 15), Worship of God & Discipline of the Churches of the New Testament (vol. 15), Two Questions Concerning the Power of the Supreme Magistrate About Religion & the Worship of God (vol. 13).

The Early Church

Intro

The essence of the Regulative Principle of Worship is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone) as encompassing the Church’s worship. Sola Scriptura, and often its relevance and application to worship, was testified to throughout the early Church.

The quotes below should be read in light of their larger patristic context. The fathers, as one would expect, often had inconsistencies in their thought and practice, as do we. The quotes are as cited in Archbishop James Ussher’s, Answer to a Jesuit; with Other Tracts on Popery (d. 1656; 1835), ‘Of Traditions’, pp. 31-41.

For a wealth of more primary resources to dig into from the Early Church, see the massive collections of excerpts concerning Sola Scriptura in David King & William Webster’s, Holy Scripture, the Ground & Pillar of our Faith, 3 vols. Buy

Quotes

Clement of Rome

Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 41

“Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him.

Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned.

Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death [Lev. 10]. You see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed.”

Tertullian

Against Hermog., ch. 22

“Whether all things are made of any subject matter, I have as yet read nowhere. Let those of Hermogenes’s shop show that it is written. If that be not written, let them fear that woe which is allotted to such as add or take away.”

Origen

Leviticus, Homily 5

“every word that appertains to God may be required and discussed, and all knowledge of things out of them may be understood. But if anything do remain which the holy Scripture ought to be received to authorize any knowledge; but that which remains we must commit to the fire, that is, we must reserve it to God. For in this present world God would not have us to know all things.”

Hippolytus

tome 3, Bibliotheca. Pat., pp. 20-21

“There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the holy Scriptures. For as he that would profess the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise attain hereunto, unless he read the doctrine of the philosophers; so whosoever of us will exercise piety toward God, cannot learn this elsewhere but out of the holy Scriptures. Whatsoever therefore the Holy Scriptures preach, let us know; and whatsoever they teach, let us understand.”

Athanasius

Oration against the Gentiles

“The holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient to the discovery of truth.”

St. Ambrose

Offic., bk. 1, ch. 23

“The things which we find not in the Scriptures, how can we use them?”

Virginis Instit., ch. 11

“I read that he is the first, I read that he is not the second; they can say he is the second, let them show it by reading.”

St Basil

Homily 29, Advers. Calumniantes S. Trinitate

“Believe those things which are written; the things which are not written, seek not.”

Of Faith

“It is a manifest falling from the faith, and argument of arrogancy, either to reject any point of those things that are written, or to bring in any of those things that are not written.”

Ethicis Regul., xvi & lxxx, ch. 22

“That it is the property of the faithful man to be fully persuaded of the truth of those things that are delivered in the holy scripture, and not to dare either to reject or add any thing thereunto . For if whatsoever is not of faith be sin, as the Apostle saith, and faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; then whatsoever is without the holy scripture, being not of faith, must needs be sin.”

Gregory Nyssen

Dialogue on the Soul & the Resurrection, tome 1, ed. Graecolat, p. 639

“which no man should contradict, in that only the truth may be acknowledged, wherein the seal of the scripture testimony is to be seen.”

Book on the Knowledge of God, cit. ab Euthymio in Panoplia, Tit. viii

“… forasmuch as this is a upholden with no testimony of the scripture, as false we will reject it.”

St Jerome

Against Helvidius

“As we deny not those things that are written, so we refuse those things that are not written. That God was born of a virgin we believe, because we read it: that Mary did marry after she was delivered, we believe not, because we read it not.”

St Augustine

On the Doctrine of Christ, bk. 1, ch. 9

“In those things, which are laid down plainly in the Scriptures, all those things are found which appertain to faith and direction of life.”

On the Pastor, ch. 11

“whatsoever you hear [from the holy Scriptures] let that savor well unto you; whatsoever is without them, refuse, lest you wander in a cloud.”

Epistle 42

“all those things which in times past our ancestors had mentioned to be done towards mankind, and have delivered unto us; all those things also which we see, and do you deliver unto our posterity, so far as they appertain to the seeking and maintaining of true religion, the holy scripture hath not passed in silence.”

St Cyril of Alexandria

Contra Jul., bk. 7

“The holy scripture is sufficient to make them which are brought up in it wise and most approved, and furnished with most sufficient understanding.”

Glaphyrorum, in Gen., bk. 1

“That which the holy scripture hath not said, by what means should we receive and account among those things that be true?”

Theodoret

Dialogue 1

“by the holy scripture alone am I persuaded.”

Dialogue 2

“I am not so bold as to affirm any thing which the sacred scripture passeth in silence.”

Exod. Quarts. 26

“it is an idle and a senseless thing to seek those things that are passed in silence.”

On Genesis, Question 45

“We ought not to seek those things which are passed in silence, but rest of the things that are written.”

Eusebius Pamphili in the name of 318 Fathers of the first general council of Nicea

Gelas. Cyzicen. Act. Concil. Niven., part 2, ch. 19

“Believe the things that are written; the things that are not written, neither think upon nor inquire after.”

Samuel Rutherford on what is Regulated

Rutherford’s Conclusions

The Divine Right of Church Government… (London, 1646), Introduction

Section 1, p. 1

“Christ Jesus has so far forth set down and stablished a perfect platform of Church-government in all morals, not only both for the inward, but also for the outward and external government of his House, that He has left no liberty or latitude to magistrates or Churches whatsoever to choose and settle such an orderly form of Church-government or discipline, as is most suitable to their particular civil-government, laws, manners and customs, so this form be not repugnant to the Word of God.”

ch. 1, question 3

“All means of worship devised by men pretending holiness, by teaching, exciting our dull affections to devotion, as if they were powerful means of grace, and did lay a band on the conscience, when as yet they be no such thing, and want all warrant from God, and are contrary to devotion, are unlawful.”

Rutherford’s Section on What Precisely is Regulated

The Divine Right of Church Government… (London, 1646), Introduction, Section 1, pp. 1-7

In this section Rutherford explains his conclusion, distinguishing between what is moral from what is purely natural and indifferent (pp. 2-3), and then between purely physical circumstances (which are indifferent, p. 4), moral circumstances (which are regulated, p. 3) and mixed circumstances, where the circumstance is partly physical, natural and indifferent, and partly moral and regulated (p. 4).

