PCEA

THE Free Church, maintaining the historic position of Presbyterianism has persistently refused to use a musical instrument in her mode of worship. This stand has, and is being held, not merely as a matter of tradition or ecclesiastical obstinacy, but her refusal to introduce such an innovation is based on the Word of God. Our fathers have consistently challenged those who championed the use of the organ in public worship, to give one statement from the New Testament to justify the use of an instrument for such a purpose, and they have as consistently refused to accept the challenge. We ask for one text from the New Testament that would give Scriptural warrant for the use of the organ in public worship. We are not ignorant of the references to musical instruments in the Old Testament; as we are continually being referred to Psalm 150, as a justification for the use of the instrument. It should be remembered that there is a fundamental difference between the ritual of the Old Testament worship and that of the New Testament. The advocates for the use of the instrument in worship are wholly dependent upon the usages of the Levitical worship, under the Aaronic priesthood, but we worship God under the priesthood of Christ, a Priest after the order of Melchisedec, and in the exercise of His priestly office abolished the entire elaborate Levitical system of priesthood, sacrifices, consecrated places.

 THE USE OF INSTRUMENTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT CHURCH

The first authoritative reference for the use of musical instruments is to be found in Numbers, Chap. 10: 1-10. Moses is instructed to make two silver trumpets which were to be committed to Aaron and his sons, and their use was strictly associated with the Mosaic worship of the Tabernacle, v. 10, "Also in the day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, and in the beginnings of your months, ye shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; that they may be to you for a memorial before your God I am the Lord your God." It should be noticed that the use of the instrument was held exclusively in the hands of the priests, "the sons of Aaron", the congregation had no part in this action, but it was part of the sacrificial celebrations. It cannot be adduced from Scripture that the use of the instrument was separate from, but on the contrary was part and parcel of the Mosaic establishment of the Tabernacle, Aaronic priesthood and the sacrifices.

David was the author of an elaborate ritual of music under the direct revelation from God. (See Chronicles, Ch. 28: 11-13.) The various classes of instrumentalist are given in Chron. 25: 33-44. The use of these musical instruments were committed to the Levitical family, the general body of the congregation had no part or share in it. The cymbals, psalteries, and harps were directly associated with the sacrificial service of the altar, the musical demonstrations was part of the sacrificial action: conclusive evidence of this is found in the inauguration of the Temple by Solomon, and also its restoration in the days of Hezekiah. "He (Hezekiah) set the Levites in the House of God, the Lord, with cymbals, with psalteries and harps, according to the commandment 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 all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished." (2nd Chron., Ch. 29: 25-28.)

In the Jewish temple sacrifices were daily offered, incense was offered, and various instruments of music were employed - and all by Divine appointment. Musical instruments were a part of the prefigurative service, but the whole system of Jewish ritualistic worship is now fulfilled and abolished in the death of Christ, who "by His own blood entered in once into a holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Therefore, the figurative worship has no glory under the Gospel.

The mode of worship practised by the Old Testament Church does not constitute a guide or example for the New Testament Church. The responsibility for the elaborate ritualistic worship was vested in the Levitical order of Priesthood, but the Christian Church worships God under the supreme responsibility of the Lord Jesus Christ, Who did not belong to the Levitical order, but was a Priest after the order of Melchisedec. The Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec exercised its office long before the Levitical order came into being, in fact, without the pre-existence of the priesthood after the order of Melchisedec, the Levitical order could not have been established. (See Hebrews, Ch. 7.)

THE WORSHIP OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

The Mode of Worship in the Old Testament Church is referred to in Holy Scripture, as a shadow, a pattern, as being of a temporary nature and only preparatory to the more pure and spiritual worship of the New Testament Church. The elaborate ritual was eminently suitable to the state of the Church, when she had a "worldly Sanctuary" and "carnal ordinances" which were "imposed until the time of reformation" (see Heb. 9). The Lord hath said "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." It is the duty and privilege of the Christian Church to worship God under the supreme responsibility of our Great High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ, and His instruction in relation to our mode of worship is absolute and not subordinate to the reason or will of men, therefore, we have no warrant to go beyond that which is set forth in the Scriptures.

The Saviour, in His conversation with the Samaritan woman declared that, as a result of His work and ministry, the then existing order of worship would be revolutionized, and we are given a more detailed account of the radical nature of this change in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The extensive nature of this revolution swept away the whole elaborate ritualism of the Levitical order.
(1) It dissolves the sacredness of the Jewish sanctuary: the Temple.
(2) It cancels all the privileges and functions of the Levitical order of the Priesthood.
(3) It disannuls the whole routine of animal sacrifices, together with all its ritualistic accompaniments.

The Apostle Paul justifies the sweeping changes by setting forth the all-sufficiency and comprehensiveness of Christ's Priesthood and Sacrifice. The exclusiveness and completeness of our Lord's work and sacrificial death on the cross requires the Christian Church to recognise:
(1) Christ alone as her great High Priest. "But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
(2) That there is no other sacrifice for sin, but that offered by Christ on the Cross. "For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."
(3) That there is no earthly temple or ritualistic accompaniments for the presentation of Christ's sacrifice. "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us."

The Apostle set forth the reason for the abolition of the old order.
(1) The inadequacy of the Levitical order of the Priesthood. "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, for under it the people received the law, what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."
(2) The weakness of the old order. "For there is verily a disanulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof." "For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated forever more.
(3) The oath. "For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou are a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."

The arguments that are used in favour of the use of the organ in Public Worship, can be used for the whole ritualism of the Levitical order. The temple, the holy of holies, the altar, the animal sacrifices, the incense, the trumpet, flute, sackbut, dulcimer, cornet, cymbal and the psaltery; as well as the singers and instrumentalists as they are described in the Book of Chronicles. Once the Priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchisedec is accepted, all such arguments are invalid. Nevertheless, those who champion the use of the organ in worship, constantly appeal to the ritualism of the Aaronic Priesthood, rather than to the spiritual worship under the Great High Priest, after the order of Melchisedec, to the symbols of the past, rather than to the melody of the heart" which is pleasing unto God.

The Scriptures declare that the noblest temple in the sight of God is a renewed heart. The proudest and most costly edifices are valueless and insignificant when compared with it. "Know ye not," saith the Apostle, "that ye are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" Would any blood-bought sinner say that the spiritual temple is incomplete without its earthly pattern?

The design of the whole ritualistic system of the Levitical order is fulfilled and abolished by the sacrificial death of Christ, who, "by His own blood, entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" and we are now instructed to turn away from "the weak and beggarly elements" for it now hath no glory under the Gospel, "by reason of the glory that excelleth."

The New Testament affords no sanction for the use of instrumental music. The Old Testament does not speak more freely on the duty of praising God than does the New Testament, but in the New Testament there is not a reference to the use of an instrument in the praise of God and His worship in the Church on earth. In the Book of Revelation mention is made of the harp in Chapter 5:8; 14:2; 15:2. The references are symbolic. We would submit that the rejection of the use of instrumental music cannot be more forcibly presented than by an appeal to the spiritual nature of Christian worship, the order and exercise of Christ's priestly office, and the heavenly nature of His sacrifice.

Before concluding this article, we would acknowledge that there are many Christians who claim that the use of an organ does not constitute a part of worship, but it is simply used as an aid to the singing, basing their contention on the fact that a building or electric light is used, not as a part of worship but an aid to organized public worship. We hope that in a later article to consider this question.

{mospagebreak title=Part 2}

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."