Harper II.18

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE PRECEPTIVE THEORY EXAMINED—ARGUMENT FOR IT, DRAWN FROM DIRECTIONS IN THE PSALMS TO USE INSTRUMENTS, CONSIDERED.

---

Two of the arguments drawn from scripture in favor of the preceptive theory as to the use of instrumental music in worship have now been disposed of. These are that such music, having been once prescribed by God, cannot be, in itself, sinful; and that it must still be obligatory in worship, because there is no indication of the repeal of the appointment.

Third. A third point urged from scripture on the same side, is that in the book of Psalms, there are numerous commands addressed, apparently to men without restriction, to praise God by using musical instruments in worship. The 150th Psalm, with which the Psalter closes, is a rousing summons to the performance of the duty of praising God, and that with various instruments of music. Now, it is contended, that if these psalms were meant to be used in the worship of God in the New Testament age as well as in the Old, nay, even if they are worthy to be read as a part of scripture, it must be lawful and even obligatory to use instruments of music now in the praise of God. This argument is supposed to bear with double force on those who hold with the writer, that the songs of the inspired Psalter, and only they, should be sung in the formal worship of God.

In reply a few remarks are submitted.

I. It is a significant fact that the great mass of Christians, since apostolic times, have never felt it obligatory in praising God, to use instruments of music either personally or by proxy, while many of them have felt it to be their duty to oppose the use of them.

II. It is an awkward fact for those who advance this argument that those bodies of Christians, who have been most zealous for the use of the Psalms in the

Page 62

service of song, have been the most averse to the use of instruments of music in that service. In the early Church, when the Psalms were in universal and almost exclusive use in the exercise of formal praise, no instruments of music were employed in that exercise, and in the Reformation period, those churches that used the inspired Psalter alone, as the matter of praise, opposed the use of instrumental music in worship. We may challenge our opponents to name a church, since the days of the apostles, which has assigned to the scripture Psalter the place of honor due to it, as the only divinely authorized hymn book of the church, and yet has favored the use of instrumental music in the celebration of the praise of God. This is a phenomenon which the world has not yet seen I believe, although strenuous efforts are now being made to afford mankind such a novel spectacle. The Church of Holland, which for a long time, adhered to the exclusive, or nearly exclusive, use of the scripture psalms in worship, did retain to some extent the use of organs; but the retention was much against the judgment and wishes of the best men in that church, and was due rather to the influence of the State, which became the patron and, in some measure, the tyrant of the church. In the year 1554, the Synod of Holland and Zealand, resolved to urge the magistrates to expel organs and all instruments of music from the churches. In 1574, the Synod of Zealand took similar action, and even the great Synod of Dort (1618), in its 50th canon, decreed that the magistrates “be asked to abolish the playing of organs in churches, even outside the stated worship, whether before or after meetings.” Somewhat later, Voetius, one of the most learned theologians of whom Holland can boast, devoted an extended section of his famous work on “Ecclesiastical Polity,” to a refutation of the pleas advanced in behalf of instrumental music in worship. I do not now stop to account for the fact that, in proportion as the psalms are honored, instruments of music as helps in worship, are deprecated and despised; but I note it, as constituting presumptive evidence that the plea under consideration is not weighty. Those who desert the psalms are those who take most kindly to the organ.

III. In the Psalms, we find embodied numerous calls to offer sacrifices; to enter the courts of the temple, and to walk about Zion, or promises on the part of the writer to do such things. Are these utterances to be understood as either binding or warranting us to do the very things indicated? If not, why should kindred utterances, in regard to the use of musical instruments, be counted a valid plea for using them in worship now?

For instance, in Ps. 5:7, the Psalmist says, “But as for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy; and in thy fear, I will worship toward thy holy temple.” In singing this, do we promise to visit Jerusalem, and worship toward the literal temple or tabernacle?

We read thus, in Ps. 26:6, “I will wash mine hands in innocency, so will I compass thy altar, O Lord!” Must we then have in our churches, a literal laver, and a material altar? We shall be in close fellowship with Rome, when we shall have procured those improvements.

“Therefore, I will offer in his tabernacle sacrifices of joy,” says David, in Ps.

Page 63

27:6. In singing this language, do we pledge ourselves to offer such thank offerings as were no doubt primarily meant by the writer of the psalm?