On p. 5 he addresses things that have a “moral and symbolical influence in worship, as positive, religious observances having some spiritual signification and use,’ such as the Anglican ceremonies, which things fall under the ban of the Scriptural principle of worship.

The significance of all this is that Rutherford is defining what is regulated very precisely and formally, even metaphysically, so it leaves nothing out, nor includes too much. Hence, there is no question as to the application of the Scriptural principle of worship: every aspect of everything relating to worship either is religiously significant, and hence regulated, or it is not.

Rutherford’s Distinctions & Conclusions

Divine Right of Church Government (London, 1646), ch. 1, question 2, pp. 101-2

“1st Distinction. The Word of God being given to man as a moral agent is a rule of all his moral actions, but not of actions of art, sciences, disciplines, yea, or of mere nature.

2. Beside the Word, in actions-moral and in God’s worship, is all one with that which is contrary to the Word; and what is not commanded is forbidden, as not seeing in a creature capable of all the five senses is down right blindness.

3. Lawfulness is essential to worship instituted of God, but it is not essential to worship in general: neither is opinion of sanctity, efficacy or divine necessity essential to worship, but only to divine worship and its opinion [that something is divine worship], not actual, nor formal, but fundamental and material.

4. Seeing the apostles were no less immediately inspired of God than the prophets, it is a vain thing to seek a knot in a rush and put a difference betwixt apostolic commandments or traditions and divine commandments, as it is a vain and Scriptureless curiosity to difference betwixt the prophetical truths of Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc. and divine prophecies, which is, as if you would difference betwixt the fair writing of Titus the writer, and the writing made by the pen of Titus, or betwixt Peter’s words, and the words spoken by Peter’s tongue, mouth and lips, for prophets and apostles were both God’s mouth.

5. Worship-essential and worship-arbitrary, which Formalists inculcate, or worship positively lawful or negatively lawful, are to be acknowledged as worship-lawful, and will-worship, and worship lawful and unlawful.

6. What is warranted by natural reason is warranted by Scripture, for the Law of nature is but a part of Scripture.

7. Actions are either purely moral or purely not-moral, or mixed of both: The first has warrant in Scripture, the second none at all, the third requires not a warrant of Scripture every way concludent, but only in so far as they be moral.

8. Matters of mere fact, known by sense and human testimony, are to be considered according to their physical existence, if they be done or not done; if Titus did such a thing or not, such are not in that notion to be proved by Scripture: 2. They may be considered according to their essence and moral quality of good and lawful, bad or unlawful, and so they are to be warranted by Scripture.

9. There is a general warrant in Scripture for worship and moral actions, twofold: either when the major proposition is only in Scripture, and the assumption is the will of men, or when both the proposition and assumption are warranted by Scripture: the former warrant I think not sufficient, and therefore the latter is necessary to prove the thing lawful.

* * *

1st Conclusion. Every worship and positive observance of religion, and all moral actions are to be made good, by [Greek], ‘according as it is written’, though their individual circumstances be not in the Word.

2. In actions or religious means of worship, and actions moral, whatever is beside the Word of God, is against the Word of God; I say in religious means, for there be means of worship, or circumstances physical, not moral, not religious, as whether the pulpit be of stone or of timber, the bell of this or this metal, the house of worship stand thus or thus in situation.

3. Opinion of sanctity, holiness and divine necessi∣ty is not essential to false worship. Formalists will have their ceremonies innocent and lawful, so they be not contrary to the Word of God. 2. So they be not instamped with an opinion that they bind the conscience, and are of divine necessity, holiness and efficacy…

4. It is a vain and unwarrantable distinction to divide worship in essential, which has God’s, 1. particular approving will to be the warrant thereof, and worship accidental or arbitrary, which has only God’s general and permissive will, and has man’s will for its father…

5. Matters of fact are not, and need not be proved by Scripture: 1. Because sense makes them known to us. 2. Their morality is sufficiently known from God’s Word. 3. In matters of fact there may be invincible ignorance: Christ’s resurrection is not a matter of fact, as Hugo Grotius says, but also a matter of Law, as all the miracles and histories in the Word, and to be believed, because God has so spoken in the Word.”

On Dt. 4:2 & 12:32, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord…”

Order of Contents

Article 1
Quotes 6+

Article

2000’s

Fentiman, Travis – “Deuteronomy 4:2: Do Not Add or Diminish” in “Editor’s Extended Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025), pp. 46-47

Quotes

Order of

Beza
Zanchi
English Puritans
Lancelot
Baxter
Corbet

1500’s

Theodore Beza

Epistolarum theologicarum Theodori Bezae Vezelii, liber unus (Geneva: Vignon, 1575), Epistle 8, p. 70-71, as translated by John Sprint, Cassander Anglicanus, showing the Necessity of Conformity to the Prescribed Ceremonies of our Church in Case of Deprivation (London: Bill, 1618), ‘Reformed Practices’, ‘Practice’, pp. 175-76

“There is a twofold opinion concerning the reformation of Churches: some hold that nothing at all should be added to apostolical simplicity, and by consequence are of mind that whatsoever the apostles did, they think they are to do it, but whatsoever the Church after the apostles did add to the first rites, they think them fit even all at once to be abolished.

There are others on the other side which hold that certain ancient rites (besides the apostolical ordinances) are to be retained, partly as profitable and necessary: partly also albeit not necessary, yet to be tolerated for concord sake’s.

For mine own part I doubt not but the apostolical doctrine to be most absolutely perfect without all exception, to the which it is not lawful to add or to detract any thing; howbeit, touching ceremonies my judgement is otherwise. For first, it is certain that even the apostles themselves could not determinately set down what they judged to be expedient for the Churches in their first beginning: and therefore necessarily they proceeded by little and little, as the institution of deacons does make evident, inasmuch as they suffered for a season many Jewish ceremonies, as appears in the story of their Acts: again, to whom can it be doubtful that the apostles had exceeding regard unto their times, places and persons in external rites. Inasmuch as it is not profitable that the same rites were observed everywhere, as appears in that excellent epistle of Irenaeus to Victor. Besides, necessity itself abolished certain of their ordinances, as their common feasts of love.

Wherefore whatsoever was performed by the apostles in rites and ceremonies, I do not judge that presently, neither yet without some exception, to be followed as a rule. And indeed I wonder not that those ancient fathers, having respect unto their own times, did take away some things, some things add and somewhat alter. Only herein (with their good leave be it spoken) they seem to me to have often failed, that they neither held any measure in their rites, neither had that due regard to Christian simplicity and purity as was meet.”

