This article presents a historical–theological investigation into, and retrieval of, the principle underlying Article 69 of the 1618–1619 church order of the Synod of Dordrecht for the reformation of worship in the Reformed Churches in South Africa (RCSA). Article 69 essentially mandates the singing of Scripture only in corporate worship. The Dordrecht church order was adopted by the RCSA (originally the
The key question to be explored in this article is whether the Reformed Churches in South Africa (RCSA) possesses within her tradition the resources to perpetuate her predominating legacy of singing Scripture only. Did her 2012 General Synod decision
To answer this question, this article provides historic evidence for the scriptural or regulative principle of worship (S/RPW)
Like historic Presbyterians and Lutherans, the Reformed tradition is inherently confessional. This means her identity and practice have been shaped by agreed-upon creedal statements, from Calvin’s
Mostly implicit to the Three Forms and its teaching on worship is the covenant relationship between God and his people. While the term is only mentioned five times (HC 1983: Questions 74, 77, 79), the concept nevertheless emerges organically (Brown
It is beyond the scope of this article to defend at length the claim that the doctrine of covenant substantively undergirds the continental Reformed standards (cf. e.g. Beach
With the covenant of works as the critical and illumining backdrop, the Three Forms also substantively set forth the (less contested) constituent elements of the covenant of grace. Far from setting aside the perfect legal standard, Christ the Mediator fulfils all righteousness, thereby rescuing sinners from divine judgement. In doing so, Jesus acts as the justified second Adam whose perfect obedience is imputed to those guilty in the first Adam, who receive it by faith (BC 1983: art. 17–18, 20, 20–25; CoD
It is in light of God’s choice to relate to man in the context of covenant that worship should be understood. Our same Lord who sets the terms of the covenant is the one who determines how he is to be worshipped. In keeping with the Reformation banner of
In the garden of Eden, God communed with man whom he had created righteous and holy. Man was able to do things agreeable to the will of God. And yet, Adam transgressed the commandment of life that he had received. On account of original sin, Adam and all mankind have been separated from God. They are by nature wicked, perverse and corrupt in all their ways, and thus, unable to know or do God’s will (BC 1983: art. 14–15; CoD
If Adam required the commandment of life to guide his existence and worship in a state of uprightness, how much more does the church depend upon the revelation of God as that institution comprising sinners and saints? How necessary are the directives of God when it comes to the church’s highest yet most abused calling: worship?
As the covenant Lord, it is God’s sovereign prerogative to determine the means by which he makes himself known for his glory and our salvation, which is the holy Word (BC 1983: art. 2). Endued with divine authority, the Word of God serves to
The Heidelberg Catechism also speaks directly to those ways in which God wants his church to be governed, essentially repeating the three marks of a true church (see generally HC 1983: Part 2). Unlike the Belgic Confession, it uses the language of the keys to the kingdom according to the command of Christ (HC 1983: LD 31). Furthermore, the Catechism provides commentary on the first table of the Decalogue, which deals directly with public worship. In the First Commandment, the Lord commands that he alone be worshipped as the one true God. Anything contrary to this, his revealed will, is idolatry (HC 1983: LD 34; cf. Ursinus
Indeed, seeing that what is sung in worship are prayers offered up corporately, the Lord’s Prayer – as the church’s primary pattern – provides helpful insight into what pleases God. Most applicable, in the First Petition the church asks that God’s name be magnified, praised and honoured, and not blasphemed. In the Second Petition, the faithful pray that the Kingdom of Christ would come insofar as the church is governed by God’s Word and Spirit. In the Third Petition, the saints pray to God that his will be done on earth as it is in heaven as men obey his Word. It is worth drawing attention again to the Sixth Petition where it is prayed that God would keep his church from temptation and evil, which burns most fiercely around her loftiest duty: worship (HC 1983: LD 47–49, 52).
