Where did the term “regulative principle of worship” originate? I’ve researched this on and off for a long time. Conclusion so far: The Presbyterian principle of worship has roots in the Reformation and earlier. The relatively modern term seems to have developed informally into a label or moniker from the terminology in US Southern and US and U.K. Covenanter Presbyterianism (PCUS, UPC) and while perhaps not coined by the OPC majority and minority reports on worship song, these documents may have help popularize the phrase. British usage tended to be awkard (principle regulative of worship, Petticrew, UPC Ireland, 1903), and so far it appears the first American turn of the phrase more capable of catching on as a term or moniker is in 1905 in Harper’s work on the shorter catechism (UPC of America). The phrase grew in popularity in the last decades of the 20th century and into the 21st. See also, Frank J. Smith with Chris Coldwell, “The Regulative Principle of Worship: Sixty Years in Reformed Literature. Part One (1946–1999),
The Confessional Presbyterian
2 (2006), and Part Two (2000–2007), The
Confessional Presbyterian
3 (2007). The below is not in a particularly organized shape other than relatively chronological. The principle of worship itself has long roots and the term (RPW for short) shows about the beginning of the 20th century.
Pre Reformation
A Confession of Faith of the Waldenses, bearing date A.D. 1120, taken from the Cambridge MSS. 378
Article X: Item, we have always accounted as an unspeakable abomination before God, all those inventions of men, namely, the feasts and the vigils of saints, the water which they call holy. As likewise to abstain from flesh upon certain days, and the like; but especially their masses. The Waldenses: Sketches of The Evangelical Christians of the Valleys of Piedmont (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1853) 378.
Catechism of the Ancient Waldenses for the instruction of their Youth, composed in the 13th century.
Min. By what mark knowest thou the false ministers?
Ans. By their fruits; by their blindness; by their evil works; by their perverse doctrines, and by their undue administration of the sacraments.
Min. Whereby knowest thou their blindness?
Ans. When not knowing the truth, which necessarily appertains to salvation, they observe human inventions as ordinances of God. Of whom is verified what Isaiah says, and which is alleged by our Lord Jesus Christ, Matt. 15., “This people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
Reformation usage.
Necessity of Reforming the Church 1543
“I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word.” “On the Necessity of Reforming the Church” Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters. 1.128-129.
John Knox 1550
All wirschipping, honoring,or service inventit by the braine of man in the religioun of God, without his own express commandment, is Idolatrie. “Vindication of the Doctrine that the Sacrifice of the Mass is Idolatry” Works, ed. David Laing (Edinburgh: Printed for the Bannatyne Club, 1854) 3.34.
John à Lasco (1499-1560). 1551
‘Nothing ought to be added to public worship concerning which God has given no command. The Reformation of the Church, ed. Iain H. Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965), 62.
Dirk W. Rodgers, John a Lasco in England (New York: Peter Lang Publications, 1994) 152.
“His argument against the use of vestments essentially arises from two presuppositions. On the one hand, he insists that the essential components of worship are explicitly set forth in scripture. On the other hand, he believes that the priestly garments are a relic of papism and must therefore be expelled from every reformed Church.
“In his 1551 letter to Cranmer, he deals primarily with the first of these concerns. The entire vestment issue, he says, arises from a single question: “whether in the pubic worship which God himself established in his Church with definite ceremonies, anything else can be used concerning which God has not prescribed nothing at all.”
1560 Scots Confession
And evil works, we affirm not only those that expressedly are done against God's commandment,[9] but those also that, in matters of religion and worshipping of God, have no other assurance but the invention and opinion of man: which God from the beginning has ever rejected, as by the prophet Isaiah,[10] and by our master Christ Jesus, we are taught in these words: In vain do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and precepts of men.[11]
9. 1 John 3:4. 10. Isa. 29:13. 11. Matt. 15:9.; Mark 7:7.
Genevan Book of Order (1556)
The Genevan Book of Order: The Form of Prayers and Ministration of the Sacraments, etc., Used in the English Congregation at Geneva (1556).
“…so that whatsoever is added to this Word by man’s device, seem it never so good, holy, or beautiful, yet before our God, which is jealous and cannot admit any companion or counselor, it is evil, wicked, and abominable.” The Reformation of the Church, ed. Iain H. Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965), 62. John Knox, Works, ed. David Laing (Edinburgh: Printed for the Bannatyne Club, 1855) 4.160-161.
Heidelberg Catechism (1563).
Heidelberg Catechism (1563). Question 96. What does God require in the second commandment?
Answer. That we in nowise make any image of God, nor worship him in any other way than he has commanded in his word.
John Calvin [1563]
Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and Lamentations (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), Vol. 1, pp. 413-414.
John Calvin, in his commentary on this passage, 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.... 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.”
1647. WCF 21:1 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. 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.