Jerome Zanchi

Of Redemption, ch. 19, fol. 447, as quoted in John Sprint, Cassander Anglicanus, showing the Necessity of Conformity to the Prescribed Ceremonies of our Church in Case of Deprivation (London: Bill, 1618), ‘Reformed Practices’, ‘Practice’, pp. 177-79

“If any thing be altered or added which is not commanded of God, being not essential, but accidental, and not as necessary, but as indifferent, appertaining to decency, or to order, or to edification, we cannot hence conclude that anything is altered of the appointed worship, or that there is another worship erected.

As for example, Christ performed his Supper at night. The apostles were wont to perform it also in the morning, and the Church followed afterwards this time. Should a man hereupon say that anything is derogated from the Supper of the Lord? Surely no, because Christ commanded not the same to be celebrated in the night, as Himself observed it, but only ‘hoc facite,‘ that we should do that (for the matter or substance) which He did, but not at that time wherein He did it.

Also to that the primitive Church (as appears in Justin Martyr) did mingle water with the wine in the Lord’s Supper; it is not a sufficient ground to say they altered or changed the institution of the Lord’s Supper, and that for two reasons:

One, because it may be that the wine which Christ Jesus gave to his disciples was mingled with water, seeing the apostles do not report the contrary and it is probable that the primitive Church might receive this from the apostles.

Another reason is because the primitive Church did not add water as a matter altogether necessary, and so as appertaining to the substance of the Lords Supper, but only to signify a mystery.

But if any did commend it as necessary, they did undoubtedly deprave the Lord’s Supper. But they much more, who used only water in the Lord’s Supper, as the Aquarii did, against whom Cyprian did write: for it is evident, that Christ our Sauior used wine, and commanded that we also should do the like.

To this add, in that the ancient bishops in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper did put on another garment than that they usually did wear, appertains nothing to the alteration of the Lord’s Supper: For Christ commanded not that we should celebrate his Supper with our usual garments, as He did, but only that we should do that which He did Himself. The like may be affirmed of sundry other things, as well in baptism as in the Supper of the Lord.

The sum of all is this: Such things as are added, but yet as matters indifferent, for order, for decency and to edification, such matters do not change the substance of the sacraments, and therefore alter not the worship. But such things as are taken from the institution of Christ, or else are added as necessary, and appertaining to the substance, those things do corrupt the institution of the Lord, and so do establish another kind of worship.

To this kind of addition appertain the places of forbidding to add to God’s Word, Dt. 4:1-2. Note that which he there says, ‘Ye shall not add to the Word which I command you,’ the Word of the Lord is necessary, it ties the conscience, and delivers the substance of the worship, and has nothing adiaphoral or indifferent therein: wherefore to add unto the Word is to ordain or appoint in God’s worship some thing as necessary, and as appertaining to the essence or worship of God, and which does so bind men’s consciences, even as the Word of God itself; wherefore he adds not unto the Word of God, which by the consent of the Church ordains anything, not as necessary, but as indifferent, and free for order only, or for decency, and unto edification, not binding the conscience of any by such an ordinance.”

1600’s

Partially Conforming English Puritans

A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025), pp. 226-27

“The testimony of Scripture which they [Separatists] quote in page 68 of the Collection of Letters and Conferences and in the 144th page of their Refutation against our prescript Liturgy, are: …(2) such as forbid us to add anything to the Word of God (Dt. 4:2; 1 Chron. 28:10; Mt. 15:9; Col. 2:20, 23; Rev. 22:18–19).

…To the other sort of testimonies, this we say: That we add not our Liturgy unto the Word of God, nor make it of equal authority with it: neither do we use it to the same ends and purposes that we do the Scripture.”

Andrewes Lancelot

The Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine at Large… (London: Norton, 1650) search on “general rules”

The Moral Law Expounded: Largely, Learnedly, Orthodoxly… upon the Ten Commandments… (d. 1626; London: Sparke, 1642), On the Ten Commandments, 2nd Commandment, ch. 1, pp. 194-95 See p. 196 for more.

“This invented or will-worship [Col. 2:23], Cultus arbitrarius, has two specious things in it, as the apostle says:

1. The first is a kind of wisdom, and carries with it a trim show thereof: when a man shall be thought so wise as that he is able to devise and invent a worship for God, especially when men consider not what God has already prescribed, whereby their rites prove contrary to what He has appointed, and so they will be wiser than God.
…

Although, all will-worship, [Greek], be taken in an evil sense by many, upon the vulgar exposition of that place in Col. 2:23, yet that there may be some voluntary or free worship acceptable to God, though not specially commanded, provided it be not corruptive of or contrary to any right or worship commanded by Him, but subservient or agreeable thereto, is the judgement of learned divines;

For under the law they had their voluntary and free-will offerings, besides those commanded by God, and though things were more particularly prescribed in the Levitical worship than now under the Gospel, the Church being then in its childhood, and confined to one nation, and the Spirit not then so plentifully given as now since the ascension of Christ, yet even then the Church prescribed diverse things in God’s worship not specially commanded, as in fasts and festival days, as that of the dedication of the Temple, approved by Christ’s own observance, Jn. 10, and sundry other things, all which were never taxed as unlawful, unless the worship appointed by God Himself were thereby corrupted or neglected, and so the continual practice of the Christian Church has been to prescribe and order several things in God’s worship, which no peaceable and holy men ever found fault with, provided, that they were agreeable to those general rules of moral worship required by God and no ways repugnant to those rites by Him appointed, but rather subservient to them, and contained nothing either impious and forbidden, or vain and ridiculous; nor the observance of them preferred before the commandments of God, or made equal to them; but a difference observed between things of immediate divine institution and those of ecclesiastical institution:

To add to God’s institution anything as from God is forbidden, Dt. 12:32, but to add something for the more decent and orderly performance of what God has appointed, and to observe the same as an ecclesiastical institution, is nowhere forbidden, but rather commanded in all those texts that require us to hear the Church [Mt. 18] and to give obedience to her; and to observe this is also to obey God, who has given his Church power to ordain such things:

And that that place in Col. 2:23, condemns not all voluntary or free worship no more than it does humility and chastening, or keeping under the body which are joined therewith, but rather that it makes for it has been lately proved by judicious and learned divines; and by one in a full tract upon this subject of will-worship; for the apostle there condemning certain Jewish and Pythagorean observances about touching, tasting, etc. says, verse 23, that they had a show of wisdom, if due cautions were observed, viz. if they were freely and voluntarily undertaken, not as necessary to salvation, and without rejecting what God had made, and if they were used in humility or modesty not condemning others which used them not, and if they sought thereby only to keep under the flesh. The contrary to all which those Pythagoreans and Jews practiced.

