The Regulative Principle: Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)

Ich wünsche euch ‘nen schönen Abend! I wish you a pleasant evening!

Today we are exploring what the Swiss reformer Heinrich or Henry Bullinger (1504-1575) had to say about the regulative principle of worship and church-government. I apologize that this lesson has not come to you more promptly; I have been dealing with certain issues of a personal nature these last few weeks. Lord willing, though, subsequent posts will come closer on the heels of one another.

Overview

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)

First, some background about Bullinger. Everyone, I expect, has heard of Calvin, but Bullinger’s story is a little more obscure to most Reformed Christians in America. Bullinger was born on 18 July 1504 in the Swiss city Bremgarten, as the fifth son of a priest. Now, his may surprise you, if you’ll remember that since the First Lateran Council of 1123, the Roman Catholic Church had forbidden its priests from marriage. However, in Bullinger’s day, the bishop of Konstanz, Germany (who had oversight of Bremgarten), was, off the books, allowing clergy in his district to have concubines in exchange for an annual fee. Bullinger was born to a concubine kept by his priest father.

Two years after Luther nailed his 95 Theses Bullinger began education at the University of Köln at the age of 15, in preparation to entering the Carthusian monastic order. There he began reading the Early Church Fathers and Luther’s writings and compared them to the Scriptures. Feeling convicted that the Roman Church was in error, he gave up his previous life goal to become a monk and started teaching and ministering in Kappel, Switzerland.

By 1527, Bullinger was in regular friendly contact with Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531), the great Reformer of Zurich, and he was well liked by Zurich’s civil authorities. So when Zwingli died in the Battle of Kappel in 1531, Zurich offered Bullinger the pastorate of the city. [1] Bullinger accepted their call to pastor and remained at Zurich for the rest of his life, writing many influential works that were widely disseminated throughout the Protestant world.

Three of his most significant works on systematic theology were Five Decades of Sermons (1552), Common Places of Christian Religion (1556), and the Latter Swiss Confession (1562).

Five Decades of Sermons (1552)

Title Page to the 1552 omnibus
Latin edition of Five Decades
of Sermons by Heinrich
Bullinger (1504-1575)

Among these, the Five Decades of Sermons (Sermonum decades quinque) is almost certainly the best known, and had the greatest influence on the contemporary Reformed world. The first volume of the Decades was published in Latin in 1549, and the last was published in 1552. [2] It was very quickly translated into multiple languages, including German (1558) [3], Dutch (1563) [4], French (1565) [5], and English (1587) [6]. Unlike Common Places and the Latter Swiss Confession, the Decades is a very pastoral work, because it is a collection of sermons that were put together for ministers to use for the edification of common people. In fact, the German and Dutch translations were known as “housebooks.” A housebook was more or less the late medieval equivalent of Encyclopedia Britannica. In other words, the German and Dutch translations were intended to be used as home reference books on theology.

The first Decade of the book deals with very basic subjects, such as the Word of God, justification by faith, the Apostles’ Creed, and the general duties of God’s Law. In the second Decade, and the beginning of the third, Bullinger details those duties by explaining the Ten Commandments. The remainder of the third Decade explains the ceremonial and judicial laws of the Old Testament, Christian liberty, and sin. In the fourth Decade, Bullinger teaches the Gospel, the knowledge of God, Christ’s offices as prophet and priest and king, the role of the Holy Ghost, and the nature of man. Lastly, in the fifth Decade, we find the subjects of the Church, prayer, and the Sacraments.

In the Fifth Decade, in the Tenth Sermon, “Of Certain Institutions of the Church of God,” Bullinger ponders the question of which institutions the Church is allowed to enforce. He writes,

First of all, we must know that the Lord our God hath not burdened his church with over many laws and institutions; but hath set down a few easily to be numbered, and those not costly, nor intricate, nor long, but profitable, simple, plain, and short. In time past, when as under the law the Lord appointed unto the people a costly and sumptuous worshipping of him, notwithstanding all things therein were certain, numerable, and moderate; neither would he have anything added to, or taken from it, at the pleasure of men, or to be otherwise used than he had appointed. Who then will think that, after the abrogating of the law, the Lord would deliver unto the church of his new people a sumptuous and an infinite discipline? Wherefore it is partly the covetousness of the pastors and estates of the church, and partly the monstrous superstition of the common people, that hath made everything so sumptuous and infinite in the church. Let us stick unto this, that the Lord our God hath instituted in his church but very few things, and such as are necessary; and therefore we ought all to endeavour, that the church be not over-burdened with traditions and institutions which proceeded not from God himself. The church of God is gorgeously enough decked and furnished, if she retain and keep the institutions of her God and Lord. [7]

Although he not as precise as the Belgic and Westminster confessions, without a doubt Bullinger is expressing the regulative principle of worship and church-government, or something very close to it. The worship of the Old Testament, he says, was complicated and obscure, whereas the worship of the New Testament should be simple and plain. It should not be burdened with a multitude of vain ceremonies. In this particular paragraph, Bullinger doesn’t clearly forbid all man-made traditions and institutions, but he does argue that they should be kept to a minimum. If we doubt, however, and begin to think that maybe Bullinger allowed for some man-made practices, we should keep the concluding words of the sermon in mind:

