Harper II.13

CHAPTER XIII.

THE PRECEPTIVE THEORY EXAMINED—ARGUMENT AGAINST IT FROM THE SPECIFICATION OF PARTICULAR INSTRUMENTS.

---

(4.) Another indication converging in common with the three already presented, to the conclusion that the instrumental element in Jewish worship was ceremonial and temporary, is, that the specific instruments to be used were prescribed by God; that, moreover, these have been lost; and that no description of them has been given sufficient to enable us to construct exactly the like.

The musical instruments intended for use in the tabernacle and temple were prepared at least in part by David, and doubtless prescribed by him under divine guidance. We know that the pattern of the temple and of all the utensils connected with it was by David, under the immediate inspiration of the Spirit, furnished to Solomon, as an authoritative guide to him in the great work to which he was called, for we read thus in 1 Chron. 28:11–13: “Then David gave to Solomon, his son, the pattern of the porch, and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, and of the upper chambers thereof, and of the inner parlors thereof, and of the place of the mercy seat, and the pattern of all that he had by the Spirit, of the courts of the house of the Lord, and of all the chambers round about, of the treasuries of the house of God, and of the treasuries of the dedicated things: also for the courses of the priests and the Levites, and for all the work of the service of the house of the Lord, and for all the vessels of service in the house of the Lord.” It may, in passing be noticed that “kele,” the word rendered “vessels” in the last clause of the foregoing quotation, might be rendered “instru-

Page 46

ments,” and that it is so rendered in the next verse. After an enumeration of the various items provided for in the pattern, it is added (v. 19), “All this, said David, the Lord made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the work of this pattern.”

Whether the musical instruments had already been prepared and brought into use or not, it can hardly be questioned that no less than other vessels of service, they were embraced in the model or plan divinely given for the guidance of Solomon touching the house of God and all its appointments.

Let it be noted, also, that certain instruments for musical purposes were expressly prescribed by God through David, together with the prophets, Gad and Nathan, 2 Chron. 29:25. The instruments so appointed are called “the instruments of David,” in 2 Chron. 29:26, 27; Neh. 12:36, partly to indicate that he prepared, or at least prescribed them, and partly, perhaps, to distinguish them from the priestly trumpets which had been prepared and appointed by Moses. They are, however, also designated, “musical instruments of God” (1 Chron. 16:42), in token of the fact that they were, by his appointment, employed in his worship, and not used in that service simply because they were then in fashion.

Let it be further observed that the direction to use instrumental music in worship, was coupled with, or conveyed in, a direction to use certain specified instruments. The precept did not run on this wise, “Use musical instruments in praising God;” but on this wise, “Praise God with certain instruments named.”

In consonance with all this is the fact that in a time of revival, nearly 300 years after the rearing of the temple, Hezekiah, in restoring the service of song, was careful to provide that precisely the instruments ordained by David should be used in producing the instrumental part of that service. This we learn from 2 Chron. 29:25–27, “And he set the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps according to the command of David, and of Gad, the King’s seer, and Nathan, the prophet: for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets. And the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord began also with the trumpets, and with the instruments ordained by David, King of Israel.”

In the time of Ezra, also still later, at the laying of the foundation of the second temple, the ordinance of David in respect to instruments was observed, and probably was observed in full, although only the trumpets and cymbals are mentioned expressly; the latter being, probably, for brevity, named as a specimen merely of the instruments used by the ordinary Levites. Later still, even at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah, the very same ordinance, not only in respect to instrumental music, but also in respect to the very instruments used, seems to have been carefully observed; for, in Neh. 12:27, it is said, “And at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem, they sought the Levites out of all their places to bring them to Jerusalem, to keep the dedication with

Page 47

gladness, both with thanksgivings and with singing, with cymbals, psalteries and with harps,” and in v. 36, it is expressly stated that certain persons whose names are mentioned took part in the service of the day, “with the musical instruments of David, the man of God.”

Now, all this particularity as to the use of certain instruments savors of the rigor of ceremonialism, and forms an indication that the instrumental music appointed for the temple service belonged to that system of rites and ceremonies which was marked by rigidity and minuteness of regulations, and was meant to pass away at the completion of the sacrificial work of Christ. Besides, those who plead for the use of instruments in New Testament worship under cover of the command of God to use them in the temple, are bound to accept the command in its breadth, or in its narrowness, and that was a command not to use any instruments which the worshippers might prefer, or fashion might dictate, but to use certain instruments specified by divine authority. If others are used, they must be introduced on authority as valid as was the harp, the cymbal or the trumpet.

Are our musical enthusiasts prepared to accept the command as issued? If so, they must sedulously strive to have the very instruments which received divine sanction; not contenting themselves even with only one of the sorts prescribed, but seeking to keep in its integrity and fulness the precept under which they profess to act. To say the least, the fulness of the temple orchestra ought to be the goal toward which they should press, the model which they should closely copy. This should be deemed the ideal toward the realization of which the church should now strive. What right have we to interpret the command to use certain kinds of instruments as equivalent to a command to use any kind of instruments? To say the least, what right have we to omit the instruments expressly mentioned, even if it be granted that some others might be joined with them? It is under the plea of a command to use not one kind, but several kinds of instruments and these kinds, moreover, particularly named, that we are asked now to establish instrumental music in our churches. Those who advance the plea are bound in consistency to press on till they shall have brought the church to recognize the duty of conducting its worship with the music, not merely of one instrument, but of several instruments, at least as many and as nearly as possible the same in kind, as those appointed by the commandment of David, of Gad, and of Nathan. Nothing short of an orchestra, or a band of musicians, duly equipped with prescribed instruments, will satisfy the requirements of the plea, under which the patrons of instrumental music think they can march to victory.