By which exposition, which I take to be the most true, it is plain that the apostle is so far from condemning all voluntary or will-worship, that he rather approves and commends it, and condemns their forbearance of meats and other things because it was not freely or voluntarily undertaken, but as a thing necessary to salvation, etc. See [Hugo] Grotius in Col. 2:23, Et votum pro pace, pp. 100-103, and [Andrew] Rivet, Apologeticus, pp. 109-10, etc. Dr. [Henry] Hammond, Of Will-Worship. See also our reverend author in his sermon on Mt. 6:16, p. 124, etc. and on 1 Cor. 11:16.”

Richard Baxter

Richard Baxter on Worship & Catholicity against Separatism & John Owen (1684; RBO, 2024), p. 34

“Your [John Owen’s] wrong exposition of all the texts of Scripture here cited by you is more than one mistake. Dt. 4:2 and 12:32; Prov. 30:6, forbid adding to God’s worship, which is broken by all that either say that that is in God’s Word which is not there (as you here do), or that devise any worship-ordinances coordinate, or of the same sort, with his own, as if they were imperfect.

But there is not a word forbidding subordinate, secondary acts of worship, such as kneeling, putting off the hat, using written notes in preaching or forms of singing, praying, catechizing, laying the hand on the Book, or putting it under the thigh, or lifting it up in swearing, the formal words of vows, oaths, covenants, confessions, professions and many such.”

John Corbet

Of Divine Worship… in The Remains of the Reverend and Learned Mr. John Corbet, Late of Chichester Printed from his own Manuscripts (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1684), pt. 3

sect. 3, Of the Rule that Limits the Kinds of Worship

“And thereupon it is found in reason to be a presuming of our own against the divine wisdom either to change an ordinance which God has instituted for another ordinance of our own devising, of the same reason and to the same intent, or to add to the divine ordinances by way of supplement human ordinances of the same reason and intent with the divine, and that either as necessary to divine service or only as profitable and de bene esse [of its well-being]. For so to do is plainly to derogate from the divine ordinances.
…

The express text of Scripture proves this, that some additions are forbidden: Dt. 4:2; 12:32. The prohibition is not merely of adding to the rule, but of doing more than the rule requires, as the precept is not of preserving the rule, but observing what is commanded in it. It is indeed against mingling the heathenish observations with divine institutions; and it is not to be imagined that it is only a prohibition of the forgery of divine oracles.”

sect. 4, What of Divine Worship may not be Devised or
Instituted by Man

“Now it is to be considered what kind of religious observations God has reserved to his own determination and forbidden to be devised or instituted by man. And these are first, such as are of the same reason with those ordinances which God has instituted to be observed by the universal Church to the world’s end, as to make an addition of another weekly day to the same holy intents for which the Lord’s Day is set apart, or to institute any ordinance that is of the same reason with the sacraments of the Covenant of Grace.
…

2. No new integral part of divine worship, without which the worship of God is supposed not entire, but deficient in part, may be invented of man. For it were to invent a new part of the Christian religion and to augment it beyond the state thereof as settled by the Author and Founder of it.

Here note that the accidental parts of religion being varied, or augmented, or diminished, make no variation, addition or diminution in the religion, no more than alteration in clothes makes an alteration in the man.

3. No ordinance that is of universal and perpetual use to the Church of God (if it be at all of use), so that it may in no place, in no age be omitted, may be devised of man. For the devising of such an ordinance supposes a defect in the divine ordinances of universal and perpetual use, to be made up by adding other ordinances by way of supplement. And it is but a presuming that those others are requisite, when they are not. Also if the universal Lawgiver has reserved anything to his own power, it can be no less than the making of such laws or ordinances as are of universal and perpetual use. And surely that He has reserved something to Himself, few among us will gainsay.

Howbeit an arbitrary and temporary use of a religious observance by particular men for such ends as equally concern all Christians may not be unlawful upon this account, because therein Christ’s legislative power is not encroached upon, it not being made a law to the Church, but only a private arbitrary observation.”

sect. 5, What things of or belonging to Divine Worship may be Devised or Instituted by Man

“The things set down under the former head as forbidden are such new ordinances of worship as are coordinate with the divine ordinances and are in a proper sense additions, pretending or in themselves expressing the same nature, reason, end and use that the divine ordinances have and consequently importing an insufficiency in them.

But there are such institutions of men in subordination to the divine institutions as serve for the more convenient modifying and ordering of the same; and they are not proper additions because they are not of the same nature and use: and these are unlawful.

All such modes of a duty as are necessary in genere, and not determined in specie (as when there must be a practice one way or other, but whether this way or that way, is not determined of God) are left free to human determination.

This human determination must be regulated by the general rules of God’s Word, of which there be these two chief: First, that all determinations be made for edification and not for destruction. Secondly, that all things be done decently and in order. These two rules we find expressly in Scripture, and they are also of the law of nature.

These things are neither the essential nor integral parts of divine worship; but if any of them be called “parts” thereof, as being direct expressions of honor to God, they are but accidental parts, as the putting off the hat in divine worship is a worshipping of God so far as it is an expression of honor to God.
…

Whatsoever nature or custom has so made decent or reverent that the negation of it is indecent or irreverent, is doubtless commanded of God in his worship, though not by any particular, yet by general laws.

And the institution and observation of such things is no addition to God’s Law, but merely an application of the general Law in particular cases, as the Law itself does warrant.

All these are such mutable things as are not fit to be in particular the matter of a universal law because they are fit in one place and at one time, and not another.

Note that things not determined of God and left to the determination of men must be such as are necessary in genere, and not things idle and superfluous.”