Scotland
Act Against Innovations in the Worship of God, General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Act 15, 1707.
“And considering also that such innovations are dangerous to this Church, and manifestly contrary to our known principle (which is, that nothing is to be admitted in the worship of God but what is prescribed in the Holy Scriptures…”
Pardovan’s Collections, 2.1.1. Nothing to be admitted in the worship of God, but what is prescribed in Scripture. Many Editions, first edition, Edinburgh, 1709.
By the 15th act of Assembly 1707, they declare that there are some innovations set up of late by prelatists in their public Assemblies, which are dangerous to this church, and manifestly contrary to the constant practice and known principle thereof, which is, that nothing is to be admitted in the worship of God, but what is prescribed in the Holy Scriptures; therefore they discharge the practice of all such innovations in divine worship within this church; and ministers are required to inform their people of the evil thereof.
First organ controversy of 1808
R. S. Candlish, The Organ Question (Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1866).
James Begg
James Begg, The Use of Organs and Other Instruments of Music in Christian Worship Indefensible (Glasgow: W. R. M'Phun and Son, 1866), pp. 10-12. ‘The first thing necessary is to fix the principle which regulates New Testament worship.”
James Begg, Anarchy in Worship, Edinburgh 1875.
“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.”
Robert Johnson
A Discourse on Instrumental Music in Public Worship, Rev. Robert Johnson AM Burlington, IA, 1871
W. Robertson
The Organ Question, W. Robertson, Manchester, 1868.
James Kerr, The Scriptural Doctrines Violated By Ritualism. "Romanism and Ritualism in Great Britain and Ireland. A Report of the National Protestant Congress, Edinburgh, October 15-18,1894." Edinburgh: R.W. Hunter, 19 George IV. Bridge, 1895
If the Protestant Churches of the land are to be delivered from the pro-Romish influences at work, this principle, which rejects all forms and ceremonies which have no Scriptural warrant, must be again fearlessly enforced…. If this Scriptural doctrine regulating worship were universally adopted, then defiance could be hurled at all the ritualists and Romanists in the empire. The citadel of Protestantism would be safe thus far from these foes. Otherwise, there will be those within the citadel in sympathy with the enemy and ready to open the gates. For the sake of ecclesiastical unity, in defence of the Scriptural doctrine of worship and of true liberty, and in loyalty to the King of the Church, let all rites and ceremonies in religion, of human device, be driven into everlasting exile from this land of Emmanuel.
John T Chalmers
Ten Reasons Why The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church Adheres To The Exclusive Use Of The Inspired Psalter In The Worship Of God By Rev. John T. Chalmers, D.D. 1900
Candor compels us to admit that there is a tendency towards relaxation in our adherence to the great principle that whatsoever is not commanded in the Word of God is forbidden. Some manifest a disposition to disparage the precise forms enjoined by God, or, while applying the principle in the department of doctrine, they slight it in the department of government and worship.
But so intimate is the connection between the doctrine, government and worship of the Church, that whatsoever affects the integrity and purity of any one of them, will produce a corresponding modification of the others. And the history of the Church has proved that the abandonment of the principle of adherence to the Divine command in one sphere is sure to produce its relinquishment in others. We are aware that indifference to the prescription of Jehovah is regarded by many as a mark of exemption from besotting prejudice, and as evincing a wider liberality of mind and broader Christian charity. But let us not be deceived. If we believe that our doctrinal beliefs, forms of government and mode and matter of worship are agreeable to and founded upon the Word of God, let us stand by them like men and obey them to the letter.
Ireland
Francis Petticrew, "The Scriptural Principle Regulative of the Worship of God," in Psalm-Singers' Conference (Belfast: Fountain Printing Works, 1903), p. 73. Petticrew (1832-1909) was Professor of Theology in Magee College, Londonderry, Ireland. The title is the closest the author comes to using the phrase.
USA
James Henley Thornwell (See also Thomas E. Peck, Notes on Ecclesiology, 2nd ed. 1992, p. 114). This is not the same usage but exhibits use of the term regulative.
As under the Old Dispensation nothing connected with the worship or discipline of the Church of God was left to the wisdom or discretion of man, but everything was accurately prescribed by the authority of God, so, under the New, no voice is to be heard in the household of faith but the voice of the Son of God. The power of the Church is purely ministerial and declarative. She is only to hold forth the doctrine, enforce the laws, and execute the government which Christ has given her. She is to add nothing of her own to, and to subtract nothing from, what her Lord has established. Discretionary power she does not posses.
