The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1876-05-10
GIVING AND WORSHIP.

When he says Z" it is of two kinds, or exists
in two fold form, internal and external,
there is no disagreement. But when he tells
US what this worship is, We must dissent,
both as to the internal and the erternal.-.
Had the writer said that whenever we truly
worship God, there must be the exercise of
believing" "trusting,' hoping" etc.,
which "are set down in our larger Catechism
%. 104) as belonging to worship, ," it would
be correct But when he concludes that be-
cause these things belong to worship, there
fore they belong no where else; so that
wherever they are found there we necessarily
find worship also, that is different prOpo-
sition. 1t is a rule of all right reasoning
that we must not put more on our cOnclu-
sions than is found in our premises; nor
more in our premises than can be carried
into cur conclusions. The mistake Of
our brother "K'' is that he does both of
these through his whole argument-as will
be shown. Take his reference to question
1O4. What are the duties required an the
fourth commandment The answer is:
1.-THE duties required in the fourth command
ment are the knowing and acknowledging OF God
to be the only true God, and our God; and to wor-
ship and glorify him accordingly; by thinking. re-
Numbering, highly esteeming honorlng, sdorlng,
choosing, loving, desiring, fearing of him. believing
him, trusting, hoping, deighting, rejoicing IN him.
being jealous for him, calling upon him, giving all
praise aud thanks, and yielding all obedience and
submission to him with the whole man; being care
full to please him, and sorrowful when in anything
ne is offended, and walking humbly with hun.
Now all these holy exercises and DISPOSE,
tons must be found in all true worship; no
doubt of that; but it does not follow that
wherever they are found, there must be wor-
ship also. The answsr does not so declare ;
for this long catalogue is framed to show how
we may perform not only the duty of w0r-
shipping, but also of "knowing and acknOwl-
edging God," and which all admit is not con-
fined to acts of worship.
The same mistake occurs in the next sen,
tence, " Calvin, Tnstit. L. H., Chap. VIII,
Sec. 2, refers to the same category all act;
of obedience to the commandments of the
first table of the Decalogue."
We have not Cslvin's Institutes just al
hand, but if he maintains that all acts Of
obedience belong to worship, in any such
sense that they must be part and acts Of
worship, we take issue with him and our cor
respondent without any hesitation. Let US
try them on "the duties required in the SEQ
ond commandment" Larger Catechism.
Answer, "The duties required in the second
commandment are, the receiving, observing
and keeping pure and entire, all such relig
iOus worship and ordinances as God hath in
stituted in His Word" &c. Among these
it specifies Church government and disc
pine, "the ministry and maintenance there
of; also x the removing of all mOnu
ments of idolatry." Are these acts of wor
ship? They certainly pertain to the "Ordi
nances of God, and have certain relation
to his worship, but, az shown before, an or
dinance of God and the worship of God are
not necessarily ore and the same thing.
Summing up the whole our brother adds,
"And in general we may say that internal
worship consists in that state and posture Of
the soul which corresponds with the revela-
ton which God has made of himself in his
word, and has God for his direct object. "
AS he proceeds we see how soon the writer
misplaces and confounds terms that are not
equivalent or interchangeable. He says,
"We worship him God when We recognize
his supremacy, and dependence. Is this SO
Is there no proper recognition of these
truths, except as an act of worship? Then
in the same way you can prove that all re-
pentance, and faith, and love, and obedience,
and every holy exercise of the soul is wor-
ship, simply because they are parts of it
The argument being this; these things are
essential parts of worship; therefore wherever
they are there worship must be. If the writer
had said" When We worship him, we re-
cognise his supremacy and our dependence, p"
he would have presented right proposition,
because this is essential to the act. But he
puts it the other way: owe worship him
when," &c. This is not true, because this
acknowledgment may certainly be made at
other times and in other ways, where wor-
ship constitutes no part of it. So it is with
a whole string of similar instances given,
to which the reader is requested to refer
The writer constantly insists the case by as
Stunning premises which cannot be granted.
If the object and use of definition is to de-
scribe thing briefly "by the properties it
possesses, to give ga description which sep
arateS term from everything else" then we
must think our brother has greatly missed
the mark, for there is not Christian grace
or exercise which may not be included in the
one be here gives. In reference to many of
them it is not true that we worship God
whenever the exercises named are called
forth. There is no true w1rship without
them; but the converse of this is not true,
that they can have no existence apart from
it. Let not the reader think US tedious in
exposing this false logic; its bearing will
soor bo vooD;fast