On Whatsoever is Beside the Word

Order of Contents

Westminster
Articles 2
Quotes 5

Westminster

Confession, ch. 20, section 2

“God alone is lord of the conscience,[k] and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.[l] So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:[m] and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.[n]

[k] Jam. 4:12. Rom. 14:4.
[l] Acts 4:19. Acts 5:29. 1 Cor. 7:23. Matt. 23:8-10. 2 Cor. 1:24. Matt. 15:9.
[m] Col. 2:20,22,23. Gal. 1:10. Gal. 2:4,5. Gal. 5:1.
[n] Rom. 10:17. Rom. 14:23. Isa. 8:20. Acts 17:11. John 4:22. Hos. 5:11. Rev. 13:12,16,17. Jer. 8:9“

Articles

1600’s

Ames, William – ch. 1, on section 12, pp. 26-28 in A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship… (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633)

Chauncy, Isaac – ch. 19, ‘Of Human Constitutions in the Worship of God, besides the Word’ in The Catholic Hierarchy: or, The Divine Right of a Sacred Dominion in Church & Conscience truly stated, asserted & pleaded (London: Crouch, 1681), pp. 125-28

Quotes

Order of

Augustine
Anglican 39 Articles
Irish Articles
Scottish Confession
Rutherford

400’s

Augustine

trans. in William Ames, A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship… (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633), ch. 1, section 17, p. 86

“it is lawful or not lawful to believe or not to believe other witnesses or testimonies besides that of the Scriptures) so far as you see they bear or do not bear weight to make us give more credit to a thing.”

1500’s

Anglican 39 Articles

Article 20, ‘Of the Authority of the Church’

“The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.

Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation.”

1600’s

The Irish Articles 1615

Reformed Confessions of the 16th & 17th Centuries, ed. James Dennison, Jr. (RHB, 2014), vol. 4, p. 99

Scottish Confession 1616

“…believing firmly that God is to be worshipped only according to His own will, revealed in His word.

And, therefore, we abhor all will-worship, all invocation of saints or angels, all worshipping of images, crucifixes, relics, and all other things which are beside the true God.”

Samuel Rutherford

Divine Right of Church Government (London, 1646), ch. 1, question 2, pp. 101-2

“2. Beside the Word, in actions-moral and in God’s worship, is all one with that which is contrary to the Word; and what is not commanded is forbidden, as not seeing in a creature capable of all the five senses is down right blindness.
…

The Things of Worship are to be Necessary

Quotes

Order of

Rutherford
Baxter
Presbyterians & Independents

1600’s

Samuel Rutherford

Divine Right of Church Government

Richard Baxter

Five Disputations of Church-Government & Worship (London: R.W., 1659), 5th Disputation, ch. 2, p. 408

“§35. And 2. No man may of his own head command anything in or belonging to the worship of God: but he must have either a special or general warrant and command from God Himself to do it. God’s Law must either make the thing necessary in specie, and so leave man nothing about it but to second it by his Law, and see it executed: or else God’s Law must make the thing necessary in genere, and so leave man to determine of the species (as is oft said). But where neither of these are done by God, man has no power for the imposing of that thing.”

Leading English Presbyterian & Independent Ministers

The Grand Debate between the most reverend Bishops & the Presbyterian Divines appointed by His Sacred Majesty as Commissioners for the Review & Alteration of the Book of Common Prayer... (London, 1661), ‘The Papers’, pp. 99-100

“1. Decent circumstances are necessary in genere; There must be some fit time, place, gesture, vesture (as such), utensils, etc. But that there be some such dedicating, engaging signs in our covenanting with God signifying the Grace of the Covenant and our state and duty as soldiers under Christ (besides God’s sacraments), this is not necessary in genere, and therefore it is not left to man to determine de specie.

2. If there be any reason for this use of the cross [in baptism], it must be such as was in the apostles’ days, and concerns the universal Church in all ages and places, and then the apostles would have taken care of it;”

God has Chosen to Regulate Some Circumstances for Worship

Article

Fentiman, Travis – 1 Corinthians 11: Head-Coverings -are Not Perpetual & they were Hair-Buns, with or without Cloth Material: Proven (RBO, 2022)

‘Coverings are Not by a Positive, Religious Appointment’, pp. 51-53

‘How Head-Coverings are Different from the Regulated Circumstances of the Lord’s Supper’, pp. 87-89

Quotes

George Gillespie

English Popish Ceremonies (1637), pt. 3, ch. 7, pp. 120-21

“2. There are many parts of God’s worship which are not essential, yet such as will not suffer any addition of the Church. For proof whereof, I demand, were all the ceremonies commanded to be used in the legal sacraments and sacrifices, essential parts of those worships? No man will say so. Yet the synagogue was tied to observe those (and no other than those) ceremonies which the Word prescribed. When Israel was again to keep the Passover, it was said; In the fourteenth day of this month at even, ye shall keep it in his appointed season: according to all the rites of it and according to all the ceremonies of it, shall ye keep it. And again: ‘According to all that the Lord commanded Moses, so did the Children of Israel.’ Ritibus et ceremoniis divinitus institutis, non licuit homini suo arbitrio aliquid adijcere aut detrahere, says Peter Martyr.

3. If those accidentary parts of worship which are commanded in the Word be both necessary to be used necessitatè praecepti [by the necessity of precept], and likewise sufficient means fully adequate and proportioned to that end, for which God has destinated such parts of his worship as are not essential (which must be granted by everyone who will not accuse the Scripture of some defect and imperfection: then it follows that other accidentary parts of worship which the Church adds thereto are but superfluous and superstitious.”

Herbert Palmer & Daniel Cawdrey

Sabbatum redivivum, or the Christian Sabbath Vindicated (London: White, 1645), ch. 12

“The necessary, sufficient, chief time for religion, together with the particular day for it [the Sabbath] is a part of worship, and not a mere adjunct or circumstance only.
…

1. Worship, generally, is the tender of our homage to God, and giving Him immediate honor. Accordingly, a part of worship is whatsoever is presented to God (whether thing or action) as a special homage, and as an immediate honor to Him. Or at least ought to be so, if it be not.

2. An adjunct or circumstance of worship (which is merely such) is that which is not (or ought not to be) presented to God, any special or immediate honor to Him: but only serves and is used as an accommodation to the performance of something or action which is properly worship, or perhaps is only an unthought of accident naturally or occasionally accompanying that thing or action which is worship.

3. Withal it is to be considered that the self same thing which in one case is but an adjunct barely, a mere circumstance, and no way a part of worship, may in another case be more than a circumstance; and a proper part of worship, being specially and immediately tending to God’s honor, and tendered with that intention and to that end. Some instances will clear all this:

1. The sacrificing of a bullock (or sheep) was a part of God’s worship under the Law.

2. The sex, that it was male or female, the age, that it was so many months or weeks, or years old: the color, that it was red or black, or white, was in many cases a mere circumstance, not regarded nor to be regarded.