In Ps. 43:4, the Psalmist indeed says, “Yea, upon the harp I will praise thee, O, God, my God;” but he also says in the context, “O, send out thy light and thy truth and let them lead me; let them bring me unto thy holy hill, and to thy tabernacles. Then will I go unto the altar of God.” If we cannot consistently sing this, and at the same time refuse to use the harp, how can we consistently sing it, and refuse to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in quest of the sanctuary and of the sacred altar? If we can and should dispense with the literal, material altar, why not with the literal harp?

In Ps. 47:1, the summons is issued, “O, clap your hands, all ye people.” Must we then literally engage in the exercise of hand clapping, in order to sing these words consistently, and in order to obey them whether we sing them or not?

We are called upon in Ps. 48:12, “to walk about Zion,” and “go round about her,” and “tell the towers thereof.” Can we duly honor this call without making a visit to Palestine and searching for the towers of Zion? If we can, may we not duly honor the call to use musical instruments, without using them in a literal sense?

In Ps. 51:19, David says, “Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: thus shall they offer bullocks upon thy altar.” Are we then in this dispensation to perform in a literal sense what is here predicted or promised?

We read these words in Ps. 66:13–15, “I will go into thy house with burnt offerings: I will pay thee my vows, which my lips uttered, my mouth hath spoken when I was in trouble. I will offer unto thee burnt sacrifices of fatlings, with the incense of rams; I will offer bullocks with goats.”

In Ps. 81:2, we are told to “take a psalm and bring hither the timbrel and the pleasant harp;” but in verse 3, we are also told to, “blow up the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day.”

“Bring an offering and come into his courts,” it is said in Ps. 96:8. Undoubtedly this meant in the first instance to inculcate the duty of visiting the tabernacle or temple, and of bringing a gift according to the Levitical law. Do we feel that we are now bound to do these things?

Ps. 100, contains the address, “Enter into his gates with thanksgiving and into his courts with praise,” which primarily is a call to repair to the central seat of Jewish worship; yet we do not feel under obligation, or at liberty, though we read and sing thus, to go in quest of that place of resort.

In Ps. 107:22, it is said, with reference to men at large, “And let them sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving;” yet do we hold ourselves even at liberty to offer now the literal sacrifices primarily meant?

The Psalmist in Ps. 116:17, expresses the following purpose or vow, “I will offer to thee, the sacrifice of thanksgiving,” yet we sing this language without deeming ourselves delinquent, because we render no Levitical thank offering to God.

Page 64

In Ps. 118:27, near the close of a passage which clearly relates to the New Testament age, the command is expressed, “Bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar;” yet we do not comply literally with this mandate.

When we sing the 122d Ps., we use these words, “Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O, Jerusalem.” When we sing these words, do we expect the issue, in a literal respect, which they express?

In Ps. 149:3, the direction is given, “Let them praise his name in the dance.” The Shakers comply with this literally. It is to be feared that too many comply literally with the call to dance. Not many, however, propose to praise God thereby. In passing, it may be mentioned that the word, “machol,” rendered dance here, is supposed by some to mean an instrument of music. The matter is hardly important enough for the object now in view to merit any special discussion, and I will content myself with saying that the very highest authorities, ancient and modern, in Hebrew literature, sustain the rendering in our version.

In verse 6 of the same psalm, it is said by way of indirect command to the saints, “Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand.” Must we then brandish a literal sword when engaged in singing the praises of God?

Is it not apparent, from these specimens of the phraseology of the Psalms, that no stress can be laid on the references which they contain to musical instruments, as an argument for the use of instruments now? By the same line of argument, the entire Levitical ritual might be proved worthy of imitation in our worship. This, indeed, is a consideration which lends a great degree of practical importance to the discussion in which we are now engaged. For it is hard to tell to what extremes ritualism may go, if once the principles of interpretation used to procure the admission of musical instruments into the church service be adopted.

4. In the offering of praise to God by lip and life, we carry into due effect the exhortations, commands and professions contained in the Psalms concerning the use of instruments. This is substantially the view taken of this matter by the entire ancient church. In the call made upon all men to praise God with instruments, there may be an intimation intended that the time was coming when all the people of God would be Levites, and the mode of worship by the mediation of human priests, or agents, should come to an end.