—Gataker (1654).
Instrumental Music in Worship.
STATEMENT AGAINST SAME BY GLASGOW PRESBYTERY (1808).
(Continued from vol. xxv., page 267.)
THE truth seems to be this, as far as your Committee can speak positively from the writings of the New Testament—there are, in that sacred record, but two ways enjoined of offering up our praises to God in Public Worship: the one by thanksgiving, without the vocal melody of the Congregation; the other by the Congregation singing, with the human voice, Psalms and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs.
Thus, in the First Epistle to Timothy (ii. 1), we have an express commandment for thanksgiving to be a stated part of our Public Worship:—”I exhort, therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men.” And it is believed that this giving of thanks varied according to the nature of the mercies which the Church was daily receiving; and that the people performed no other part in these thanksgivings than saying, Amen (Eph. i. 3; 1 Peter i. 3).
The second method is what the Scriptures enjoin relative to praising God by singing Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs. Your Committee believe that there are only four passages in the New Testament which speak distinctly and directly on this subject: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Col. iii. 16). “Speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. v. 19). “Is any among you afflicted; let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms” (James v. 13). “By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name” (Heb. xiii. 15). In all these passages, it is an undeniable matter of fact that the primitive Christians understood singing with the human voice alone, as enjoined; for this, and this only, they employed in singing to the Lord, making melody in their hearts. Among them the accompaniment of any Instrument of Music in the Public Worship of God was never known nor named.
Your Committee are aware that Bishop King would wish to persuade us that the Apostles, in the passages above quoted, recommend the use of Musical Instruments in the Public Worship of God, seeing they use a word which, in the original language, he says, signifies singing with an instrument (Psallō). But this very criticism serves to show upon what slender foundation the patrons of Instrumental Music build. Thus, the word generally used in the New Testament for worshipping, signifieth, in the original, to pay homage by the kissing of the hand; of course, if we are to follow the analogy drawn from the original meaning of a Greek word, Christian worshippers would only have been obligated to have paid their homage to God by the kissing of the hand. This is not all; for it is evident that these injunctions, be their meaning what it may, are directly and expressly addressed to all Christians, either considered as assembled for Public Worship, or in their private, individual capacity. Now, is it at all credible, that each individual Christian in those times, or at any other time, was capable of using a Musical Instrument, or that a suggestion, which involves a moral impossibility, could be made to the mind of the Apostles by the infallible Spirit of God?*
When, therefore, we concentrate all the parts of our argument together, viz., that Instrumental Music was confined to the service of the Temple, and most intimately connected with the offering up of the sacrifice, and that we have no warrant to transfer it into the Christian Church, any more than other rites of the Jewish religion; that the silence of our blessed Lord and of his Apostles upon the subject affords no presumption that they approved of the measure; and finally, that the passages in the New Testament which relate expressly to the praises of God, either allude to thanksgiving pronounced by the Minister, without the vocal melody of the Congregation, or to singing with the human voice alone, Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs—we have no hesitation in pronouncing a judgment in direct opposition to the first and the chief argument of the Minister of St. Andrew’s Church. We say that the use of Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of God is not authorised by the New Testament—that, whether it was enjoined by Moses, or only introduced by David, it was appropriated to the Temple service, and, of course, abrogated with it. The singing of Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs in the heart to the Lord, not the playing of them, is the express language of the New Testament. Therefore, Instrumental Music is neither enjoined, nor authorised, nor encouraged by the Word of God, in the Public Worship of Christians.
As to the observation made by our brother that, “When we look into the history even of those nations that were strangers to divine revelation, there we find universally the use of instruments in giving praise to their gods”—we consider any reasoning founded upon heathen examples as of no weight whatever in deciding this question, and even as hardly requiring a serious answer. According to our brother’s own principles, “the fixed and infallible standard” for the Worship of Christians is the Word of God alone. What he is pleased to say proceeds from “the unadulterated light of nature,” we affirm ariseth from a blind and corrupt superstition; and if we were disposed to indulge in conjecture about the origin of manners and customs amongst the heathen, we would tell him that Jubal, of the race of cursed Cain, a race which early began to corrupt the Worship of the Supreme Being, was “the father of all such as handle the Harp and Organ” (Gen. iv. 21). And there is no doubt that Ham, who was born long before the flood, and of course was acquainted with many of Cain’s posterity, would transmit some of their corrupt, superstitious notions of religious Worship to CUSH, MIZRAIM, and CANAAN, the fathers of the CHALDEANS, EGYPTIANS, and PHÆNICIANS—those nations which, ancient history informs us, first set up idols, and introduced Instrumental Music into the Public Worship of their gods.
