Answers To Objections
In answer to our argument, we anticipate a twofold reply. 1. In the first place, it will be said that the necessary circumstances of worship are not specifically commanded and yet are not forbidden; and that instrumental music is a mere circumstance of the praise of God, and as such is lawful. Now, we freely admit the necessity of the limitation upon its own doctrine, that all things necessary for God´s glory, man´s salvation, truth, and life, are revealed in Scripture, which the Confession places, viz, that "œthere are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the Church common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed" (Chap. I.6). This limitation, "œso cautiously and exactly stated," is, as Dr. Cunningham says, a "œnecessary" one. "œCommon sense requires this limitation and Scripture itself sanctions it. And it is the more necessary to attend to it, in stating and discussing this question, because it is very easy to misrepresent and caricature the Presbyterian doctrine upon this subject, as is done even by Hooker in his
Ecclesiastical Polity; and because it is chiefly by means of this limitation, "¦ that the unwarrantableness and unfairness of the common misrepresentations of it [our doctrine] by Episcopalians are exposed."[1]
But what is the meaning of the doctrine of our Confession with this limitation appended? It is tantamount, we suppose, to the London Ministers´ statement of the true doctrine as applied to church government, in these words: "œAll the substantials of the government under the New Testament are laid down in the word in particular rules, whether they be touching officers, ordinances, censures, assemblies, and the compass of their power, as after will appear; and all the circumstantials are laid down in the word, under general rules of order, decency, and edification."[2]
The "œcircumstances" and the "œcircumstantials" are, of course, the same.[3] Owen explains the term. "œCircumstances (he says) are either such as follow actions, as actions, or such as are arbitrarily superadded, and adjoined by command unto actions." He gives an example of the first sort: "œPrayer is a part of God´s worship. Public prayer is so appointed by him. This, as it is an action to be performed by man, cannot be done without the assignment of time and place and sundry other things, if order and conveniency be attended to. These are circumstances that attend all actions of that nature to be performed by a community, whether they relate to the worship of God or no. These may men, according as they see good, regulate and change as there is occasion; I mean, they may do so who are acknowledged to have power in such things." But he proceeds: "œThere are also some things which some men call circumstances also, that no way belong, of themselves, to the actions whereof they are said to be the circumstances, but are imposed on them, or annexed unto them, by the arbitrary authority of those who take upon them to give order and rule in such cases. "¦ These are not circumstances attending the nature of thing itself, but are arbitrarily superadded to the things that they are appointed to accompany."[4]
Now, our Confession, of course, speaks only of the former of these two classes of circumstances"”of circumstances belonging to God´s worship, as it is an action by a society, just such as attend all actions of all societies; circumstances which are so essential that without them the actions cannot be done. All such circumstances are really commanded in the commanding of the action; for if men are commanded to come together to pray, they are commanded to agree upon a time and place of coming together.
Certainly it cannot be maintained that the organ is a circumstance, in this sense. Clearly, it is something annexed to the worship. Under the law, such things were a necessary part of the divine worship, as Owen says.[5] Who will pretend that they came in then as mere circumstances, or by human authority, and not by special divine authority given to inspired David? But if, confessedly, they came not in then as mere circumstances nor by decree of man, no more may they now find entrance in this way.
As to the tuning fork, if it be a necessary circumstance of rightly pitching the voice, without which God´s ordinance of singing cannot be properly carried into execution, then it must be held to be one of the things commanded; and so the question of its use must be left to Christian liberty and prudence.
This plea of the organ´s being a mere circumstance of worship, whilst it may be offered by others, is not and could not be employed by Dr. Smyth. With characteristic frankness he boldly defends the organ as a competent part of the worship of God under the New Testament. This is the only manly and fair position its advocates can take. But whenever they do take it, they have to encounter the condemnation which awaits those who presume to add to God´s commands respecting his worship.
2. The other reply which we anticipate to our argument affirms this principle, that whatever was appointed of old, and was acceptable to God under a former dispensation, and has not been specifically abolished by name, may now be employed by us in the public worship of God, provided it seem good and proper to ourselves; because the Church has liberty. Sacrifices and all other typical things having been fulfilled in Christ, have, it is said, passed away, of course; but the instruments of music had no typical meaning, and so they may stand firm in the New Testament worship, provided we think proper. It is further urged in this reply, that instrumental music having been acceptable to God formerly, it may be presumed that it cannot now be unacceptable to him, since he has not specifically forbidden it.
Now, 1. Has the Church any liberty beyond the mere circumstances which belong necessarily to God´s appointments? So does not our Confession teach. So did not our forefathers in England and Scotland teach. So do not the Scriptures teach. The Church has not liberty to appoint rites. Worship of her will is not acceptable. In vain do we worship after the commandments of men. It is for God only to determine how he is to be approached.