These [things that I have discussed] be the necessary institutions of the church of God, and are by the faithful religiously observed without superstition, to edification: as for other matters which are devised by the invention of man, the godly nothing weigh them… Unto [Roman Catholic rites and ceremonies], moreover, is wickedly ascribed either the preparation to the grace and worshipping of God; or part of our salvation; that we may say no less at this day than St Paul said long ago: ‘After that you have known God, how chanceth it that ye return again to the weak and beggarly elements, which you would begin to serve anew? Ye observe days and months, times and years. I am afeard lest I have taken pains about you in vain.’ Unto all these things this is to be added, that this instruction of ceremonies, whereof they speak, belongeth to the worshipping of God; but we are forbidden to devise unto ourselves any strange worshipping: we are forbidden also to put or to take away anything from the institution or word of God. Wherefore the church of God neither ordaineth nor receiveth of any other such constitutions. [8]

Bullinger defends his statements against making extra ceremonies in the New Testament Church by arguing that we are forbidden to add or subtract from the institutions of Christian worship. Therefore, we must conclude that Bullinger is teaching the regulative principle. Now, Bullinger doesn’t talk in the Decades about the exception that we must make for circumstance-ordinances, but that isn’t something that we need to be insecure about. We have to remember that Bullinger was an early Reformer, and while he was very talented pastorally, he was oftentimes not as precise as other ministers of that time frame . The important thing is that we can clearly identify the regulative principle in his writings.

To summarize the remainder of the sermon, Bullinger goes on to outline the main parts of public worship on the basis of Acts 2:42, namely the preaching of the Word, prayer, the Sacraments, and alms-giving. [9] He then defends to the right of the Church to maintain seminaries, to collect tithes and alms for the poor, to retain certain furniture in places of worship (such as the pulpit, the baptismal font, and church bells), and to exercise church discipline. He also spends a great deal of time denouncing the practice of monastaries and nunneries.

Common Places of Christian Religion (1556)

Title Page to the 1556 German
edition of Common Places of
Christian Religion by Heinrich
Bullinger (1504-1575)

But continuing down the road of Bullinger’s works, we come to Common Places of Christian Religion (Summa Christenlicher Religion). Bullinger wrote the original text in German in 1556, [10] and the same year it was translated into Latin by an anonymous Zurich minister [11] and into French by François Jaquy [12]. A Dutch translation was published in 1562. [13] An English translation did not appear until 1572. [14]

Whereas the Decades are a very pastoral book of sermons, Common Places was written more for the purpose of putting forward a formal argument. Perhaps because of this, Common Places doesn’t get down into the nitty gritties of which practices follow or don’t follow the regulative principle. Bullinger is mostly interested in giving an overall recap of all the major points that the Reformation had against Roman Catholicism.

In Book One, “Concerning the sacred Biblical scripture,” Bullinger begins with an explanation of what the Scriptures are, and how they completely and perfectly teach everything necessary for Christian piety. At that point, in Chapter 8, he tells us that “every issue of religion [is] to be confirmed and decided from no other source outside of the sacred Biblical literature.” He elaborates:

Since indeed the sacred Biblical letters fully and openly teach all piety, and no religion is approved by God besides that which He himself has instituted and which He has by the testimony of His Word approved and confirmed: from all this we easily infer that disputes and disagreements, if they come about over religion, are to be organized and judged from no other place than the Word of God, which is contained in the sacred letters of the Bible. For the Scriptures alone teach what is approved or disapproved by God, what is true or false religion, what is to be believed or not to be believed, what ought to be done or what ought to be omitted from doing.

Ancient priests and princes and every people—whensoever they were managing things justly—all of them have always settled controversies by the Word of God. The examples of the most renowned kings pay witness to this: Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, most especially Josiah, and Jeremiah as well. For the most part, the Lord Christ confirms his judgment by the Scriptures, and refutes adversaries by the same, and also the Sadducees. ‘Ye err,’ he says, ‘not knowing the Scriptures.’ His disciples follow the example of the Lord; they all, as well as the Spirit, give commandment to prove everything by the Scriptures. The Ancient Christian Fathers, as well, used no other canon or standard than the sacred letters. It was these Scriptures which Emperor Constantine set forth to all the bishops in the Nicene Council, and from these Scriptures that he commanded them to cast judgment about the divinity of Christ, which Arius called into doubt, and to decide the remaining controversies. [15]

Now, at this point, some of you in my readership might be confused about why this is evidence of a regulative principle of worship and church-government. Bullinger refers to “piety” and “religion” and yet he goes on to refer to kings and emperors who governed according to the Word of God. Here, we should remember that the Reformation in Zurich (where Bullinger took up Zwingli’s torch) took a slightly different course than it did in cities influenced by Calvin’s writings. Namely, Zwingli and Bullinger were Classical Erastians, whereas Calvin and those whom he influenced were Establishmentarian. [16] In Calvinist cities Reformed pastors were distinguishing between church government and civil government, and between church discipline and civil penalties. But in Zwinglian cities like Zurich the opinion developed that, in Christian lands, church discipline became the job of the State and the State alone. So a discussion of how Christian civil rulers ought to decide religious issues is exactly what we might expect to find in any passage where Bullinger is talking about the regulative principle of worship and church-government.

Just as we saw in his Decades, in Common Places Bullinger firmly states that all that is necessary for piety and religion is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and therefore nothing should be believed or practiced in the Church that is not contained in those Scriptures.