But just at this point, we remember that the reproduction of the same kinds of instruments which were authorized by David, would demand greater antiquarian lore than the world at present possesses. Who can now tell precisely what the instruments were which David prescribed? We may guess what they were, but with respect to some of them at least we can do nothing more. God has not furnished us with a detailed description of them to guide us in any attempt to frame the like; nor has he preserved any of them to be a model for our imitation. And this very circumstance that the instruments have not been preserved, and more-

Page 48

over cannot be reproduced with any certainty, would seem to be an indication that God meant that those appliances should find no place in our worship.

If the pitiable evasion should be resorted to, as indeed it has been by some, that, according to the line of argument now adopted, we ought to use the very tunes or chants with which the songs of Zion were sung in the temple, I would answer, that it is not said in the Bible that God prescribed the very tunes or musical notes to be employed in the service of song. The style of music seems to have been left to be regulated by taste, subject, however, to the general directions given in the word, touching the sobriety and solemnity of feeling appropriate to worship; whereas the instruments to be employed were specifically named and provided. True indeed, there are certain inscriptions prefixed to particular psalms, which are supposed by some to indicate the tunes to which those psalms respectively were to be sung; but let it be duly noted that the divine origin of the inscriptions in question is by no means certain; that it is a very conjectural matter, moreover, whether certain terms that do occur in those inscriptions, are the names of tunes; that not all of the psalms have inscriptions; and that of all the inscriptions prefixed there are only a very few that can with any show of reason be regarded as indicating tunes. On the other hand, outside the book of Psalms, and in passages universally admitted by Christians to be canonical scripture, explicit directions are given as to the instruments to be used; while at long intervals of Old Testament history, the literally binding character of those directions is recognized and declared by the church, under the guidance of inspired men. Had God meant that the selection of instruments should be regulated by the same principles as that of the tunes, would he not have left the matter of instruments as indefinite as he did the matter of tunes? He prescribed the very instruments to be used. He did not prescribe the very tunes to be used, but left the selection of them to be made by the discretion of the church, subject to the general regulations laid down in scripture touching his worship. The fact that the tunes or system of chanting used in the temple cannot be now definitely ascertained, is no sign that God meant singing or chanting to cease in the church at the close of the Old Testament dispensation, for he never appointed any particular tunes or chants, though he did appoint singing or chanting; but the fact that the particular musical instruments appointed for use in the temple cannot now be determined is a sign that God meant the use of musical instruments to cease in the church at the close of the old dispensation, for he did prescribe not instrumental music in general to be used in the temple, but the use of specified instruments.

When thus pressed, those who clamor for instrumental music in worship have sometimes said, that we may deviate from fixed arrangements in worship, and, while observing the spirit of those arrangements, adapt ourselves to the varying tastes of different ages and countries, and the advances made in art and culture. We can understand this kind of reasoning, or rather of assertion in the mouth of one who believes that we may now devise our own modes of worshipping God. In his mouth it would have a measure of consistency and we would

Page 49

answer him, as we have done, by vindicating the true law of worship. But at least one writer, who professes firm adherence to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, puts forward the same sentiment and adduces the matter of foot-washing, performed and, in some sense, inculcated by the Saviour, as an instance in which, while we should follow the spirit, we may deviate from the external form of the observance. His reasoning virtually is this, that just as we may duly copy the example set us by Christ, and the instructions given by him in connection with the example, without literally engaging in the operation of washing the feet of the brethren; so we may adequately obey a command to use certain instruments by using some instrument, or instruments, not named in the specification. But is this writer prepared to maintain, that foot-washing was ordained by Christ to be observed as literally in the church as the use of certain instruments was ordained for the temple service? If I understood Christ to have ordained that the observance of foot-washing be maintained in the church, then I would literally observe it. But, for reasons which I cannot now pause to present, I do not believe, nor does the writer alluded to believe, that he ordained such an observance; his purpose being, to teach by his example, in an emblematic way, a great lesson. On the other hand, God of old enjoined the use of specific instruments in his worship, and for centuries, we know, he was understood by the Israelites to have done so. We have on the one side an emblematic lesson; on the other an ordinance of worship definitely prescribed. Because we may be said to obey the emblematic lesson, though we never literally wash the saints’ feet, it does not follow that we properly obey the command to use certain musical instruments, unless we do actually use them. The cases are not parallel; for the spirit is all that is required in the one, whereas in the other, the outward form, as well as the spirit, is obligatory. It may be added that if the example of Christ in the matter of foot-washing, may be duly honored by compliance with the spirit of his direction, then, if the cases are parallel, the precept to use instruments can be sufficiently obeyed by our exercising the spirit of that service without any instruments at all.

A quibble drawn from the primitive practice known as the kiss of charity, may be disposed of in substantially the same way as that drawn from the operation of foot-washing.

On the whole, the position taken seems valid, that the appointment of specific instruments of music for use in the temple, the loss of those instruments, and the lack of any definite instructions to guide in constructing them, are circumstances which point to the conclusion that the instrumental feature of the ancient worship was ceremonial and temporary in design.