Christianity in its living principles and its outward forms is purely a matter of Divine revelation. The great error of the Church in all ages, the fruitful source of her apostasy and crime, has been a presumptuous reliance upon her own understanding. Her own inventions have seduced her from her loyalty to God, and filled her sanctuary with idols and the hearts of her children with vain imaginations. The Bible cuts at the very root of this evil by affording us a perfect and infallible rule of faith and practice. The absolute perfection of the Scriptures as a directory to man was a cardinal principle of the Reformation, and whatever could not be traced to them either directly or by necessary inference was denounced as a human invention — as mere will-worship, which God abhors so deeply that an inspired Apostle has connected it with idolatry or the worshipping of angels. “Argument Against Church-Boards,” Works (Banner of Truth edition, 1974) 4.163-164. Originally published in the Baltimore Literary and Religious Magazine in 1841.
Regulative principles define only ends to be aimed at, or conditions to be observed; constitutive principles determine the concrete forms in which the ends are to be realized. Works, 4.252.
The simple question is, What was the bondage of the Jewish dispensation? Did it consist in the subjection of the people to the Divine will? Was that their grievous and intolerable burden, that they were bound in all things to regulate their worship by the Divine Word? Is God’s authority a yoke so heavy that we sigh until we can throw it off? One would think that it was the great advantage of the Jews, that they knew their worship was acceptable because it was prescribed. Boards and Presbyterianism (originally published in 1861), Works, 4.254.
According to one type, which we characterized as a strictly jure divino theory, God has given us a government as truly as He has given us a doctrine. He has left nothing to human discretion but the circumstantials — the things common to human actions and societies. According to the other, he has ordained government in general, but no one government in particular. He has laid down the laws — the regulative principles — by which a government must be organized; but He has left it to human wisdom to make the organization, by determining the elements and the mode of their combination. Ibid, 4.260.
Without the Word, without the positive appointments of the King, without a constitution made to our hands and adapted to our spiritual needs, we should have succeeded about as well in framing a Church, even with the help of regulative principles, from our spiritual life, as the soul would have succeeded in framing a body for itself. Ibid, 4.262.
Robert Lewis Dabney
“Dr. Girardeau has defended the old usage of our church with a moral courage, loyalty to truth, clearness of reasoning and wealth of learning which should make every true Presbyterian proud of him, whether he adopts his conclusions or not. The framework of his arguments is this: it begins with that vital truth which no Presbyterian can discard without a square desertion of our principles. The man who contests this first premise had better set out at once for Rome: God is to be worshipped only in the ways appointed in his word. Every act of public cultus not positively enjoined by him is thereby forbidden.”
John L. Girardeau
Regular, regulation, regulative used several times in “Instrumental Music.”
“In theology, he was a Sub-lapsarian; in morals, a Puritan; and in government a Presbyterian. To him, every word of the Bible was the infallible word of the living God. Every thing that concerned the faith and practice of the Church was determined by this word of God as interpreted in the light of his regulative principle: ‘A divine warrant is necessary for every thing in the faith and practice of the Church.’ This rule governed him in all of his thinking and in all of his conduct.” The Life and Work of John L. Girardeau, D.D., LL.D. George A. Blackburn, D.D. (Columbia, The State Company, 1916). 371.
“He believed that the Church was a divine institution and not a human organization. Its constitution and powers, its officers and agencies, were all indicated in the Scriptures. He held tenaciously to the principle “Whatsoever is not commanded is forbidden.” He applied it in the realm of doctrine, discipline and worship. It was the only one which would safely protect the conscience, and insure religious liberty for the members of the Church. He always resisted any proposition, policy, or custom which he thought logically infringed this fundamental tenet. With him it was regulative, and all-controlling. He denied that voluntarism which phrased itself, “Whatsoever is not forbidden is permitted.” The Church was a divine organization, with a divine constitution, and all ecclesiastical action must be remorselessly ruled by the proposition that whatsoever is not commanded, either explicitly or implicitly, in Scripture is unlawful and forbidden. The Church has no discretionary power. None in its didactic, in its diacritic, nor in its diatactic spheres. Both its ecclesiology and its practice must be wholly biblical. He had not the least bit of sympathy with voluntarism in any of its forms or applications.” 211.
“He opposed the introduction of instruments of music into the public worship of God’s house. In this he stood with Thornwell, Breckinridge, Dabney, Peck and Adger. He defended this position on the ground that it was violative of the great Protestant principle that whatsoever is not commanded is forbidden. He held that the instruments of music, which were used in the Temple, belonged to its typical and symbolical service, and passed away with all the ceremonial system of Israel. He consistently never had an organ in a church of which he was pastor.” 216.
“It will, no doubt, be said that the attempt to prove the unjustifiable employment of instrumental music in the public worship of the Church is schismatical, since the practice is now well-nigh universal; that it is trivial, inasmuch as it concerns a mere circumstantial in the services of religion; and that it is useless, as the tendency which is resisted is invincible, and is destined to triumph throughout Protestant Christendom. To all this one answer alone is offered, and it is sufficient, namely: that the attempt is grounded in truth. It involves a contest for a mighty and all-comprehending principle, by opposing one of the special forms in which it is now commonly transcended and violated. It is that principle, emphasized in the following remarks as scriptural and regulative, that lends importance to the discussion, and redeems it from the reproach of being narrow and trifling.” John L. Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Worship of the Church (Richmond, Va..:Whittet and Shepperson, Printers, 1001 Main Street. 1888) 6.