In case we are still skeptical whether this is the regulative principle of the Belgic and Westminster confessions, it will be clear when we read further that Bullinger means to exclude from doctrine and worship everything that is not found in the Bible. Later, in Chapter 10, he elaborates on that point by teaching against the Roman Catholic Church’s so-called “apostolic traditions”:

Many pious and not wicked men are led away from the plain and most honest way of the Divine Word, and the authority of the Scriptures is much diminished among them through great sermons and writings of certain teachers of men, by whom Traditions are in called divine, Christian, and Apostolic; as if they were from the Apostles, indeed not attested by written ordinances, but delivered by a living voice and having been, on the whole, in accord with the sacred ordinances. However, they try at length to evince and prove this dubious and weak claim by weaker reason, for I do not know which epistles of Antherus, Anacletus, Telesphorus, Soterus, Eleutherus and others they draw out in place of evidence. Yet Paul abandons this “as-if-written” exception by the words: ‘We ask you brothers, that ye be not removed in your opinion, neither by a spirit, nor by oratory, nor by a letter of which we seem to be authors.’ And elsewhere: ‘See ye that there be no one who plunder you through philosophy and vain deceit, through the Traditions of men, and through the ordinances of the world, not from Christ.’ Through this admonition, so manifest, any Christian sufficiently instructed will avoid traditions. [17]

With this last statement, “Christians will avoid traditions,” we should understand that Bullinger isn’t talking about ordinary traditions. He isn’t talking about, let’s say, a tradition that everybody in the church brings a dish for a potluck on the first Sunday of the month. Bullinger is talking about oral traditions that people claim have been passed down from the Apostles themselves, oral traditions that are supposedly of equal authority with the Scriptures. This kind of tradition, says Bullinger, is out of the question. Only the Bible must be our guide for the Christian life, and particularly for the “sacred ordinances” of worship and church-government.

Latter Swiss Confession (1562)

Lastly, let us consider Bullinger’s Latter Swiss Confession (Confessio Helvetica posterior), more commonly known as the Second Helvetic Confession. [18]

Map of the Swiss Confederation, 1481 to 1513.
Source: Ward, Prothero, and Leathes, The Cambridge
Modern History Atlas (New York, NY: The Macmillan
Company, 1912)

The Former Swiss Confession (a.k.a. the Latter Confession of Basle [Switzerland]) had been written in 1536, with Bullinger as a co-author, as part of an effort by the Swiss and southwestern German Reformed to unite with the Lutherans of eastern Germany against the Roman Catholics. Because most of the Lutherans eventually shunned the Swiss Reformed as heretics in spite of this effort at compromise, and because the articles of faith described in the Former Confession were not very detailed, many of the Swiss, including Bullinger himself, grew dissatisfied with its statements.

In the later years of his life, in 1562, Bullinger privately wrote out his own confession of faith, and when Elector Friedrich III. of the German Palatinate learned of its existence in 1565 (the same Friedrich III. who ordered the writing of the Heidelberg Catechism), he promptly had it translated into German and, at the Imperial Diet at Augsburg the following year, announced it as the German Palatinate’s official confession of faith. Meanwhile, the Calvinists of western Switzerland were seeking greater unity with the Zwinglians of north-central Switzerland, and after publication of Bullinger’s confession in Zurich in 1566, it was generally decided that it would become the new standard throughout all the Swiss Reformed churches. So it was called the Latter Swiss Confession in distinction from the Former Confession of 1536.

Much of what Bullinger has to say in the Latter Swiss Confession is a condensed version of what he wrote in Common Places. We see this if we compare what was earlier quoted from Common Places to Chapters 1 and 2 of the Confession:

SCRIPTURE TEACHES FULLY ALL GODLINESS. We judge, therefore, that from these Scriptures are to be derived true wisdom and godliness, the reformation and government of churches; as also instruction in all duties of piety; and, to be short, the confirmation of doctrines, and the rejection of all errors, moreover, all exhortations according to that word of the apostle, ‘All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof,’ etc. (II Timothy 3:16-17). Again, ‘I am writing these instructions to you,’ says the apostle to Timothy, ‘So that you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God,’ etc. (I Timothy 3:14-15). [Chapter 1]

COUNCILS. And in the same order [as the Early Church Fathers, i.e. subordinate to the Scriptures] also we place the decrees and canons of councils. Wherefore we do not permit ourselves, in controversies about religion or matters of faith, to urge our case with only the opinions of the fathers or decrees of councils; much less by received customs, or by the large number of those who share the same opinion, or by the prescription of a long time. Who Is The Judge? Therefore, we do not admit any other judge than God himself, who proclaims by the Holy Scriptures what is true, what is false, what is to be followed, or what to be avoided. So we do assent to the judgments of spiritual men which are drawn from the Word of God. Certainly Jeremiah and other prophets vehemently condemned the assemblies of priests which were set up against the law of God; and diligently admonished us that we should not listen to the fathers, or tread in their path who, walking in their own inventions, swerved from the law of God. [Chapter 2] [19]

Again, we don’t find details about circumstance-ordinances in Bullinger’s writings, nor clarifications about issues of decency and order. However, we do see the basic outline of the regulative principle. Scripture, and Scripture alone, tells us what how our piety (worship) and church-government should be practiced, not the opinions and commandments of men.