* The following is the translation given in Conybeare and Howson’s Life and Epistles of Paul: “Let your singing be of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, and make melody with the music of your hearts, to the Lord.” And in a note it is said: “Throughout the whole passage there is a contrast implied between the heathen and the Christian practice,—e.g., When you meet, let your enjoyment consist not in fulness of wine, but fulness of the Spirit: let your songs be, not the drinking songs of heathen feasts, but psalms and hymns; and their accompaniment, not the music of the lyre, but the music of the heart,” &c.—ED.
II. Let us now proceed to the second argument of our brother, the Minister of St. Andrew’s Church, and examine those conclusions which, he affirms, may be drawn from the history of the Church in behalf of his favourite measure. He affirms, that although Instrumental Music in the Worship of God was not known till “about the middle of the eighth century, yet then it was introduced through the dictates of pious feeling prompting the enlightened mind to consecrate the labour of genius to the devout exercise of praise.” He further affirms, that “Instrumental Music forms no essential part of Popery, being founded on principles widely different from the ceremonies of the Church of Rome; and therefore retained and employed by all the Reformed Churches on the Continent.” “A stronger argument,” continues he, “in its favour cannot be produced, except that which I have already mentioned, the sacred authority of Scripture.” We have fairly stated this second argument. Our brother’s reasoning in support of these bold conclusions your Committee conceive to be very unsatisfactory.
According to his own statement of the matter, Instrumental Music was not used for the first seven centuries. This period, it is well known, comprehends, along with the apostolic age, not only the poorest and most persecuted, but also the most splendid and prosperous times of the primitive Church. The practice of such a period will more than counterbalance anything that even the Reformed Churches on the Continent can furnish. To pretend to account for this remarkable fact upon the ground that the Church had, during so many centuries, no leisure, or means, or knowledge to attend to Sacred Music, is a very unphilosophical and inaccurate mode of reasoning. They had both leisure and inclination to form the doctrines of the Gospel. They had means to build the most splendid churches. The emperors of the West were devout, to a degree bordering upon superstition. The truth is, they considered it as unlawful to employ Instrumental Music in the Worship of God. In their eyes, it was so intimately connected with the Temple service, that both Arians and Orthodox would have regarded themselves as returning back to Judaism, if they had permitted it in their Public Worship.
But we do not wish to support this branch of our argument by abstract speculative reasoning, or mere dogmatical averments. It must rest upon authorities, which authorities we draw from the accounts of the primitive Christians, as recorded in the Fathers, and from the opinions of the Schoolmen, and from the judgment of the Reformers. If they knew their own sentiments, or have honestly recorded them, your Committee are confident that the following authorities ought to set this question for ever at rest.
Thus, in a treatise among Justin Martyr’s works, we have the following testimony:—”Q. If songs were invented by unbelievers, with a design of deceiving, and were appointed for those under the law, because of the childishness of their minds, why do they who have received the perfect instructions of grace, which are most contrary to the foresaid customs, nevertheless sing in the Churches, as they did who were children under the law? A. Plain singing* is not childish, but only the singing with lifeless Organs, with dancing and cymbals, etc. Whence the use of such instruments, and other things fit for children, is laid aside; and plain singing only retained.”
The memorable testimony of Pliny, as quoted by Tertullian, combines at once Christian and heathen authority on this subject:—”We find it has been forbidden to make a search after us. For when Pliny the younger was governor of a province, and had condemned some, and made others comply, being disturbed by the great multitude of the Christians, he consulted Trajan, acquainting him, that besides an obstinate aversion to sacrificing, he could discover nothing concerning their mysteries, but that they held assemblies before day to sing to Christ as God.”†
Thus Basil, though he highly commends, and zealously defends the way of singing by turns, or what is styled antiphonal singing, does not deny that the manner of singing in use during the Apostolic times was altered by him in his Church. On the contrary, he explicitly admits that the former practice was, for the people rising before daylight to go to the house of prayer, and having made confession to God, to rise from prayer, and betake themselves to the singing of psalms. But now, indeed, they sing to each other alternately, in parts (Eph. lxiii.). And so far from approving Musical Instruments in the Worship of God, he calls them, “the inventions of Jubal of the race of Cain,” and thus expresses himself concerning them: “Laban was a lover of the Harp and of Music, with which he would have sent away Jacob. If thou hadst told me, said he, I would have sent thee away with mirth, and Musical Instruments, and an Harp.” But the Patriarch avoided that Music, as being a thing that would hinder his regarding the works of the Lord, and his considering the works of his hands.—In such vain arts as the playing upon the harp or pipe, or dancing, as soon as the action ceases the work itself vanishes; so that really, according to the apostle’s expression, the end of these things is destruction.“—(Comment in Isaiah cap. v. apud opera tom. i. p. 493, 491. Ed. Paris, 1618.)
Chrysostom, who flourished in the fourth century, often expresses his disapprobation of Instrumental Music, and explicitly declares, “that it was only permitted to the Jews, like sacrifice, for the imbecility and grossness of their souls, God condescending to their weakness, because they were lately drawn off from idols.” “But now, instead of Organs, Christians must use the body to praise God.”
