Three Forms vs. Westminster - Fourth Commandment Part 2

A commenter in the previous post made the point that the change from the “Continental” view of the 4^th commandment to the “Puritan” view was simply a development of doctrine, and thus the Puritan view is the Reformed view.  A quick look at my labels of blog posts and you will see how I really detest the idea of Doctrinal Development.  It is a sword often wielded to help shield people from the fact of what they are really saying is “The first 1700 years of the church knew nothing of this, but thankfully we invented it”.  But I shall put that aside a moment and try to continue to show that it is truly two separate traditions or streams within the broader Reformed river.

The challenge has been made to show someone from the 17^th century that held to the Continental View of the Sabbath as expressed in the Second Helvetic Confession or the Heidelberg Catechism.  It is true that in the 17^th century we begin to see in the Netherlands the Nadere Reformation that brings the Puritan thinking into the Netherlands.  One could turn the challenge around and tell others to find someone not related to the Nadere Reformation who supported the Puritan view of the Sabbath, but I shall simply answer their challenge.

Let me start with the Dutch.  Here you had a large group who followed Johannes Cocceius.  Cocceius is a bit of a controversial figure, but nonetheless, he held to a Continental View of the Sabbath as did the vast majority of his followers.  The number of his followers should not be considered small either.  This is a large group of men since he taught at Frankener and Leiden, two major universities.  Now to go to the other end of the spectrum, we can grab Franciscus Gromarus.  Gromarus, most famous for his staunch opposition to Arminius, also held to the Continental view of the Sabbath.    Both of these Dutch Theologians were professors and taught a Continental view of the Sabbath.  

The commenter mentioned the French Reformed were represented at Westminster.  While I am unaware of who would have been there, it should be mentioned that by the time of the Westminster Amyraldianism was everywhere in the French church to the degree that the French church would soon be effectively split from at least the Swiss Reformed Churches.  It should also be noted that just because some French Reformed were there does not mean they agreed.  Earlier in the 17th century men like Antoine de la Faye, head pastor at Geneva, held to a Continental view.  

It is hard to find a lot of German 17^th century people writing on the Sabbath, so it is hard one way or another to say for sure on many of them.  But David Pareus would be a Continental view pastor.  He died in Heidelberg where his career began, but also pastored in a few other places in Germany.  Johann Alsted taught at the University of Heborn and held to a Continental view.  It is more than likely that the majority of German Reformed churches held to the Continental view.  However, the German Reformed were busy fighting for their right to be reformed for a full third of the century while those in England did little to help the cause.  Thus, they were much more free to write and debate the new doctrine advocated by Bound (the Puritan view of the Sabbath).  

Lest we forget too much that many in England held a Continental view of the Sabbath or at least a non-Westminster view.  Archbishop Whitgift and Laud and Bishop Thomas Morton all appeared to have supported King James’s Book of Sports.  And James was raised a Scottish Presbyterian himself.  It is wrong to look back on the 17^th Century England and assume that everyone agreed with the Westminster view of the 4^th Commandment.  It was highly debated until the debate was settled when they cut off King Charles’s head.  

Let us also note that the idea that there is really only one position on the Sabbath is completely new.  Just listen to Herman Hoeksema.  "One cannot fail to observe a different conception of the sabbath in this Westminster Confession from that of the Second Helvetic".  He states one cannot fail.  It should be impossible to think they are the same.  

Hopefully this brief summary shows that there were plenty of 17th century who held to a Continental view.  And that Reformed theologians on both sides of the debate for literally centuries have agreed there were two different views on the Fourth Commandment.

WCF vs. Three Forms - Fourth Commandment Part 1

I guess what everyone is waiting on in this Three Forms vs. Westminster is the difference with regards to the Sabbath or the Fourth Commandment.  It is the most recognized difference, although many people believe that there is really not a big difference.  Dr. Clark argues that there might be some difference, but fundamentally the Westminster and the Heidelberg are the same and thus the idea of a “Continental” and a “Westminster” or “Puritan” view of the Sabbath is wrong. 

So, I should begin by arguing that there is indeed a “Continental” view of the Sabbath and it finds expression in the Heidelberg Catechism Question 103. 