Conclusion

On the whole, we can see from Bullinger’s writings in the Decades, in Common Places, and in the Latter Swiss Confession, that this early Swiss reformer had the basic idea of the more mature doctrine of the regulative principle that would later blossom under Calvin and flourish under the Puritans. The idea is not fully formed in Bullinger, because we don’t see a discussion of circumstances or ordinances of worship or church-government, and we don’t see a painstaking analysis of every bit and byte of God’s commandment to the Church. (As we will see in more detail in a later series, Bullinger was not scrupulous enough to abolish the celebration of Easter, as he ought to have.) But nevertheless, Bullinger stands as an important landmark in the history of the Reformed regulative principle.

Do you find yourself dissatisfied with simple worship, and do you want to “liven it up” with human inventions that excite you, or give it pomp and splendor through human inventions that make you feel proud and majestic? Does your opinion about how we should worship rest on what Calvin taught, or what Cornelius van Til said, so that you trust these men before you have even studied the Word for yourself? Our worship should be alive in the Spirit and filled with a sense of the majesty of God, and we should draw from the learning of godly and educated ministers like Calvin and van Til as we study different questions about worship and church-government. But as Bullinger reminds us today, if we place the doctrines of men above the Scriptures, we are in error.

Pass auf euch auf! Seid vorsichtig bei euren Seelen! Watch out for yourselves! Be careful for your souls!

---NOTES---

[1] In those days, before presbyterial church-government had become a well-defined teaching of the Reformed churches, some reforming cities (e.g. Zurich, Basle, Schaffhausen) had an office known as antistes (Latin for “one who stands in front of another as a cover”), which was more or less a Reformed bishop who was chief pastor over all the congregational pastors in the city.

[2] Heinrychus Bullingerus, Sermonum decades quinque (Zurich: Christophorus Froschoverus, 1552). For simplicity’s sake, I am citing a combined edition of the Decades that contains all five volumes. It can be accessed for free here: http://www.e-rara.ch/zuz/content/titleinfo/781554

[3] Heinrych Bullinger, Hausbuch, trans. by Johansen Hallern (Bern: Samuel Apiario, 1558). It can be accessed for free here: http://www.e-rara.ch/zuz/content/titleinfo/1314673

[4] Heinrych Bullinger, Huysboec, trans. by Johannes Dyrkinus (Emden: Gillis van der Erven,1563). As of the writing of this post, I have been unable to locate a free online copy of the original Nederlands translation.

[5] Henry Bulinger, Cinq decades, trans. by Unknown (Geneva: Thomas Courteau, 1565). Although there was a 1564 edition published out of Geneva by Michel Blanchier, I am citing Courteau’s 1565 edition because it exists in a more intact state for the online community. The 1565 may be accessed for free here: http://books.google.com/books?id=NV1BAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[6] Henrie Bullinger, Fiftie godly and learned sermons, divided into five decades, trans. by H. I. (London: Ralph Newberie, 1587). It may be accessed for free here: https://archive.org/details/fiftiegodlielear00bull

[7] Henry Bullinger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, trans. by H. I., ed. by Thomas Harding (Cambridge: University Press, 1852), 478-9. I am giving the reprint here because it is easier to read. It may be accessed for free here: http://books.google.com/books?id=MP4QAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage#v=onepage&q&f=false

[8] Ibid., 534-6.

[9] These are also the same parts of worship identified by John Calvin in his Institute of the Christian Religion IV.xvii.44. As a pro-Puritan blog, Achtung-Puritaner! takes issue with including alms-giving in the public worship and leaving out the singing of psalms, but I think that what Bullinger has to say on this point is interesting, from an historical standpoint.

[10] Heinrych Bullinger, Summa Christenlicher Religion (Zurich: Christoffel Froschouer, 1556). It can be accessed for free here: http://books.google.com/books/about/Summa_Christlicher_Religion_etc.html?id=icVZAAAAcAAJ

[11] Heinrychus Bullingerus, Compendium christianae religionis, trans. by Anonymous (Zurich: Christophorus Froschoverus, 1556). It may be read here: http://www.e-rara.ch/zuz/content/titleinfo/970033. Note that the name Tiguri on the title page is a Latin name for Zurich, the place of publication.

[12] Henry Bullingere, Résolution de tous les poincts de la religion chrestienne, trans. by  François Jaquy (Geneva: Jean Crespin, 1556). The 1558 edition can be accessed here: http://www.e-rara.ch/doi/10.3931/e-rara-2543

[13] Heinrych Bullinger. Somma des Christelicken religions, trans. by G. Gnapheus (Steenwijk: H. 't Zangers, 1567). I am citing the earliest publication of the translation that is currently extant. There was an edition published out of Emden in 1562 of which no copies have survived. Presently, I cannot locate any free copies of the 1567 Steenwijk edition online.

[14] Henry Bullinger. Common places of Christian religion, trans. by John Stockwood (London: Tho. East and H. Middleton, 1572). I know of no place online where this can be accessed for free.

[15] Bullinger, Compendium christianae religionis, Folios 14-15. The text I have quoted is my own translation of the 1556 edition. The Latin original reads:

Quoniam uero ſacræ Biblicæ literæ omnem pietatem plene & aperte tradunt, ac nulla religio Deo probatur, præter illam quam ipſe inſtituit & teſtimonio uerbi ſui approbauit & confirmauit: facile hinc colligimus controverſias, & diẞidia, ſi qua in religione exoriantur, non aliunde quam uerbo Dei, quod ſacris Bibliorum literis continetur, componenda et dijudicanda eſſe. Nam ſcripuræ ſolæ tradunt quid Deo probetur aut improbetur, quæ ſit uera aut falſa religio, quid credendum aut non credendum, quid agendum aut omittendum ſit.