In short, to worship God only as he commands is in keeping with the tenor of the covenant relationship where God is the primary actor and his people are those who receive (cf. e.g. HC 1983: LD 25–31). The worship of the church is always in grateful response to the Word of the covenant Lord who commands, keeps those commands in his Son (HC 1983: LD 11–19), confirms his promises (questions 65–66), assures of salvation (question 73), graciously governs by his Spirit (question 76) and covers sin (question 81). This thankful response of those in Christ is by the Word of Christ given in Scripture. God gives what he commands the Christian through the Word and Spirit in the lisping praise of his redeemed people (HC 1983: LD 34–38). It seems reasonable to infer then that what God expects to be sung in corporate worship he gives in his Word, especially considering that worship is man’s highest duty (Ursinus
The movement of the Heidelberg Catechism from guilt under the law to grace received in Christ to free and grateful obedience is the witness of Scripture (HC 1983).
While the minister of the Word and ruling elders, who hold the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (HC 1983: LD 31), are to govern the lives of members of Christ’s church on the basis of the Word, they may not add to or subtract to that revelation for justification or sanctification (BC 1983: art.7). Lest they be guilty of legalistic imposition on the conscience of the believer (BC 1983: art. 32). Hence, while Scripture calls believers to live all of life by faith according to the law unto God’s glory (HC 1983: Question 91), God has not revealed many of the specifics of how that is worked out in communities and institutions beyond the church. Therefore, where the Bible is silent, the church may not bind the conscience of her members but must allow freedom of choice within the confines of the broader precepts of God’s revealed moral law. In matters ranging from building bridges and casting one’s vote to bioethics, the Christian must exercise wisdom derived from the light of nature (BC 1983: art.2; CoD
What is sung in public worship is one concrete and critical example of where the conscience of the worshipper must be safeguarded (cf. BC 1983: art. 7, 32). The minister and elders may dictate the responsive praise of the believer in the divine service with the Word only. Indeed, the ordained minister may preach and pray expositions of the Word of God. This freedom is in keeping with the nature of the special office he fulfils (cf. BC 1983: art. 30–2; HC LD 31). However, lay persons – who hold the general offices of prophet, priest and king (cf. BC 1983: art. 28; HC LD 12) – in responding to God’s Word can have no difficulty of conscience with singing the Word of God only (cf. HC 1983: LD 35). However, to put in the mouths of worshippers the words of men is to bind and force the conscience where it is free, and in the most crucial responsive act of the Christian in a saving covenant relationship with God (cf. BC 1983: art. 7, 32).
The aforementioned confessional section serves as the lens through which to return to Article 69 of the 1618–1619 Synod of Dort concerning what is to be sung in corporate worship. If our church order is the practical application of our confession (
What remains in the sections to follow is to test this thesis by considering principled reasoning behind singing Scripture only in select precursors and successors to the formulation of Article 69 of Dort, and with a specific eye on the South African context.
The Synod of Dort that convened in the Dutch town of Dordrecht during 1618–1619 is best known for its formulation of the Canons of Dort. And, yet, not unrelated to and arguably even more important than this seminal Reformed creedal statement is the church order and the accompanying liturgical order of worship that this church assembly produced. Informed by the grand doctrines of God’s sovereign election, the authority of God’s covenant Word, man’s sinful depravity, the bondage of the human will and redemption in Jesus Christ set forth in the Canons, Article 69 of the church order of Dordrecht essentially mandates the singing of Scripture only.
Was this prescription a unique quirk in the history of the church? Was it motivated by historical circumstances only? Or did it build upon substantive insights of the historic catholic church?
It is beyond the scope of this article to investigate what exactly was sung during corporate worship services in the early New Testament church. It seems safe to assume that Jesus as a Jew at the closing of the Old Testament order sang Psalms only. More contested, no doubt, is the claim that the Apostolic church also only sang the songs found in God’s Word. Central to the thesis of this article is that the evidence in the post-Apostolic church strongly suggests reading the Scriptural witness in this light.