“In the first place, God wills that the ministry of the Gospel and schools be maintained, and that I, especially on the day of rest, diligently attend church to learn the Word of God, to use the Holy Sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian alms.  In the second place, that all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, allow the Lord to work in me by His Spirit, and thus begin in this life the everlasting Sabbath.” 

And now the Westminster 21.7

“As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the worlds, as the Christian Sabbath.” 

And Westminster Larger Catechism #116

“The fourth commandment requireth of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his word, expressly one whole day in seven; which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the Christian Sabbath, and in the New Testament called The Lord’s Day.” 

Dr. Clark (and others I am just using his blog because it isthe best), argue that there is a Reformed view of the Sabbath and it states a one day in seven pattern, grounded in creation, continues in the NT, and changed with the resurrection of Jesus from the last day to the first day. 

The question is do you see those things in both the Heidelberg and the Westminster?  Clark points to lectures given by Ursinus that explain the perpetual part of the commandment being the worship of God.  However, in his commentary he seems to indicate that the Sabbath day was a sign and sacrament of the OT that is done away with.  He describes the moral and perpetural nature of the 4^th Commandment as “a careful shunning of sin, and a worship of God by confession and obedience” (pg.992).  He also calls it a “spiritual Sabbath” and contrasts that with the ceremonial portion or the “external Sabbath”.  He divides that “external sabbath” into the immediate and mediate.  The immediate was the Old Testament Sabbath of worshipping on Saturday, and it is fulfilled and gone.  The mediate is the New testament.  He describes it, “the old was restricted to the seventh day: its observance was necessary and constituted the worship of God.  The new depends upon the decision and appointment of the church, which for certain reasons has made the choice of the first day of the week, which is to be observed for the sake of order, and not from any idea of necessity, as if this and no other were to be observed by the church” (pg.994).  Perhaps it should be added that this internal-external division is not new as it can be seen in places like the Large Emden Catechism of John A’Lasko. 

Now does that sound like what is written in the Westminster?  I think the answer is no.  The Westminster is saying that the day remains a necessity and was changed by the resurrection of Jesus Christ into the first day.  The Heidelberg says nothing about a specific day.  In fact, we now have seen that the idea of a specific day was rejected by at least one of the authors of the Catechism. 

Just to show that the Heidelberg is not alone take a look at the Second Helvetic Confession of Henry Bullinger.  The Second Helvetic was given to the Elector Frederick III to use in his defense at the Diet of Augsburg in 1566, so it has some connection to Heidelberg.  Chapter 24 of Holy Days, Fasts, and Choice Meats:

“Every church, therefore, chooses unto itself a certain time for public prayers and for preaching of the gospel . . . .  Yet herein we give no place unto the Jewish observation of the day or to any superstitions.  For we do not account one day to be holier than another, nor think that mere rest is of itself liked of God.  Besides we do celebrate and keep the Lord’s Day, and not the Sabbath, and that with a free observation.” 

Bullinger here draws a line of separation between the Lord’s Day and the Sabbath.  They are distinct not one changing into the other as the Westminster puts it.  And the Heidelberg does not use the title Lord’s Day at all.  The Heidelberg Catechism does not speak of one day in seven.  The Heidelberg does not speak of Sunday at all.  The Heidelberg does not speak of rest from labor at all, only resting from evil works or sin, which seems to put it more in line with the Second Helvetic thinking that rest from work is not part of the commandment for us today.  Or at least not a necessary part.  Westminster Larger Catechism 117 states specifically that rest is not just from sinful work, but from all work and even recreation and Westminster 21.8 expands that to thoughts and words about regular work and worldly employment. 

It seems to me then that a clear “Continental tradition” and “Puritan Tradition” can be seen.  It is difficult to see the principles of agreement named by Dr. Clark that would unify these different understandings of the 4^th Commandment.  Exactly how the disagreement plays out will be the subject of the next post.      