All sorts of literature of the middle and late 19th century show it was common to speak of regulating principles and theology was no exception.
The Presbyterian Quarterly. 1892. Volume 6. “The Christo-centric principle of Theology.” “A Universally Regulative Principle. It is not sufficient that it be regulative of a certain section or department of theological truth. It would be easy to show that there are several such regulative principles.”
Title, “The Doctrinal Contents of the Confession: Its Fundamental and Regulative Ideas, and the Necessity and Value of Creeds,” and “The Westminster Symbols Considered in Relation to Current Popular Theology and the Needs of the Future” (as the regulative principle of the whole, so far as it has any regulative principle) ,in Memorial Volume of the Westminster Assembly,1647-1897, (1897), p. 89, 226. Regarding family worship, "To the very suggestive discussions already mentioned we may add certain illustrations of a regulative principle which should govern here. The Biblical World, Volume 25, 423-425.
James Harper
An exposition in the form of question and answer of the Westminster Assembly's Shorter catechism (United Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1905) 221. “Lately Professor of Theology in the Theological Seminary, Xenia, Ohio.”
“The Second Commandment lays down the regulative principle of worship: it forbids idolatry.”
Psalms, Use of the, in Worship.
“1. To worship God otherwise than he has appointed is 'will-worship,' more or less gross. The law regulative of worship is not that we may use both what is commanded and what is not expressly forbidden, but that we must be limited to the use of what is either expressly or implicitly appointed by God (Deut. xii. 32; Matt. sv. 9, xxviii. 20).” Johann Jakob Herzog, A Religious Encyclopaedia: or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, Volume 3(Funk & Wagnalls, 1889) “Psalms, Use of the, in Worship,” 1960.
R. J. George
R. J. George, The Covenanter Vision (New York: Christian Nation Pub. Co., 1917). Refers to “fundamental principle of the Calvinistic reformation,” the principle of worship “That which is not commanded in the worship of God is forbidden.” 185-187.
Robert Stephenson Simpson
Robert Stephenson, Ideas in corporate worship (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1927). New College Chalmers Lecture. Not particularly moored in the historic Presbyterian understanding, though he supposes no one would disagree that all elements of worship must have scriptural support. Simpson does speak of what he believes is “The regulative ideal of worship,” but by this he refers to the idea of “worship as offering.”
James Hastings, Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics: Volume 12 (New York: Scribner’s, 1922) 763.
The phrase is used in an article on Christian worship but not for the Puritan principle.
John Murray, The Sovereignty of God (Philadelphia : Committee on Christian education, The Orthodox Presbyterian church, 1943. Previously published in The Sovereignty of God, ed. J. T. Hoogstra (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1940), 26. Papers presented at the first American Calvinistic Conference of 1939.
It is significant that it is precisely this line of Old Testament witness that is appealed to by our Lord as the answer to the question, “What commandment is the first of all?” “The first...is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord” (Mark 12:29). And the necessary consequence for us is, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength” (Mark 12:30). “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (Matt. 4:10). The pivotal character of the oneness of God appears, for example, in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, when it is made the hinge upon which turns and hangs no less important a doctrine than that of justification by faith. “Or is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith” (Rom. 3:29-31). And again in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the foundation that “to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him” (I Cor. 8:6) is the first principle regulative of worship.
1946, OPC. Report of the Committee on Song in Worship, Minutes of the 13th General Assembly of the OPC, pp. 101–107 (written by John Murray)
There is a principle clearly expressed in our subordinate Standards which has frequently been called, the regulative principle of worship. There is an appropriateness in the word “regulative,” because it is the principle that deals with the question: in what way or ways are we to worship God? What are the elements which constitute the true and acceptable worship of God? How may we know that the way in which we worship God is acceptable to Him?
To be quite concrete and historical, there are at least two well-defined answers to this question in Christian churches. One of these is that of the Romish Church, followed in principle by Lutherans and Episcopalians, namely, that it is proper to worship God in ways not forbidden in the Word. In contrast with this there is another answer, namely, that God may be worshipped only in ways instituted, prescribed or commanded in the Word. The contrast is patent—the one says: what is not forbidden is permitted, the other says: what is not prescribed is forbidden.
It is in relation to this question that the regulative principle is to be understood. It will surely be conceded that it has a right to such a denomination. The following examination of our Standards will show that a regulative principle is clearly enunciated and that it is precisely formulated in answer to the questions stated above.