Jerome, in his Commentary on Eph. v. 19, thus delivers his judgment on this point:—”We must therefore sing and make melody, and praise the Lord rather with the heart than the voice. For this is what is here said: Singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. Let young men mind this, let them mind it whose office it is to sing in the Church. We must sing to God not with the voice, but the heart. They are not artfully to supple their jaws and their throat, after the manner of the tragedians, that theatrical notes and songs should be heard in the Church; but they are to praise God with fear, with good works, and the knowledge of the Scriptures. If a man has an unpleasant voice, if he has good works, he is a sweet singer in God’s ears. Let the servant of Christ so sing, that not the voice of the singer, but the thing sung, may please; that the evil spirit that was in Saul may be cast out of those who, in like manner, are possessed by him, and not be let into those who have turned the house of God into a stage.” This shows, as has been remarked by Dr. Whitby, that Choristers had then obtained an office in the Church, though Jerome seems not much to approve of them. If he disliked Choristers, what would he have thought of Organists?
Augustine, Confess. lib. 10, cap. 33, gives his testimony in favour of plain song in the Worship of God:—”I wish all nice singing of David’s Psalms were removed from mine and the Church’s hearing; and that seems safer to me, which I remember I have been told of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, who made the Reader of the Psalm sound it with so little alteration of his voice, that he was more like to a person delivering a speech than singing.”
Thus it is evident, from the authority of the Fathers, that it was simply vocal melody which was used in singing the praises of God, during the primitive times of the Church. And should we analyse the writings of Ecclesiastical authors in the middle or scholastic ages, we shall find that Instrumental Music is positively condemned. Thus, the celebrated Thomas Aquinas: “In the old law, God was praised both with Musical Instruments and human voices. But the Church does not use Musical Instruments to praise God, lest she should seem to Judaise. . . . Nor ought a pipe, nor any other artificial instruments, such as Organ or Harp, or the like, be brought into use in the Christian Church, but only those things which shall make the hearers better men. For by Musical Instruments the mind is more directed to amusement, than to the forming of a good internal disposition. But under the old testament such instruments were used, partly because the people were harder and more carnal—upon which account they were to be stirred up by these instruments, as likewise by earthly promises—and partly because these bodily instruments were typical of something.”
Others of the Schoolmen might be quoted, but conceiving this to be unnecessary, we proceed to state the judgment of the Reformers.
Pareus, in 1st Cor. xiv. 7, declares, “That in the Christian Church the mind must be incited to spiritual joy, not by Pipes, and Trumpets, and Timbrels, with which God formerly indulged his ancient people on account of the hardness of their hearts, but by Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs.”
Zepperus, De Leg. Mosaica, lib. 4, says, Instrumental Music, in religious worship of the Jews, belonged to the ceremonial Law, which is now abolished. It is evident that it is contrary to the precept of St. Paul (1 Cor. xiv.), who wills, that in Christian assemblies, everything should be done for edification, that others may understand and be reformed: so even that of speaking in unknown tongues should be banished from the Church; much less should that jarring, Organic Music, which produceth a gabbling of many voices, be allowed, with its pipes, and trumpets, and whistles, making our Churches resound, nay, bellow and roar.” And the same Author, speaking of this practice being retained in some of the Reformed Churches, in direct contradiction to the judgment of their founders, thus expresseth himself: “In some of the Reformed Churches these Musical Instruments are retained, but they are not played until the congregation is dismissed, all the parts of divine worship being finished. And they are then used for a political purpose, to gratify those who seek pleasure from sound and harmony.”
(To be continued.)
* A confusion seems to have crept into the minds of many relative to singing the praise of God. They conceive, that because the Church of Scotland is hostile to the use of Musical Instruments in the Public Worship of God, she denies the antiquity of Vocal Music in the Church of Christ. There is ground to believe that the Minister of St. Andrew’s Church, his coadjutors, and anonymous advocates, have fallen into this mistake. Now, there are three things which the Church of Scotland carefully and accurately distinguishes:—First, Plain Singing, which she affirms has been in use from the beginning of the Church. Secondly, Cathedral or Antiphonal Singing, which she takes to be neither useful nor very ancient, being the device of the fourth century. Lastly, Musical Instruments, joined with Singing in the Church, she maintains is the invention of a much later age—certainly not earlier than the eighth, and not in general use till the thirteenth century.
† Tertul. Apol. The rendering, “having made others comply,” is questionable. The original is, “damnatis quibusdam Christianis, quibusdam gradu pulsis.”
† Tertul. Apol. The rendering, “having made others comply,” is questionable. The original is, “dannatis quibusdam Christianis, quibusdam gradu pulsis.“