2. Are we authorized to say that the instruments used in public worship of old had no typical meaning? Fairbairn tells us that the tabernacle or temple, "œ
as a whole, is affirmed in the Epistles to the Hebrews and the Colossians to have been of a typical nature."[6] Nor can this statement be disputed. But if the whole be represented in Scripture as typical, which of us shall venture to say of any part that it is not typical? Fairbairn goes on to say (p. 60), that "œwhile New Testament Scripture speaks thus of the whole, it deals very sparingly in particular examples; "¦ it no where tells us what was either immediately symbolized or prophetically shadowed forth by the holy place in the tabernacle, or the shewbread, or the golden candlestick, or the ark of the covenant, or indeed by any thing connected with the tabernacle, excepting its more prominent offices and ministrations." Even the Epistle to the Hebrews, he says, "œwhich is most express in a ascribing a typical value to all that belonged to the tabernacle, can yet scarcely be said to give any detailed explanation of its furniture and services beyond the rite of expiatory sacrifice. "¦ So that those who insist on explicit warrant and direction from Scripture in regard to each particular type, will find their principle conducts them but a short way, even through that department which they are obliged to admit possesses throughout a typical character." It would seem to be enough for us to know that worship by instruments was a part of the public worship of the temple,[7] to satisfy us that it was abolished with the whole of that temporary and peculiar institute of God. Clearly, this was one of the "œcarnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation" (Heb. 9:10), to pass away with the other "œelements or rudiments of the world," to which the Church in her juvenile estate was "œin bondage" and under pupilage "œas to a schoolmaster." Fairbairn dwells (p. 59) on this idea of the Church being prepared for higher, simpler, more spiritual methods of instruction and worship by the use of these merely animal, fleshly, sensuous, material, temporal things; and describes her passing with intelligence and delight "œfrom rudimental tutelage under the shadows of good things into the free use and enjoyment of the things themselves." It must accordingly be worse than childishness in her now to go back to a delight in using any part of this antiquated and therefore abolished system. We follow in the track of Paul when we reason that what is decayed and waxen old should vanish from use in the New Testament Church (Heb. 8:13).
3. Is it to be taken for granted always that a mode of worship once acceptable to God is always acceptable? It is not. God claims the sovereign right to alter and to abolish his own institutes. It is indeed "œa fallacy that whatever is appointed by God can never become obsolete."[8] Circumcision is obsolete. Once imperatively necessary to secure God´s friendship, now, "œif ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing," and you shall be lost. Before Moses, it was right and acceptable to offer sacrifices to God on high places. Afterwards they were abominable if offered any where but at the tabernacle. Still later, the tabernacle gives way to the temple. Shiloh and Gibeon are profane, and "œin Jerusalem is the place where we ought to worship;" but now it would be wicked to insist on any such rule. Once, incense in clouds arose acceptably before God. Now, we may not dare to borrow any such thing from an abolished ritual. The Church could not plead that this was once acceptable to God; has not been specifically abolished; would be a very seemly and beautiful appendage to public prayer; and must therefore, of course, be lawful to us and pleasing to God. No! the Christian Church had inspired apostles to set up her doctrine, government, and worship. This was one especial part of their apostolic work. They were not capable of forgetting any thing required of us by the Lord, for they had the Spirit to guide them. And now we may not impute imperfection to their work, by essaying any improvements upon it whatsoever.
________________________________________
[1] See Cunningham´s admirable remarks on human inventions in worship, in his Discussions on Church Principles, pp. 249-256. [Ed. William Cunningham, Discussions on church principles: Popish, Erastian, and Presbyterian (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863)].
[2] Divine Right of Church Government. Part 2, chap. 4.
[3] The London Ministers prepared their work on the Divine Right in 1646, during the meetings of the Westminster Assembly. The statement concerning "œcircumstances," as now found in our Form of Government, occurs nearly word for word in the "œFirst Paper of Proposals" offered by the Presbyterians to Charles II, in 1660, preparatory to the Savoy Conference.
[4] Owen´s Discourse concerning Liturgies. Works, Vol. [15], p. 437.
[5] Ibidem, p. 439.
[6] Fairbairn´s Typology, Vol 1, p. 29. [Ed. The Typology of Scripture: viewed in connection with the whole series of the divine dispensations (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1864; fourth edition].
[7] We are by no means prepared to admit that the use of instruments in the temple belonged to the stated or ordinary worship there. Upon some extraordinary occasions, it did undoubtedly make a part of the temple worship, however, and that by divine command. It is amusing to see how delighted Dr. Smyth is when he can quote one of the references to "œa commandment of the Lord" to this effect (see p. 541), as appears from the capital letters he employs. That is all which the use of organs in the New Testament Church lacks "” the command of the Lord by the apostles, either perceptively or by example; either expressly or constructively by good and necessary consequence.
[8] Killeen´s Ancient Church, p. 78. [Ed. Note. W. D. Killeen, The ancient church : its history, doctrine, worship, and constitution, traced for the first three hundred years (London: J. Nisbet, 1859)]
to becoming the biggest "party-pooper" at church. It is very freeing though to realize that God is Spirit, and these are only ways to help us worship him in Spirit and Truth.