Priſci ſacerdotes & principes & omnis populus, cum iuſte res adminiſtrarĕt, omnes ſemper controuerſias verbo Dei dijudicarunt. Teſtantur hoc exempla clariẞimorum regŭ, Ioſaphati, Ezechiæ, præſertim uero Ioſiæ, & Ieremiæ etiam. Chriſtus Dominus ſententiam ſuam plerunq₃ ſcripturis confirmat, et iiſdem aduerſarios refutat, ac Sudducæis, Erratis inquit neſcientes ſcripturas. Exemplum domini ſequuntur eius diſcipuli, qui omnia, etiam ſpiritus, ſcripturis probari iubent. Veteres quoque Chriſtiani non alio canone aut norma quam ſacris literis uſi ſunt. Has in Niceno Concilio D. Conſtantinus imperator omnibus epiſcopis proponit, & ex his de Chriſti divinitate, quam Arrius in dubium vocabat, ſententiam ferre, & reliquas controuerſias iudicare iubet.

[16] By “Establishmentarian,” I mean the doctrine that the civil government ought to financially subsidize and physically defend orthodox Reformed Christianity. Today, Presbyterian and Reformed people of little learning refer to any situation in which the State regulates religion as “Erastianism.” This comes, I think, from a related myth conjured up by so-called Two Kingdoms theologians that the Calvinist separation of church government and civil government was an absolute separation that the Reformers simply weren’t consistent about in practice. However, real Erastianism—the Classical Erastianism of Huldrych Zwingli and Heinrich Bullinger and Thomas Erastus himself and John Lightfoot—was only the belief that the civil magistrate, and not the Church, had exclusive right to punish sins, and that the Church therefore could not excommunicate anybody. And the real Two Kingdoms,—the Two Kingdoms of John Calvin and Francis Turretin and George Gillespie—the Two Kingdoms that was part and parcel of Establishmentarianism—taught that Church and State were separated in terms of their objectives and means, but not in terms of their substances. The civil government used threat of violence or promise of earthly reward to produce decent citizens and establish equity and justice, and the church government used censures and excommunications to win back heretics and backsliders, but both were invested with the power to discipline the same kinds of sins. At no point were the Two Kingdoms ever intended to imply that civil government could only punish earthly crimes and church government could only punish spiritual infractions.

[17] Ibid., Folio 16. Again, what is quoted is my translation. The Latin reads:

Complures pij et nō malitioſi homines a plana & rectiẞima diuini uerbi uia abducuntur, & ſcripturarum auctoritas multum apud illos imminuitur magnificis doctorum quorundam homini ſermonibus et ſcriptis, quibus Traditiones, diuinæ, Chriſtianæ & Apoſtolicæ nominantur perinde ac ſi eſſent ab Apoſtolis, non quidem literis conſignatæ, ſed uiua uoca traditæ, & in uniuerſum ſacris literis conſentaneæ eſſent. Hanc uero cauſam dubiam & infirmā, longe infirmioribus rationibus euincere & probare conantur, nam neſcio quas epiſtolas Antheri, Anacleti, Teleſphori, Soteris, Eleutheri & aliorum teſtimonij loco adducunt. Cum tamen Paulus hanc quaſi cautionem ſcriptam ijs uerbis reliquerit: Rogamus uos fratres, ne de ſententia dimoueamini, nec ſpiritu, nec oratione, nec epiſtola, cuius nos auctores eſſe videamur. Et alibi: Videte ne quis ſit qui uso philoſophia fallaciaq₃, uana prædetur, ex hominum Traditionibus, & mundi decretis, non ex Chriſto. Hac admonitione tam manifeſta quiuis Chriſtianus ſatis inſtructus traditiones uitabit.

[18] “Latter Swiss Confession” is the proper English translation of the original Latin title, “Confessio Helvetica posterior.” Much as how the entire nation that calls itself Deutschland (Germany) came to be known as Germania because the Roman Empire applied the name of a single Teutonic tribe to the entire region, the area that today calls itself Schweiz or Suisse (Switzerland) was once called Helvetia or Tigurinia after the names of the Gallic tribes that the Romans found there in the 1st Century B.C.

[19] English translation taken from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) at https://www.ccel.org/creeds/helvetic.htm. The relevant portion of the Latter Swiss Confession may be read in the original Latin in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes, Vol. III (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877), 239; which may be accessed for free here: https://archive.org/details/creedsofchriste03scha.

-----------

The Regulative Principle: The Proofs

Grüß euch abermals im Namen des Herrn Jesu! Greetings once more in the Name of the Lord Jesus!

Today I will be continuing our series on the regulative principle of worship and church-government. Now that we have defined what the regulative principle is, let’s discuss the proofs given for it in the Belgic and Westminster confessions. All in all, we will be learning in this post that (1) we must only look to Christ and his inspired Scriptures, and not to the teachings of men, to discover the proper way of worshipping God and governing His visible Church; that (2) only those who are given inward illumination from God will gain a true understanding of and belief in the Scriptures; and that (3) when it comes to issues in the Church that only involve decency and order, its officers may make ordinances of their own inventions which all members are expected to follow.

