ARP articulation of the regulative principle as theological basis for exclusive psalmody

Context

This passage comes from the Centennial Addresses section of the Centennial History of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, delivered at the denomination’s 1903 centennial celebration. The speaker articulates the theological foundation for exclusive psalmody, grounding it in the regulative principle of worship derived from the Westminster Standards and the Second Commandment. This represents the mature ARP theological position at the turn of the twentieth century.

Extract

Another thing the Associate Reformed Church makes particularly strong in its testimony is in respect to the mode of divine worship. Our church gives pronounced and emphatic witness to the principle that God is to be worshipped only in the way appointed in his word.

This proposition seems simple enough but it is deep and broad in its sweep. It might appear to be self evident on its face but it does not command universal assent and application. Indeed, it is the application of this principle that forms the chief ground for the separate existence of the Associate Reformed Church.

It will be readily granted by all Protestant Christians that what is expressly forbidden in the worship of God is not to be tolerated. In the Second Commandment God forbids the use of images in worship. Then away with images, say we all.

It will also be readily granted that what is expressly enjoined in the worship of God is to be observed. God enjoins that prayer be made and for whom prayer should be made. Let this be done without deviation.

But what of a large class of acts, rites, and ceremonies which are neither expressly commanded nor explicitly forbidden in the worship of God. Are we at liberty or not to introduce these at our pleasure and judgment? It is at this point that the principle for which the Associate Reformed Church stands comes into play.

Because God expressly forbids the use of images in worship, some would infer that only what is forbidden is prohibited in worship, and what is not forbidden is permissible in worship. They would maintain that what is expressly commanded in worship holds only as to the specific rite or ordinance commanded, and what is not expressly commanded if it is not explicitly forbidden is proper and lawful in worship if it meets the approval of sanctified common sense and is deemed profitable to the church.

Now the position of the Associate Reformed Church is that nothing is to be used in the worship of God except what he has clearly authorized and sanctioned; and that all that is not prescribed and sanctioned of God is as much excluded from his worship as if it were explicitly forbidden.

The record of the sin of Nadab and Abihu is stated in these suggestive words: “And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer and put fire therein and offered strange fire before the Lord which he commanded them not.” Mark you, it does not read that they offered strange fire which He had forbidden them to do, but they offered strange fire which He commanded them not. By not commanding, God had forbidden; by prescribing what the incense was to be and how it was to be offered and what kind of fire was to be used, he had prohibited all other incense and all other fire, and all other ways of offering incense. […]

The Associate Reformed Church realizing its far reaching consequences stands by the principle announced in the 51 question of the Shorter Catechism that “The second commandment forbids the worshipping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his word.” It is in the application of this principle that the Associate Reformed Church confines itself exclusively to the inspired songs of the Bible in God’s worship.

We know that these songs have the divine sanction. They were appointed for use under the former dispensation. Why were they included in the inspired canon if they were not appointed and intended for use in the present dispensation?

Other songs may be good but where is their sanction for the sanctuary service?

If God had intended other songs to be sung in His praise why did He not give them a place in the Scripture hymnology?

Significance

This extract provides the most detailed theological articulation of the exclusive psalmody position available in the Centennial History. It is valuable for several reasons:

1. Explicit connection to the regulative principle: The speaker grounds exclusive psalmody directly in the Reformed understanding of the Second Commandment and Westminster Shorter Catechism Q. 51. This makes clear that exclusive psalmody was understood not as mere preference but as the application of a fundamental principle of Reformed worship.

2. The key distinction: The passage articulates the crucial theological divide between those who believe “what is not forbidden is permissible” versus those who believe “what is not prescribed is forbidden.” The ARP position is that silence equals prohibition: “all that is not prescribed and sanctioned of God is as much excluded from his worship as if it were explicitly forbidden.”

3. Biblical warrant through Nadab and Abihu: The appeal to Leviticus 10 (the “strange fire” offering) as precedent for divine judgment on unauthorized worship practices was a standard move in regulative principle arguments. The precise wording—“which he commanded them not” rather than “which he had forbidden”—is used to demonstrate that positive divine sanction is required for worship elements.

4. Denominational identity claim: The speaker explicitly states that “it is the application of this principle that forms the chief ground for the separate existence of the Associate Reformed Church.” This confirms that exclusive psalmody was understood as the defining characteristic distinguishing the ARP from other Presbyterian bodies, more so than communion practices or other secondary matters.

This theological articulation helps explain why psalmody caused denominational realignment: it was not simply a preference about worship style but the application of a principle that many Reformed Christians considered foundational to proper worship. Those who held this view could not in good conscience participate in hymn-singing worship without violating the Second Commandment as they understood it.