3. Yet in some cases it must be a male, not a female; in others a female, not a male. So, in some cases, so young, and no elder; in others, so old and no younger (as in the firstling males, it was to be seven days with the dam, nor more, nor less; and the eighth day to be offered). And in the water of expiation, the ashes of the burnt heifer was to be of a red heifer, of such an age precisely. In all which, those very circumstantial considerations were properly parts of worship, of the homage to be tendered to God, and immediately to His honor.

4. Furthermore it is to be observed how anything, whether seeming to be substance or circumstance, comes to be a part of worship. Which may be resolved two ways:

1. As worship comprehends under the term both true worship and false worship, or right worship and will-worship; So the cause of it is our intention to present it as a special homage (as was said) and an immediate honor to God. Such intention, we say, is the formal cause, that such an action is worship in him that presents it, or such a thing, in him that tenders it. And without such intention, no action is formally worship in any man, however it be in the nature of the action, or in any other person that presents it. As for instance: The repeating of any sentence of Scripture, or the Lord’s prayer, intending thereby to honor God, is a part of worship: But to repeat it, to teach a child to spell or read, or to understand a language, or to use it as a charm or the like, is certainly no worship, because it wants an intention of immediate honoring God by it. So to kneel down before an image or crucifix with intention to honor God by that action is worship (though false and idolatrous), but to kneel down before it, not seeing it, nor thinking of it, or to pull out a thorn out of one’s foot or the like, is no worship: because, again, here wants an intention of honoring God by such an action.

2. But now, as worship denotes only true and right worship, so the proper efficient cause, and that which both legitimates and necessitates such intention, is the command of God. What He commands to be presented to Him, whether seeming substance or circumstance, has the nature of a special homage and immediate honor to Him, and ought to be presented (as often as it is presented) with such intention. From which command also flows an answerable acceptation of such a commanded thing or action, when accordingly performed with that intention: And with that intention there may and should also be an expectation of such acceptation, whereby the intention is proved in a man’s conscience, whether the matter be commanded or not. For will-worshippers expect an acceptation, though without warrant. And profane hypocrites, though they pretend to worship God, yet when they intend it not, they expect no acceptation. We say then, our expectation of acceptation declares whether we tender such a thing as a part of worship, or use it as a mere circumstance.

5. Yet again, God’s command of anything as worship is either express and particular, of such a special thing, or general, of such an affection; which, according to an allowance of presenting some kinds of things to God’s honor, does present such particulars, or such a proportion suitable to the degree of the affection and other occasions. Instances of the first were the daily sacrifices, expressly commanded of the second, free-willing offerings, and vows: As we read of Solomon’s thousand burnt-offerings on the altar at Gibeon; and his mighty number of peace-offerings, two and twenty thousand oxen, and an hundred and twenty thousand sheep. Even these being acceptable fell under the general command of honoring the Lord with his substance, which Solomon himself records, suitable to those times and his incomparable wealth, and the like considerations, as of the great solemnity of dedicating the house of the Lord, etc.

6. Once more, the command of God of things for His honor may either be:

1. By the Law of Nature, that is, of things which in a rational and ethical consideration, according to the Light of Nature, may be and are to His honor, either constantly or accidentally, as prayer to Him, swearing by His name, and calling Him to witness, or appealing to Him.

2. Or by Positive Law, in Scripture (which is the only way now; or of old by Dreams and visions, and the like) altogether by virtue of His divine institution and appointments. As the use of water in the sacrament of baptism and of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, which being things of common use for worldly purposes, have no other aptitude to be immediately to His honor, but from His own command.

7. These things thus premised, we shall briefly state our question thus, We say, the necessary sufficient chief time for religion, together with the particular day for it, is a part of worship, and not a mere adjunct and circumstance only. Hereby we mean, that that time observed for religion, is a part of our special homage to God, and an immediate honor to Him; and that it ought to be presented with such intention, as being specially commanded by God, partly in the Law of Nature, namely the continuance and frequency being to the honor of God only in a rational and ethical consideration, and partly in Scripture, (as has been shown, Ch. 10). And accordingly, is specially acceptable unto God, and such special acceptation may be and ought to be expected from God; And so the duties of religion are then doubly worship, and doubly acceptable, both in reference to the duties themselves, and to the times wherein they are performed. (Only still it must be remembered, that all our acceptation is in and through Jesus Christ). We say, they are doubly worship and doubly acceptable, or trebly, or four fold, as filling up together, the whole continuance commanded of a day, and answering the required observation of such a frequent day, and being presented upon the appointed particular holy day. Like unto which there is now no other time under the New Testament in this complete sort, worship, or so greatly acceptable: Though there be some other times that may have a little share also, as we shall see anon. In the mean time, all our indeterminate and voluntary times (in any respect) so far as they are voluntary, are mere circumstances of worship, and no way to any special or immediate honor to God in their observation, nor any matter of special acceptation, and so not to be presented with any such intention or expectation. This is our opinion and meaning.”

On a Loose Regulative Principle of Worship, or a Broad & Loose Application of it

Quotes

Order of

Rutherford
Cawdrey
English Presbyterians

1600’s

Samuel Rutherford

Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism: the Tables of Contents with Excerpts from Every Chapter tr. Charles Johnson & Travis Fentiman (1638-1642; 1668; RBO, 2019), ch. 1, section 17, p. 48

“If truly the consequence is made good only by the will of governors, then this consequence will be valid: All such things are orderly and decent; therefore, let the calf of Aaron be made and openly worshiped, for worship in such a visible way is by [the will of] the governors.

A good consequence is one which stands indivisible: then it is a good consequence or not a good consequence. This consequence, however, where the truth has been mixed, depending partly on reason and partly on the will of men, is nothing.”

Lex Rex... (1644; Edinburgh: Ogle, 1843), p. 13 lt. col.

“Begin with the law, but end not with traditions. If God by Himself prescribed the essentials of piety and worship, the other part of your distinction is, that God, not by Himself, but by his prelates, appointed the whole Romish rites, as accidentals of piety. This is the Jesuits’ doctrine.”

The Divine Right of Church Government… (London, 1646) Westminster divine

Introduction, section 4, pp. 51-2

“Any positives not warranted by some special word of God shall be additions to the Word of God: But these are expressly forbidden, Dt. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18-19.

To this Formalists [Anglicans, etc.] answer: 1. They have a general commandment of God, though not a special.