The Belgic Confession (1561)

We will begin with the Belgic Confession, in which we find two groupings of Scriptural proofs.

In the first group, to support the statement that church-officers “ought studiously to take care that they do not depart from those things which Christ, our only master, hath instituted,” the Confession references,

As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, [so] walk ye in him: rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. (Col. 2:6-7)

Now, it’s often the case in the proof texts for Reformed confessions, that the authors cite only one verse and assume that the reader is familiar with the surrounding context. So, to understand many of these proof texts, we’re going to have to look at the chapter of Scripture that each verse or set of verses was pulled from.

The Philosopher in Meditation
by Rembrandt Harmenszoon
van Rijn (1606-1669)

In St. Paul’s letter to the Colossian church, after he opens with a grand description of Christ’s redemptive work and his supremacy over all things in Chapter 1, he applies that teaching in Chapter 2 . He warns the Colossians against any who would try to sidetrack them from the worship taught by Christ through useless speculations of secular “philosophy” (τῆς φιλοσοφίας), through man-made customs (τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, “the precepts of men”), or through the ceremonies of the Old Testament (τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, “the elementary things of the world,” i.e., the visible signs of the Aaronic priesthood). It’s with these warnings in mind that Paul told the Colossians to be “rooted and built up” in Christ. And therefore, when it comes to the worship of God, all Christians and most especially the office-bearers of the Church (pastors, elders, deacons, and doctors/teachers) need to possess faith grounded in the teachings of Christ, not in the teachings of philosophy nor of tradition nor of the ceremonies of the Law of Moses. And this is the Confession’s first grouping of proofs.

In the second group, when the Confession states that it rejects “all human inventions, and all laws which man would introduce into the worship of God, thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any manner whatever,” it cites the following Scriptures:

Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. (1Cor. 7:23)

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matt. 15:9)

Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near [me] with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men… (Is. 29:13)

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. (Gal. 5:1)

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. (Rom. 16:17-18)

Each of these verses touches on a certain feature of not worshipping God with “human inventions,” but some of the verses are more self-evident than others. Probably none of us needs further explanation of Matt. 15:9, Is. 29:13, or Rom. 16:17-18, which explicitly refer to Jehovah’s displeasure with man-made worship and commandments.  And most likely, Gal. 5:1 is also clear to anyone who has read that letter. Paul is urging his Gentile audience not to be persuaded by the Judaizers who insisted that circumcision was necessary for salvation in addition to the Gospel.

What the Confession is trying to say by 1Cor. 7:23, however, might be a little more difficult to see. St. Paul was writing in response to people who had argued that “It is good for a man not to touch a woman,” and he was stressing in response that, while the statement was true, nevertheless Christians are given the liberty to have sexual relations within the boundaries of marriage. However, in the case of believers whose spouses divorce them, Paul recommended, the believer should let the unbeliever leave the marriage. Why? As Paul explains, we should all rest content with the outward circumstances that God gives us, because Christ and his commandments are the principle things in life.

Men of the world will try to persuade us by their own reasoning that we ought not to be married for purity’s sake, or that we ought to be circumcised for salvation’s sake, or that we ought to be free from slavery for our own sake. But in all things, we who are of the kingdom of heaven are Christ’s servants or freedmen. And we shouldn’t be slaves to what men say, on their own authority, that we ought to do. This is what the apostle means by, “be not ye the servants of men.” [1] And with that thought, we conclude the second and last group of proofs that the Belgic Confession offers.

Title Page to the 1536 Latin
edition of Institute of the
Christian Religion
by John Calvin (1509-1564)

But notice that the Belgic Confession doesn’t give any Scriptural proofs related to the circumstance-ordinances of worship and church-government. Now, I’m personally not studied enough in the life and writings of the Confession’s author (Guido de Brès) to guess why this might be so, but the lack of proof in the Confession does not mean that the Reformed churches at that time weren’t aware of any Scriptural proofs for circumstance-ordinances. By the time that the Belgic Confession was first printed in 1561, several editions of Calvin’s Institute of the Christian Religion had been published in Latin and Guido’s native French language, and in every single edition of the book, going back to the first Latin edition in 1536, Calvin had defended the need for circumstance-ordinances using the Scriptures 1Cor. 11:2-16 and 1Cor. 14:40. [2] And as we shall see shortly, these are the same passages to which the Westminster Confession appealed to justify its own teachings about circumstance-ordinances.

The Westminster Confession (1647)

There are three groups of proofs given by the Westminster Confession. The first group of proofs addresses the statement that “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life” is found in the Scripture, “unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” The Scriptures referenced as proof are:

…and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2Tim. 3:15-17)

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8-9)

…that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. (2Thess. 2:2)

This is the Reformation teaching of Sola Scriptura: Scripture alone is the Word of God. Scripture alone bears His divine authority. When Paul advised Timothy to study the Scriptures because they could make him “perfect” (i.e. complete) and “throughly furnished unto all good works” (2Tim. 3:15-17), Paul was indicating that everything we will ever need to know about pleasing God is found in the Scriptures. There is nothing that God will ever require of us that has not been revealed in His holy writings, in some way. In fact, if anybody, even angels from heaven or the apostles themselves should teach a way of salvation different from the one revealed in the Word of God, that person would be accursed of God, according to Gal. 1:8-9. So we should be careful that we are not persuaded away from the truths of Scripture by human authority, just as some of the Thessalonians had been troubled by someone who claimed, against Paul’s God-inspired teachings, that Christ had already come (2Thess. 2:2). The first grouping of the Confession's proofs teaches us, therefore, to rely on the Scriptures alone, and not human authorities, for correct teaching about God and man’s relationship to Him—including about worship and church-government.