3FU vs. WCF Worship

                Let me start by simply saying I believe both documents teach the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW).  For those who may be unfamiliar with the RPW it simply states that whatever is not commanded in worship is thus forbidden.  It has some important caveats: 1. You are to use good and necessary consequences and 2. This applies to elements of worship, not circumstances of worship.  An element would be an essential part while circumstances are simply the accidents of those essential parts such as what time worship meets?  What time is not essential, but does have to be answered.  If one is having worship, then it happens at a time; thus, it is an accident of worship.  Other examples include such things as chairs or pews, or whether you stand or sit or kneel for prayer.  Prayer is the element, the body position then has to be answered, but is merely a circumstance of prayer.  Again both documents seems to agree on this point, so let us dive into the differences.

                The Westminster lays out the elements of worship in Chapter 21.  Specifically prayer is discussed as part of religious worship in 21.3, and then reading and hearing Scripture, preaching, administration of the sacraments, and singing psalms are listed in 21.5 as the other elements of worship.  Special things can be added apparently such as oaths and vows, solemn fasting, and thanksgiving.  So we have a regular list of worship elements found in this chapter of the WCF.  The Larger Catechism Q108 also provides a list: prayer and thanksgiving, reading of the word, preaching of the word, hearing of the word, administering and receiving the sacraments, church government and discipline, ministry and its maintenance, fasting, swearing by God’s name, and vowing to Him.  The main addition here seems to be the gathering in of the offering as an acceptable part of worship and performing discipline allowing for sentences passed to be read in worship.  Interestingly enough however WLC 108 does not mention singing by name nor does it mention psalms.   

                The best list found in the Three Forms of Unity comes from the Heidelberg Catechism Q.103.  Here the Catechism lists learning the Word of God, use the holy sacraments, call publicly upon the Lord, and give Christian alms.  This list is much shorter and much broader than the specific list of the Westminster.  Clearly we can agree that learning the word of God means preaching and reading it.  The interesting section is “call publicly upon the Lord”.  What is included here?  Singing is not in the list, nor is prayer, nor confession of faith?  Can one rightly assume they all belong under this heading?  Ursinus in his commentary includes “confession, thanksgiving, and prayer” which is done corporately and publicly (pg. 1005).  Otto Thelemann includes prayer and singing (pg.505) in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.  It seems then we can include all of those in this section.

                The question becomes does it make a difference?  Does the stricter, longer list of the Westminster differ at all from the Heidelberg’s list?  I think it does.  If the element is call publicly upon the Lord, rather than prayer or singing, then it does change things.  If the element is calling upon the Lord, then the circumstance of how I do that is more flexible.  I can call publicly upon the Lord through confessing the Apostles’ Creed together, by taking vows, or by singing.  In fact, my prayer could very well be sung.  It is simply a circumstance of how I pray.  And it is very traditional for churches to sing the Lord’s Prayer.  That does not make it no longer a prayer, it is now just a prayer that I sing.  The manner of my prayer, or my calling upon the Lord, is simply a circumstance.  Instead the Westminster Confession indicates singing is to be done with the psalms.  Singing is a separate element from prayer.  Thus, it is reasonable to conclude from WCF 21 that singing cannot be done as a prayer unless it is a prayer found in the Psalms.  After all it specifically states, singing psalms.  The Lord’s Prayer is not a psalm.  Not surprisingly we can see this difference play out in history as Continental Reformed Churches much more often sang hymns than the Puritan and Scottish Presbyterians. 

                Another little wrinkle is confessing faith in the Westminster service.  I have been in Westminster churches that use the Apostles’ Creed and even the Westminster in their service.  But where does this fit into the list given in WCF 21?  If it is not a section of scripture, is it considered allowable?  I am sure there is a defense out there, but the easy to see category is not readily apparent.  It is my understanding that post-Westminster Assembly Scottish churches stopped using the Apostles’ Creed in worship as did those churches in England and New England who followed it. 

                So I think then that the Westminster is far stricter on what is and what is not an element of worship, and seems to have a different understanding of the role of singing in church than does the Heidelberg.  The Heidelberg avoids the difficulties of exclusive psalmody completely through its different take on singing and elements in worship.  The Westminster's stricter categories also seem to create problems with such activities as confessing faith using something other than Scripture.  Perhaps it is time we start coming the realization that the Regulative Principle can be agreed upon, but there is vast difference on how to apply this Regulative Principle even within the Reformed Tradition.