Answer: So have all the unwritten traditions of Papists; hear the Church, she is Magistra fidei [Teacher of the Faith]; so does the Papist Horantius answer Calvin, that the Spirit of God has given a general and universal knowledge of mysteries of Faith and ceremonies belonging to religion, but many particulars are to be received by tradition from the Church…”

p. 97

“3. If God reprove Samuel’s light for judging according to the eye, 1 Sam. 16:7, far more He rebukes his purpose to anoint a man without his Word, ‘Who giveth kingdoms to whom He pleaseth’: Yet Samuel had a good intention, and God’s Word in general, that one of Jesse’s sons should be king.

4. If that good purpose had remained with David deliberately to build the Lord’s house after the Lord had said Solomon, not David, must build the house, it would have been sinful; yet the reasons upon common equity, and a general warrant that God would have a house had been as good as before…”

p. 102

“9. There is a general warrant in Scripture for worship and moral actions, twofold: either when the major proposition is only in Scripture, and the assumption [minor premise] is the will of men, or when both the proposition and assumption are warranted by Scripture: the former warrant I think not sufficient, and therefore the latter is necessary to prove the thing lawful.”

p. 111

“And, fine linnen is the righteousness of the saints, Rev. 19; Therefore, a surplice is good. And, Mt. 16, ‘Take up your cross’: Therefore, the crossing in baptism is lawful. Enough of this. But so the worship of the Devil is lawful and Aaron’s golden calf is lawful, for I can find a major proposition for them in Scripture, of which you have a faith both negative and positive [because both can be derived from Scripture in this general way];”

p. 119

“If the general must be warranted by the Word, so also specials under the general, else men’s will may make a horned bullock a decent sacrifice to represent Christ already come in the flesh; for if the written Word warrant not the specials of religious observances, a door is open for all human inventions:”

pp. 120-21

“Lawfulnesse is an essential property of divine worship resulting from God’s particular approving will in his Word, as is clear, Hosea 8:5; 1 Chron. 15:13; Lev. 10:1; 2 Sam. 7:7; Jer. 7:30; Acts 15:24…

…for it [arbitrary worship] cannot have its warrant from God’s general will whereby the proposition of a syllogism is warranted, but not the assumption, for thus the golden calfe of Jeroboam, the worshipping of Satan, should be lawful: for I can form a syllogism to it from Scripture (All worship commanded in the Word is lawful, but Jeroboam’s golden calf is commanded in the Word; Therefore, it is lawful…

If ceremonies come partly from men’s will, partly from the light of reason, then do they conclude the lawfulness of ceremonies either fallibly or necessarily: If the former be said, we have little warrant of conscience to practice them; nor can God be honored, nor these things lawful, good, and edificative, more than unlawful, evil and unapt to edify, seeing there be no light of Scripture or nature to make them good to us; and because a fallible and unnecessary consequence is over fallible and unnecessary, and stands (as Aristotle says well) in an indivisible point. It is a non-consequence, and so men’s will is the best house that ceremonies are descended of. If they can be proved by a necessary and infallible consequence, we desire to hear it…”

Daniel Cawdrey

Diatribe triplex, or a Threefold Exercitation concerning 1. Superstition, 2. Will-Worship, 3. Christmas Festival, with the Reverend & Learned Dr. Hammond (London: Wright, 1654), ‘Of Will-Worship’

pp. 72-73

“…we say there is a universal negative prohibition in the Scripture (beside special ones) in the Second Commandment, forbidding all things, that is, all worship and all degrees of that worship, besides what are particularly commanded.

Hence it follows that there is no general command or doctrine of the Gospel… to which such will-worship can hold conformity.”

pp. 80-81

“for let the matter be never so lawful, yet in will-worship it cannot have any general precept to approve it, but rather has general and particular precepts to forbid and condemn it.”

English Presbyterians

Anonymous, English Presbytery, or an Account of the Main Opinions of those ministers and people in England who go under the name of Presbyterians… (London, 1680), pp. 1-2

“There are three fundamental principles held by non-conformists (and those especially of them which are called presbyterians) wherein they differ from others:

1. That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are a perfect Rule for Christians, directing them not only what to believe in the things of God, but also what to do in all matters relating to the Worship of God, and the government of the Church; so as in these things they may not either believe or do what is not there expressly, or by immediate consequence revealed.

In civil matters they believe the Scripture to be only a general rule, or rather as to them, to contain some general rules only, by which all men’s actions are to be directed; but in sacred things, they believe the Scriptures to be a particular rule…

Thus they differ from Papists, who will not allow the Scriptures to be a perfect rule as to matters of faith; and from those, who although they allow them in matters of faith a perfect rule, yet deny them to be so in the matters of worship, or government of the Church; and as to the first, say that the Scriptures are only a perfect rule as to acts of worship, not as to means, and modes, or religious rites used in, and about the worship of God; but that these may be directed by superiours for spiritual edification; or who say, that the Scripture has only directed that the Church should be governed, but has left to superiours to determine by what officers, acts and rules that government should be exercised: So as the first and main question is, Whether the Scriptures be a perfect and sufficient rule for Christians in matters of worship, and Church government, as well as matters of faith? which those called presbyterians believe it is; because they find sufficient directions in it for the decent and orderly performance of all acts of worship, without any human supplements; and such Church-officers directed by it, such acts of jurisdiction and censures prescribed in it, as are sufficient to preserve the unity, peace and purity of the Church; which are the great ends of that government.”

p. 11

“Concerning the Civil Magistrate

…
2. For the due form of government, or power of governors in any nation, they believe God’s Word has fixed no universal rule, only confirming the just laws of kingdoms and polities, and they believe it their duty to be obedient to such governors in all places, as the laws in that place have established, and in the exercise of such power as those laws have given them. From the obedience to which no person upon the account of religion can pretend to an immunity; and in the exercise of which no magistrate ought by any to be resisted.”

Article

1600’s

Rutherford, Samuel – pp. 46-49 of ch. 1, section 17, ‘Whether not only all the traditions of the Papists, but even new offices, such as the domineering bishop, etc, human ceremonies and whatsoever is of positive observance in divine worship contrived by the Antichrist or the bishops and prelates, conflicts with the completeness and perfection of the Scriptures? We affirm against the Arminians.’ in Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism: the Tables of Contents with Excerpts from Every Chapter tr. Charles Johnson & Travis Fentiman (1668; RBO, 2019)

May One Attend Worship with Corruptions in it? Yes

Intro

While one ought never to sin in worship by consent or action, the question here is whether a layman who does not consent to the corruptions, nor does them, may attend worship that has corruptions in it?

