IN our previous article we pointed out that those who advocate the use of instrumental music in Christian worship, cannot produce any scriptural warrant from the New Testament for such an innovation; their constant appeal to the Mosaic Economy is an absolute contradiction to what the Apostle Paul has to say regarding Christian worship. Paul declares of the Levitical priesthood that they, "serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." Worship under the Levitical order was designed, merely as an outline or pattern of the substantial realities of spiritual worship under the Priesthood after the order of Melchisedic, or in other words, the shadowy representation of heavenly things (see Heb. 8:5). There is, in heaven, the reality of which the service in the "earthly" or Jewish sanctuary was but an imitation. "For the law having a shadow of good things to come and not the very image of the things." (Heb. 10:1). In Christ, and His priestly office after the order of Melchisedic, we have the 'very image' of what the Levitical order foreshadowed. The location of Christian worship is in the heavenly sanctuary and not the shadowy outline that was the centre of Levitical worship. Whatever accompaniments are necessary to the praise in Christian worship, apart from that expressly set down in the New Testament, are of a heavenly character, therefore, the "very image" of the symbolic worship of the Levitical order is now in operation in Christian worship. "For Christ," our great High Priest, "is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself." We might ask those who advocate the use of instrumental music in the worship of God, those who draw upon the shadows of the past, Do they presume to improve upon the praise rendered unto God, under the leadership of Christ, for Christ is the leader of our praise, "I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee" (Heb. 1:12), by the introduction of accompaniments that Scripture declares are an imitation or a shadow of the reality? We feel that much more could be written on this aspect, but we promised to say something concerning the organ being used, not as a part of worship, but as an aid to the praise in worship.

We are not devoid of musical sense, and we do appreciate the genius of a composer and the skill of the instrumentalist in his interpretation of the composition before him. We are grateful for the entertainment value and the pleasure that we derive from music, and this appreciation of music is a strong argument against the use of an organ as an aid to the praise in the worship of God. "God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." We maintain that the use of an organ does, to a degree, destroy the spiritual sensitiveness of the worshipper. The worshipper, who is possessed of musical sense, is attracted or irritated by the ability, or want of it, on the part of the composer or instrumentalist; without this musical sense the organ would be meaningless. Therefore, in so far as the feelings or emotions are excited or soothed by a purely human invention, so the spiritual sensitiveness is destroyed, for the experience is wholly dependent upon the genius of the composer or the ability of the instrumentalist, and we are reminded that, "God is a spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."

The argument has been put forward that, if we object to the use of an organ as an aid to the praise in worship, to be consistent, we should object to the aid of electric light in worship. This argument is so weak that it scarce deserves an answer. We have a definite command for the reading of God's Word; if the natural light is not sufficient to enable us to read the Scriptures, we seek the aid of artificial light. Ordinary artificial light has no affect upon our spiritual sensitiveness, it does not excite our emotions, or distract our attention from the Word of God, but the very purpose of the organ is to attract the attention and affect our emotions. We are reminded of Baxter's argument, that if we object to the use of an organ, we should also object to the use of spectacles as an aid to read the Bible. We fail to see where there is any comparison. We make use of such aids in order to fulfil the commands of God, but we can sing praise to God without the help of an organ, for our praise is the fruit of the lips and the melody is of the heart. If our praise would be more acceptable to God by the aid of an instrument; are we to conclude that Christ and His Apostles overlooked this fact, and that it was not until six hundred years later it was discovered. Bellarmine, informs us, that the organ began to be used in the service of the Church about the year 660, "and that when Pope Vitalian reformed the singing of the Roman Church, he added to it organs in order to support and embellish it." (Brit. Enc. 'on word organ,' quoted by Dr. Begg). We maintain that simplicity should be our objective in worship, and whatever aids we make use of should be of such a character that they do not distract the attention of the worshipper from the spiritual nature of his worship.

At the time of the Reformation, the truly reformed churches abandoned the use of organs. Martin Luther, ranked "musical organs amongst the badges of Baal." (Eckerd's Works, p. 639). John Calvin, in his "Commentary on Exodus," 15:20, writes, "Instrumental music is reckoned among the number of legal ceremonies which Christ hath abolished, where as now we must retain a gospel simplicity." Zwingly said, "It is evident that this ecclesiastic chanting is a most foolish vain abuse." Later Bishop Lightfoot wrote, "Christ abolished the use of the Temple, as purely ceremonious; but He perpetuated the Use of the Synagogue, such as reading the Scriptures, preaching, praying and singing of Psalms, and translating it into the Christian Church as purely moral." The force of Dr. Lightfoot's remarks are clear, when it is remembered that instrumental singing was peculiar to the Temple service, and never used in the Synagogues.

Recently our attention has been directed to the example of the Dutch Reformed Churches; but this presents no argument for the use of instrumental music in Christian worship; as the organ was obtruded upon the Dutch Reformed Church by the State, without the consent of, and against the wishes of the Church. The Synod of Holland and Zeeland, convened in 1554, gave the following instruction: "That ministers should endeavour to prevail with the magistrates to banish organs and instrumental music out of the churches." Twenty-seven years later, in 1581, the National Assembly convened in Middleburg, again called for the removal of organs from the churches. Therefore, those who champion the use of instrumental music in Christian worship are in direct opposition to the Apostolic Simplicity of Worship as held by the fathers of the Dutch Reformation.

At this point, we must admit that we have not met a Gereformeerde minister who would acknowledge the use of an organ as part of the Worship of God in the Christian Church, but look upon its use as an aid to praise, nor have we met one, who does not freely admit that we have not any instruction from the New Testament for the use of an organ.

We also understand the effect historical development has upon the various churches of the Reformed Faith, nevertheless, we maintain that, use and wont, of historical development is not sufficient justification for not reviewing their mode of worship, even in this, the 20th century, in the light of Apostolic Simplicity.

The fathers of Scottish Presbyterianism embodied the simplicity of Apostolic worship in her constitution, and we intend to publish in our next issue, an article dealing with this, from a far more able pen than that of the present writer.

Therefore we purpose to reprint the late Dr. Begg's article on "The Constitution and Laws of the Established Church of Scotland."