STATEMENT AGAINST SAME BY GLASGOW PRESBYTERY (1808).
(Continued from page 240.)
BUT as our brother states it as his first and great argument, “That Instrumental Music is not forbidden in the Word of God, but is expressly encouraged, perhaps enjoined, in the Old Testament, and clearly authorised by the New”—your Committee conceive it their duty to bring forward the following reasoning from Scripture, in opposition to the last part of his averment, viz., that it is “clearly authorised by the New.”
We find, in Scripture, much information concerning great changes to be made respecting religious services under the Gospel. These were foretold in the Old Testament, and they are explained in the New. The Apostle, writing to the Hebrews, declares, that the priesthood being changed, “there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (Heb. vii. 12). We are informed by the same inspired writer, that “the first covenant had ordinances of divine service;” which he describes as consisting chiefly “in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances,” which were “imposed until the time of reformation” (Heb. ix. 1-10). The “carnal ordinances” include all the ritual, which was addressed to the senses and imagination, but neither enlightened the understanding nor purified the conscience. By whatever authority these were imposed, they were only to continue till “the time of reformation.” And whatever is meant by “the time of reformation,” it cannot be doubted that it is now past; and consequently, that the carnal ordinances imposed under the former covenant are no longer obligatory. They were the rudiments of the world—the shadow of things to come; but the body is Christ. The substance, which all these things represented, is to be found in the New Testament. The apostolic decree recorded in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles,—the ministrations and epistles of St. Paul, and particularly his strictures on the doctrines of Judaising teachers,—show that Christians are not under the Law, but under Grace.
From the beginning of the world there has been a Moral Law and a Spiritual Worship; which remain unchanged under every dispensation. Whatever is to be found in the Old Testament with regard to either of these, is of permanent and everlasting obligation. But with respect to the modes of external Worship, there was to be an entire change; which was announced by our Lord Himself in a very early period of His ministry:—”The hour cometh, when ye shall neither on this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. . . . But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John iv. 21, 23, 24)—not according to the old institution, in the hour that was past, but according to the new, in the hour which cometh, and now is. Nor must it be forgotten, that it is not the ordinary manner of the writers of the New Testament to inform us what Divine institutions were to be abrogated, but only what observances were to take place under the Gospel. They do not tell us that the Passover was no longer to be observed, but only that the Lord’s Supper was to be administered. So, with respect to praising God, they do not expressly say that Instrumental Music is to be silenced, but they do expressly say that God is to be praised and worshipped by singing psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, with understanding and grace in the heart, for the purposes of instructing and comforting one another. This is to be the change under the Gospel, as far as Psalmody is concerned.
The only point which remains to be ascertained is, whether this necessary change of the law extends to Instrumental Music, as a concomitant of the New Testament Psalmody. On this point our brother has given a most decided opinion—that “Instrumental Music is clearly authorised by the New Testament; and that, before declaring our prohibition of Organs, it is incumbent on the Church to expunge from the Sacred Records those passages which seem clearly to recommend the use of instruments in Public Worship; that thus the worshippers may be delivered from the inconsistency of promising and exhorting each other to do, what in their hearts they resolve, and by the Church are forbidden, to perform.” In support of these assertions, our brother exclaims, in his Statement, “Nowhere do we find the great Head of the Church repealing the injunctions pronounced by the Psalmist David. And it is impossible to think that our blessed Saviour would have been silent on the subject, if Instrumental Music had been a gross profanation of sacred things. Nowhere do we find St. Paul warning against Harp, and Psaltery, and Organ. Nay, we find St. John declaring that he heard harpers harping with their Harps in heaven.”
Without saying anything more severe on this mode of reasoning adopted by our brother, we conceive that it is neither agreeable to the rules of just Biblical criticism nor to sound philosophy. We have already observed that it is not the ordinary manner of the writers of the New Testament to inform us what Divine institutions were to be abrogated, but only what observances were to take place under the Gospel. And does not every Christian know that, during our Saviour’s abode upon earth, the “time of reformation” was not fully come—that Jesus was not yet glorified—that it was the money-changers, not the priests and Levites, that our Lord cast out of the Temple; and, of course, that it was the benches of the former, not the Altar, Sacrifices, Organs of the latter, which He overturned? If Jesus did not destroy the Temple, but only foretold its destruction, is it not self-evident that its Ministers, and all the instruments employed by them, whether musical or sacrificial, must remain along with it? We shall transcribe the judgment on this point of an eminent Protestant divine, who is allowed by all parties to have been one of the soundest and most judicious Biblical critics: “The Holy Ghost is here mentioned as the great gift of the Gospel times; as coming down from heaven not absolutely—not as to his person—but with respect unto an especial work, namely, the change of the whole state of religious worship in the Church of God. Whereas we shall see, in the next words, he is spoken of only with respect unto external actual operations. But he was the great, the promised heavenly gift, to be bestowed under the New Testament; by whom God would institute and ordain a new way and new rites of worship, upon the revelation of himself and will in Christ. Unto him was committed the reformation of all things in the Church, whose time was now come (Heb. ix. 10). The Lord Christ, when he ascended into heaven, left all things standing and continuing in religious worship as they had done from the days of Moses, though he had virtually put an end unto it. And he commanded his disciples, that they should attempt no alteration therein, until the Holy Ghost were sent from heaven to enable them thereunto (Acts i. 4, 5). But when he came, the great gift of God promised under the New Testament, he removes all the carnal worship and ordinances of Moses—and that by the full revelation of the accomplishment of all that was signified by them—and appoints the new, holy, spiritual worship of the Gospel that was to succeed in their room. The Spirit of God, therefore, as bestowed for the introduction of the new Gospel-state, in truth and worship, is the heavenly gift here intended” (Owen on the Hebrews, chap. vii. 4).