There is a distinction between idolatry and corruptions. Idolatry is so severe that one ought not to voluntarily remain in the midst of it (1 Cor. 10:21; Rev. 18:4), but ought to flee from it (1 Cor. 10:14). Corruptions in worship, such as Paul describes in 1 Cor. 11-14, do not overturn the essence of the worship wholly, nor ought the faithful to split from the assembly thereof, if you can remain without sinning yourself or being tempted to acquiesce therein, and if you can be edified by the rest of the worship.

The whole responsibility for the corruptions in such worship remains on those who do it. For the rest of the people, they yet need, are obliged unto, and have a right to what is left of the ordinance of God, which is their inheritance in the Covenant of Grace. Thus when the corrupt priests of Israel defiled and disfigured the sacrifices of God in 1 Sam. 2:12-17, though they made it so that “men abhorred the offering of the Lord”, yet what was left of the offering was, sadly, all that God’s people could get of their inheritance. If the crumbs of the Lord’s provision falls onto the floor, yet they are still the children’s.

John Calvin

Letters, vol 3 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication), Letter 346, ‘To the Brethren of Wezel’, pp. 30-31. Calvin is speaking to reformed refugees attending Lutheran churches. See the whole letter in general.

“With regard to the form to be observed in receiving the sacraments, it is not without reason that you entertain doubts and scruples, for nothing is better than to abide by that pure simplicity which we hold from the Son of God, whose ordinance ought to be our single rule, to which also the usage of the apostles was perfectly conformable. And indeed the moment we deviate ever so little from it, our admixture of human invention cannot fail to be a corruption.

But it seems to us that your condition is different from that of the pastors of the place and the great body of the people. If the pastors did their duty, they would employ all their endeavours to retrench those superfluities which do not tend to edification, or rather which serve to obscure the clearness of the gospel. The [civil] governors on their part would also do well to see to it. It is a vice to be condemned so far as they are concerned, that they keep up these unmeaning mummeries — which are as it were a residue of Popish superstitions, the recollection of which we should strive as much as in us lies to exterminate.

But in your capacity of private individuals, not only you may lawfully, but what is more, you should support and suffer such abuses as it is not in your power to correct. We do not hold lighted candles in the celebration of the eucharist, nor figured bread to be such indifferent things that we would willingly consent to their introduction, or approve of them, though we object not to accommodate ourselves to the use of them, where they have been already established, when we have no authority to oppose them.

If we were called upon to receive such ceremonies, we should hold ourselves bound according to the position in which God has placed us, to admit of no compromise in resisting their introduction, and in maintaining constantly the purity which the church confided to us already possesses. But should our lot be cast in some place where a different form prevails, there is not one of us who from spite against a candle or a chasuble [a ministerial vestment] would consent to separate himself from the body of the church, and so deprive himself of the use of the sacrament.”

Not Everything in what is called a Worship Service must be Worship

Quotes

Order of

Gillespie
Baxter
Fentiman

1600’s

George Gillespie

English-Popish Ceremonies (1637), pt. 3, ch. 7, p. 114

“(Section 7) 3. If the Church prescribe any thing lawfully, so that she prescribe no more than she has power given her to prescribe, her ordinance must be accompanied with some good reason and warrant, given for the satisfaction of tender consciences.”

Richard Baxter

Five Disputations of Church-Government & Worship (London: R.W., 1659), 5th Disputation, ch. 2, p. 418

“Natural and artificial helps we disallow not…”

A Second Admonition to Mr. Edward Bagshaw (London: Simmons, 1671)

sect. 44, pp. 113-14

“Edward Bagshaw, p. 12: ‘2. Being present where those things are used in the worship of God, which God has not commanded, this would involve us in the guilt and contagion of them…’

Richard Baxter: Here are two more false doctrines intimated:

1. That to use things in the worship of God which He has not commanded (without exception) is a sin.

2. That being present where they are used involves us in the guilt.

Where note:

1. That it is not part of the worship [formally], but things used in the worship that he speaks of.

2. That I proved the contrary to both these at large… and [Bagshaw] gives not a syllable of answer to my twenty instances and many undeniable reasons to the contrary… Sermon notes, meters, tunes, printed Bibles (as printed) and divided into chapters and verses, the words of a sermon or prayer, the particular method, cups, tables, etc. are used in the worship of God without any particular command or any command for this rather than that in cases of indifferency: and yet all these are not therefore unlawful.”

sect. 45, pp. 115-16

“2. Here you say ‘matters of worship,’ before it was ‘in worship’. And even the word ‘worship’ is taken so variously as calls for explication before we determine whether man may appoint matters of worship: For if you will call putting off the hat and reverent gestures in particular and meters, and tunes, and the method and words of the particular prayer or sermon by the name of worship, then man may appoint it.”

Richard Baxter on Worship & Catholicity against Separatism & John Owen (1684; RBO, 2024), p. 62

“1. There is that in God’s worship which is no part of his worship.

2. There is a secondary worship subservient to God’s institutions which men may make laws about.”

2000’s

Travis Fentiman

“Editor’s Extended Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025), p. 50

“Nor can the context of public worship be completely divorced from the ethical sphere of common life, because the most fundamental law of nature is to pursue good and avoid
evil112 (Ps. 34:14; Amos 5:14; 1 Pet. 3:11). This natural law, inherent to us, falls under moral obedience to God in the First Commandment. But public worship ordinances, being ceremonial in nature, and the Regulative Principle of Worship, are secondary to that and less fundamental, flowing out of the Second Commandment.

“He that gave us no account of the lines and circles of the globe, the diameter of the earth, or the height and magnitude of the stars, has told us particularly the measure of every board and curtain of the tabernacle; for God’s church and instituted religion are more precious to Him and more considerable than all the rest of the world.”

Matthew Henry
on Exodus 25:9

Related Pages

Worship

On Natural Gestures, Signs & Customs about Worship, & of Reverence & Veneration as Distinguished from the Worship of Adoration

On the Ordinances, Order & Policy of the Church

On Holding Public Worship & Church Courts by Distance Through Technology, & on using Satellite Churches, under Necessity & for Edification

On the Holy Kiss, Foot Washing & Anointing with Oil

Critiques of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer

Religious Images in Worship

Visual Imagery, Drama & Dance in Worship