Yet the writers of the Westminster Confession make it clear that they don’t want to give the wrong impressions that (a) we can just hear about and perform the correct teachings and expect to find salvation apart from any action of the Spirit of God or inward understanding, or that (b) we are so rigidly bound to Scripture in our worship and church-government that we aren’t allowed to add man-made regulations that support decency and order.

Regarding the first wrong impression, that we can get by through merely hearing and performing God’s commandments, the Confession reminds us that “inward illumination” is “necessary for the saving.” And it argues this from the following:

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. (Jn. 6:45)

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God… Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (1Cor. 2:9-10,12)

In Jn. 6:45, we must understand that, in context, Jesus had just been explaining that only people, whom the Father has given to the Son in election, will come to the Son as the true manna and true supernatural sign from heaven. The Jews then having grumbled that they didn’t believe Jesus because they knew he had natural parents, Jesus simply repeated: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” Immediately after that, he spoke the words of Jn. 6:45, in which he quoted Is. 54:13 (“And all thy children shall be taught of Jehovah...”) to say that the salvation of God is only grasped by people whom the Father chooses and draws by some secret action.

From 1Cor. 2:9-10 & 12, we learn a little bit more about this secret action of the Father: namely, that it is through the Holy Spirit. Again, knowing the context of the proof will bolster our understanding. Earlier in 1Cor. 2, the apostle Paul talks about the “weakness” of the Gospel by the standards of the ungodly world, and how he himself presented it in simple language. And later in the chapter, Paul says very insistently that the “natural man,” the man of the ungodly world, “receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” In the second grouping of Westminster’s proofs, we learn that it is not enough merely to hear the teachings of Scripture and do them. A person must believe them genuinely, which he can only do out of an inward revelation of heavenly truth from the Father, through the Spirit.

Westminster’s third grouping of proofs tries to head off the other misinterpretation that people may make, namely the idea that Sola Scriptura and the regulative principle forbid us to make our own uninspired regulations about decency and order in the Church. Far from it! There are circumstance-ordinances that “are to be ordered by the light of Nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word…” And the proofs given for this by Westminster are perhaps the most likely to stir up controversy among present-day Puritans:

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (1Cor. 11:13-14)

How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying… Let all things be done decently and in order. (1Cor. 14:26,40)

Young Lady White
Head Covering and Stole
by Frédéric Dubois (1780-1819)

Among very conservative Reformed Christians, you’re likely to find the opinion that women’s headcoverings are still required for today’s worship. After all, when Paul argues for headcoverings in 1Cor. 11, he appeals to the Creation account of man being placed in authority over woman. Among slightly less conservative Reformed people, you’re likely to find the opinion that the real principle behind 1Cor. 11 is the properness of gender-appropriate clothing, and that the particular cultural expression of this that Paul discusses—headcoverings on women—no longer applies today.

So when the authors of the Westminster Confession clearly reference headcoverings as an example of a circumstance-ordinance of worship, formed by man’s authority and not from the commandment of God, we are not in store for a easygoing discussion. Lord willing, I will eventually write a series that will look at different historical views on the subject of headcoverings, but our main goal here is to understand why the Confession uses the proofs that it does, no matter our personal views.

In the mainstream of the Reformed churches, it’s always been recognized that 1Cor. 11-14 is one continuous stream that deals with the theme of decency and order, just as chapters 1-6 are all one discourse about unity and mutual edification, as chapter 7 is all one discourse about sexual purity, as chapters 8-10 are all one discourse about meats sacrificed to idols, and as chapter 15 is all one discourse about the resurrection of the dead.

When Paul discusses the Lord’s Supper in chapter 11, the issue is not that the Corinthians have followed God’s commandments about the Lord’s Supper incorrectly, but that the Corinthians have been handling the Supper in an indecent manner, as if it were any other common meal. And when Paul addresses spiritual gifts in chapters 12-14, he is mainly concerned that the government and the worship of the Corinthians isn’t orderly: they don’t seem to understand that there are different offices in the Church, or that in worship one thing must proceed at a time. Therefore, the summary of what Paul wishes to teach in chapters 11-14 is that all things must be done in a seemly manner (εὐσχημόνως) and according to order (κατὰ τάξιν). In other words, he wishes to teach us about circumstance-ordinances.

This need for decency and orderliness in the Church applies to headcoverings, as we can see when Paul asks the rhetorical question, 1Cor. 11:13: “Judge in yourselves: is it comely (πρέπον, “becoming” or “seemly”) that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” We can also see it when Paul refers, verse 6, to the “shame” (αἰσχρὸν, “shame” or “dishonor”) of a woman having her head shaven, and the “glory” (δόξα, “praise” or “a good opinion”) of her having long hair. In the early Reformed view, Paul is not talking about some kind of spiritual properness or glory, but about earthly properness and reputation. [3] His point in this chapter was not that male authority and female subjection require a special institution of worship in the New Testament, but that, given the Creation order of the sexes, it was improper and scandalous at the time that some of the Corinthians were appearing with opposite-sex dress. And because it was indecent, it was a circumstance of worship about which Paul and all the other Churches of God had the right to issue a man-made ordinance that said, “We are requiring that you dress in a way that is decent for your sex.” [4]

And this is, in a nutshell, why the authors of the Confession felt that the first half of 1Cor. 11 was a suitable proof for circumstances of worship, as opposed to necessary institutions.