As to the authority borrowed from St. Paul, by interpreting his silence as expressive of his approbation of Harps, Psalteries, and Organs—our brother seems not to be aware that Instrumental Music belonged entirely to the Temple service, and never was employed in the Synagogue. Hence Paul, in all his journeyings, could not find a single Harp, or Psalter, or Organ, in any of the religious assemblies of his countrymen beyond the precincts of the Temple at Jerusalem; of consequence, warning or reproof on this subject, from that Apostle, is not to be expected. This circumstance accounts for the Jewish converts never betraying, as far as we know, the least predilection for Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of God, while they discovered a strong attachment to Circumcision and other Levitical institutions. Had St. Paul, therefore, approved or admired Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of God, however poor and persecuted the Apostolic Church might be, it is not to be supposed that he would have preserved such profound silence on the subject. On the contrary, he would have disburdened his oppressed mind—he would have recorded his principles—he would have deplored the direful calamity of the times, and earnestly recommended the introduction or the revival of Instrumental Music in the Churches the very first moment that the wealth, and safety, and peace of the Church rendered it practicable. But St. Paul has recorded no such sentiments. Instead of speaking in commendation of Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of God, we find him on one occasion borrowing an allusion from it, expressive of something like contempt: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling Cymbal” (1 Cor. xiii. 1).
But our brother imagines that he is particularly countenanced in his favourite measure by a passage in the Book of Revelation, where St. John expressly declares that he heard “harpers harping with their Harps in heaven” (Rev. xiv. 2). “Words cannot be simpler,” says our brother, “nor convey more plainly an unequivocal meaning; and that meaning clearly is, that Instrumental Music is at least not inconsistent with the purity of evangelical praise.” The author of the Statement, then, can produce only a negative conclusion, and that from a single highly figurative passage of the New Testament, in support of his favourite measure—a negative conclusion, too, repugnant to the principles and practice of the Church of Scotland, and countenanced by nothing but what we apprehend is a mistaken commentary of Scripture. Even supposing for a moment that, apparently to short-sighted mortals, any usage is not inconsistent with divine revelation, are we on that account to blend that usage with the Worship of God? The Established Church of Scotland allows no such latitudinarian principle. This was precisely the mode of reasoning by which the Popish corruptions were introduced into Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and by which any system of Worship may be vindicated.
Our brother likewise cannot be ignorant that commentators are by no means agreed that the celestial state, and the exercises of the redeemed in heaven, are the subject of this vision of St. John. Whatever be in this, it is evident that the imagery of the context is terrestrial and Levitical, and not Evangelical. The scene of the vision is upon Mount Zion, and the voice from heaven is described as “the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder”—evidently alluding to the region whence the water descends, and in which the thunder rolls. A Lamb, Mount Zion, harpers and their Harps, an hundred and forty-four thousand, Elders, first-fruits—do not all these images, in their literal meaning, carry back the mind to Jerusalem, and place us among the Jewish worshippers in the courts of the Temple? It would be in vain to expect that, in a vision, “the forms of Christian worship” would present themselves in as familiar a manner to the mind of St. John as the worship of the Temple. For no man, no author, sacred or profane, takes his allusions invariably from what is modern or familiar. The mantle of antiquity must often be thrown around allusions and illustrations to render them venerable and majestic; and this, we apprehend, is most judiciously done in the passage before us, whether the subject of the vision recorded in it refer to the Church MILITANT or TRIUMPHANT.
Your Committee, therefore, are bold to contend that no better authority for Instrumental Music can be drawn from this highly figurative language of St. John than there can be deduced from his allegorical description of the new Jerusalem, that heaven, the place of happiness for the righteous, is literally a splendid city, “having twelve gates, and every several gate of one pearl; and that its walls are of jasper, and its streets of pure gold.” If your Committee were to borrow anything concerning the form of evangelical praise to be used by Christians from the Book of Revelation, they would take it rather from the 6th and 7th verses of this fourteenth chapter, than from the 2nd verse:—”And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” Here he saw no harpers, no Psalteries, no Organs. And in that beautiful and sublime description of the Church Universal, in the seventh chapter (9-12):—”After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.” Here again he saw no “harpers harping with their Harps.”
Far, then, from finding Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of God “clearly authorised by the New Testament,” your Committee contend that there is not a vestige of such authority, unless we violate the laws of sound criticism, and confound the literal and figurative meaning of language. Our blessed Lord did not condemn Instrumental Music, because it was a constituent part of the Temple service, which, with other Levitical institutions, was to outlive himself, and only to be nailed to his cross, or abolished by his death. The Apostle Paul could not speak against it in the Synagogues, for in them it never existed. He could not warn or reprove the Jewish converts, for, as far as we know, they never betrayed a desire to employ it.
(To be continued.)