The first few hundred years of the New Testament church gives little evidence of uninspired hymn singing (Oliphant Old
[
By the fourth century, the church began to introduce more readily uninspired hymns, especially among the Gnostics in the East. And, yet, this emergent practice was not without creedal resistance. For example, The Council of Laodicea (363–5), The Council of Chalcedon (451), The Council of Braga (561–3), The Second Council of Nicea (587) and The Fourth Council of Toledo (633), all prohibited the singing of anything but the Biblical text (Bushell
Final explicit patristic support for the singing of Psalms comes from St. Augustine at the dawn of the Middle Ages. In his preface to the 1543 Genevan Psalter, Calvin (
Now what Saint Augustine says is true, that no one is able to sing things worthy of God unless he has received them from him. Wherefore, when we have looked thoroughly everywhere and searched high and low, we shall find no better songs nor more appropriate for the purpose than the Psalms of David, which the Holy Spirit made and spoke through him. And furthermore, when we sing them, we are certain that God puts the words in our mouths, as if he himself were singing in us to exalt his glory. (n.p.)
Two final lines of evidence giving indirect support for the predominant practice of singing Scripture only in the early post-Apostolic church are the absence of musical accompaniment and the observance of the liturgical calendar. Like the general refraining from singing free hymns, the church fathers found no basis in the Word of God for instruments facilitating New Testament corporate worship (Clark
However, the Middle Ages would see these early catholic church practices change. Alongside a more fully entrenched version of Constantinianism and the conflation of law and Gospel, the Medieval Roman Catholic Church progressively encouraged the singing of uninspired hymns accompanied by musical instrumentation (Clark
The second-generation Reformer, John Calvin (1509–1564), is inescapably influential upon the theological formation of the early continental Reformed tradition and what has otherwise since become known as Calvinism. Evidence pertinent to this article is the fact that among those commissioned to draw up the Heidelberg Catechism, Zacharias Ursinus (1534–1583) and Caspar Olevianus (1536–1587) were influenced by Calvin’s theology and practice of worship. In addition to providing counsel to the likes of John Knox (1513–1572) and John Hooper (1495–1555), the Genevan Pastor’s theology of worship would also leave a significant imprint upon the formulation of the Westminster Standards in 1644, especially the penning of the Directory of Public Worship – and not least through the mediating influences of the Heidelberg Catechism and Ursinus’ commentary on the same (Clark
Before considering briefly Calvin’s theology and practice of worship as it pertains to singing, it is significant to note that he considered worship to be the most important part of religion, next to the article of justification by faith alone (Calvin
Building upon and refining the insights of the church fathers, St. Augustine and Martin Luther, Calvin’s burden for the reorganisation of worship in Geneva is evident as early as the 1536 edition of the
While Calvin is arguably well-known for many of his church polity and liturgical reforms away from the medieval Roman Catholic church, although perhaps less for his
As indicated above, as early as 1537 Calvin demonstrated his belief that corporate worship should embody the will of God revealed in Scripture. That this conviction was not an idiosyncrasy of the early Reformer is evidenced throughout his literary output, both in terms of systematic theological treatise and Biblical commentaries. Indicative of the former is Calvin’s contention in the 1559 edition of the
In defending the practice of singing Scripture only on the theological basis of doing what God has commanded, Calvin saw himself as continuing the tradition of the Apostles and the early church. This same tradition has found significant continuity in the later Reformed and Calvinist witness. While the practice may have lagged (Clark
Yet, perhaps the theology behind singing Scripture only is in fact more Calvin’s quirk fuelled by English Puritan novelty read back into the Three Forms of Unity? Is Calvin’s principle of worship or the regulative principle of worship indeed a thoroughgoing category in the continental Reformed tradition? To help further answer this important question, it seems only natural that one examines the theology behind the formulation of Article 69 of the church order at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619).