Now, although I’m not trying to argue here for the truth or falsity of the “just a circumstance” view, talking about its evidence requires a disclaimer. For ladies and their husbands who have become convicted that the headcoverings of 1Cor. 11 were merely a cultural practice, it should not be forgotten, in the rush to embrace Christian liberty, that the principle behind this Scripture is decency and order. If not having a headcovering would appear indecent and create scandal in your own particular congregation, and more importantly if you know that it would entice others in the congregation to disobey weak consciences, then you should do what edifies others, not what edifies yourself. You should wear a covering for the sake of decency, order, and charity, while doing your best to politely persuade others of the liberty they actually have in the matter.

But on the other hand, if you genuinely feel convicted that Paul was describing a necessary institution of worship, then even if your church’s authorities have made an official rule not to practice headcoverings, you should practice it anyway in obedience to the Lord of your conscience. Necessary institutions of worship always trump circumstance-ordinances; and although you should listen carefully to the rebukes of church-authorities, obedience to the Lord of your conscience always trumps obedience to the chief servants of his House (Acts 5:29).

Conclusion

And these are our proofs for the regulative principle, out of the Belgic and Westminster confessions. In all our worship practices, we are to follow the commandments of God rather than men, but the sole exception is in matters of decency and order, about which the church has the right to impose its own regulations.

In our next installment of the Regulative Principle series, we will begin looking at some of the Reformers who were contemporaries of the Belgic and Westminster confessions, and what they had to say concerning the regulative principle. In order, we will be studying Bullinger, Calvin, the Geneva Bible, Ursinus, Gillespie, Burroughs, Poole, à Brakel, and Henry. After this, there will be some brief discussion of the views of R.J. Gore and T. David Gordon, and perhaps some other present-day authors as well.

Until next time, kämpfe den guten Kampf des Glaubens—fight the good fight of faith!

---NOTES---

[1] This was not John Calvin’s exact understanding of 1Cor. 7:23, nor Matthew Henry’s. Calvin (p.250-51) and Henry believed that these words were directed specifically to literal servants who were being commanded by their earthly masters to do things that violated the commandments of God. The commentators of the 1599 Geneva Bible (p. 29-30) and the Puritan pastor Matthew Poole (p.561), however, followed the interpretation I have laid out, of Paul making the general point that we should not be people-pleasers. Whichever interpretation Guido de Brès (author of the Belgic Confession) was following, he had good enough reason to quote the verse, but I believe that if you follow the Geneva/Poole interpretation, the verse connects to the subject-matter of worship more clearly because in that case it refers back to circumcision.

[2] Ioannus Calvinus, Christianæ religionis institutio, First Latin Edition (Basel: Thomas Platterus & Balthasar Lasius, 1536), 465-6. The passages in question read, “Neq₃ enim aliter haberi potest quod Paulus exigit, ut decĕter omnia & ex ordine fiant: niſi additis obſeruationibus, ceu uinculis quibuſdam, ordo ipſe & decorum conſistăt… Prioris generis [decĕtiæ] exempla ſunt apud Paulum, ne mulieres in eccleſia doceant, ut uelatæ procedant (1.Cor.11).” [For otherwise it (the Church) cannot have what Paul requires, that all things be done decently and from order, unless order itself and decency stand through additional observances, as through particular bonds…  There are examples of the first type (decency) among Paul’s writings, for women not to teach in the church, and for them to appear veiled.] This same section is present in every edition of Calvin’s Institute. In the final (1559) edition, it appears in Book IV., Chapter x., Section 27. Scans of the First Edition can be accessed here: http://www.e-rara.ch/bau_1/content/titleinfo/1920842.An English translation of the 1559 edition can be accessed here: https://archive.org/details/instituteschris02allegoog.

[3] It is not the perspective of any classical Reformed commentator that I know of, but I personally suspect that the mysterious “angels” spoken of in 1Cor. 11:10 are also merely earthly “angels,” because the word ἄγγελος can simply mean “messenger” or “news-bearer.” [See Liddell Scott Jones, The Online Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), accessed April 25, 2014, Source: http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/] In context, then, all that Paul would have meant by the woman needing to have authority on her head “because of the angels” was that news of the Corinthians’ indecency was in danger of becoming a public scandal, to the harm of the Church. This, I feel, would make the most sense of the expression “therefore” (διὰ τοῦτο), which seems out of place if the “angels” were anything other than what Paul had already just talked about—and he had just talked about public shame.

[4] For this reason, many of the Reformers argued that there was nothing unbiblical about a male minister wearing caps, because by their own time of history, it was proper to the appearance of the ministerial office to wear some kind headgear that signified his office. For example, regarding 1Cor. 11:4, Calvin makes the remark, “Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this — that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is το πρέπον — decorum. If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther.” [John Calvin, Commentary of the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians: Vol. 1, trans. John Pringle (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1848), 555, https://archive.org/details/commentaryonepis01calvuoft.]

-----------