A brief consideration is now given to three significant Dutch Reformed Synods leading up to the pivotal Synod of Dort in 1618–1619. With the exception of the Remonstrant Provincial Synod of Utrecht, 1612, in all the church orders set forth at the Convent of Wesel (1568), Dort (1574 and 1578), Middelburg (1581) and Gravenhage (1586), the wording is unambiguous to the effect that
By the time of the Synod of Dort in 1618–1619, the streams of patristic, Calvinist and Reformed influence had been pooled in an attempt to heed the Scriptural injunction to worship God only as he commands. A summary of this wisdom can be found in the Three Forms of Unity and the (1618–1619) church order of Dort, all of which had been adopted as the ecclesiastical standards of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands by the closure of this historic Synod (Clark
Like Calvin (cf. Clark
The exact formulation of the article under our consideration is as follows (per De Ridder
In the churches only the 150 Psalms of David, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the 12 Articles of Faith, the Songs of Mary, Zacharias, and Simeon shall be sung. It is left to the option of the churches whether to use or omit the song, ‘O God, who art our Father’. (p. 555)
An uninformed and superficial reading of these words would suggest a revision of the underlying theological principle informing Synodical decisions to sing Psalms or Scripture only to this point. Not only is there a widening of what is permissible to sing from the Bible, but there is also provision for the singing of the 12 Articles of Faith (the Apostles’ Creed) and another non-Scriptural hymn. At least three important observations are in order at this juncture. Firstly, while perhaps difficult for the modern church to appreciate, the Apostles’ Creed at the time of the famous Synod of Dort was still likely deemed to have had quasi-canonical status
While it is indeed true that with time a significant contingency of churches would increasingly sing hymns not found in Scripture, the Calvinist and early Reformed legacy of singing Scripture only would live on in continental Europe and beyond (Clark
The authors are grateful for the feedback they received from individuals at the festival conference held by the Theological School in Potchefstroom from 18 to 20 September 2019.
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this paper.
This article is the outcome of a joint research project to which both authors contributed. S.N.J. wrote the majority of the article and provided the initial conceptual framework. J.C.P. assisted with resources, revisions and formulation of concepts.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or-not-for-profit sectors.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.
‘In the churches only the 150 Psalms and the rhymed versions of the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostolic Confession, and the Hymns of praise of Mary, Zacharias and Simeon shall be sung. The use of other rhymed versions of Bible verses and Scriptural faithful hymns which have been approved by the Synod, is left over to the jurisdiction of each church council [the churches]’ (RCSA
For the purposes of this article, a free hymn is understood to be a song composed and sung that is not a metrical versification of the actual words of Scripture (cf. RCSA
Jordaan (
One reason why the doctrine of covenant is not more explicitly and frequently handled is because of its instructive purposes for children.
Robertson’s (
Earlier classic Reformed theologians defending the doctrine of a covenant of works include Francis Turretin, A.A. Hodge, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck and Louis Berkhof (Beach
‘To worship God truly, is to worship him in the manner which he himself has prescribed in his word… This commandment forbids … every form of will-worship, or such as is false, requiring that we neither regard or worship images and creatures for God, nor represent the true God by an image or figure, nor worship him at or by images, or with any other kind of worship which he himself has not prescribed… Hence all kinds of worship not instituted by God, but by men, as well as those which contain the same reason why they should be prohibited, are forbidden in this precept of the Decalogue’ (Ursinus
The Heidelberg Catechism seeks to follow the example of Paul’s letter to the Romans.
For further evidence of Calvin’s practice of essentially Psalm-singing only, see the Genevan liturgy in Clark (
For secondary sources defending this claim as well as engaging the contemporary discourse, see, for example, Clark (
See also, for example, Calvin’s (
While the preference and practice of Calvin’s Geneva generally prevailed in the continental Reformed churches, not all agreed initially that the regulative principle limits what is sung in corporate worship. At the outset, some of the Reformed churches also produced hymns for singing in church.
With regard to those places in the Westminster Confession that set forth the regulative principle of worship, see WCF (
As an example of the influence of the civil magistrate, see Article 22 of the 1583 ‘Ecclesiastical laws prepared by order of the Magistrates of Holland’ as well as Article 23 of the 1591 ‘Church order designed by certain political and ecclesiastical persons at the Hague’ (De Ridder
The actual report of Session 162 of the Synod, out of which the formulation of the Article 69 was derived, is as follows: ‘In the churches only the 150 Psalms of David, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Twelve Articles of Faith, and the Songs of Mary, Zacharias and Simeon shall be sung. Whether or not to use the hymn, “O God who art our Father,” etc. is left to the freedom of the churches. All other hymns shall be kept out of the churches, and where some have already been introduced, they shall be discontinued by the most appropriate means. Art. 69’ (see De Ridder
‘[T]ill the middle of the 17th century it was the current belief of Roman Catholic and Protestant Christendom that the Apostles’ Creed was ‘