Alexander Hislop - Against Instrumental Music
Instrumental music, which, as much as the offering of sacrifice, was identified with it, and which was not used in the service of the synagogue, was equally abrogated.BY THE
REV. ALEX. HISLOP,
ARBROATH.
GLASGOW AND LONDON: W.R. M'PHUN.
Bookseller and Publisher to H.R.H. the Prince Consort.
1858.See Also Hugh Brown and the High Church authority
See the meaning of the High Church which allows CHANGING Scripture to achieve EFFECTS.
Deut. 12:32. "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."
To some minds, it may seem little less than ridiculous, at this time of day, to speak of reviving the testimony contained in the Solemn League and Covenant. That Covenant has been so completely trampled under-foot, and has, by the vast majority of Scottish, as well as English Christians, been so long consigned to oblivion, that almost everywhere it is counted as a thing entirely obsolete and antiquated. It is the object of this discourse to show, that the great principles of that solemn deed were in entire accordance with the Word of God; and, consequently, that their obligation is as binding at this day as when the Covenant was sworn. If, in the line of argument I may employ, I shall be constrained to make statements, and adduce facts, that may bear hard upon Episcopacy, I hope it will not be supposed that it is from any harsh, unkind, or uncharitable feeling to Episcopalians. The services rendered by many, of all ranks, in the Episcopal Church of England, to the cause of Christ, entitle them to the highest respect; and the personal kindness which I have myself experienced from not a few in that communion, both clerical and lay, and that more abundantly of late than before, would make it entirely inexcusable on my part, if I were to indulge any such unworthy feeling. With the most fervent charity, however, for individuals, vital and seasonable truth must not be kept in abeyance through fear of offence being taken. The interests of pure and undefiled religion, the cause of God in this land, and even the spiritual and eternal welfare of Episcopalians themselves, imperatively require, and now more than ever they did, since this was a Protestant nation that the inherent tendencies of the Episcopal system should be clearly set in the light of Scripture and experience. Too long has there been an astonishing indifference to this subject. Surely the events passing around us, make it impossible that that indifference should continue much longer.In elucidating the subject of lecture, I shall endeavour to show,
The extent of the principle contained in the text.
CHAPTER I. THE EXTENT OF THE GREAT PRINCIPLE OF THE TEXT. First, then, as to the extent of the principle contained in the text:"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."
Though this command occurs in the Old Testament, we have clear evidence that the principle contained in it is equally binding on the Church under the New Testament dispensation.When the Lord Jesus sent out his apostles to evangelize the world, he sent them forth with this commission: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
teaching them to observe ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU " (Matt. 28:18-20).
Here is the republication of the principle, "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it." And that this commission also contained in it, by clear implication,
the other principle, " Thou shalt not add thereto," we have the decisive language of the Lord Jesus himself to prove.
"In vain do they worship me," said he, quoting Isaiah, and applying it to the Pharisees, "in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men"
language which is plainly alluded to by Paul, when he impresses on the Colossians the danger of giving heed to the "commandments and doctrines of men" (Col. 2:22).
Now the apostles thus commissioned, were miraculously endowed with the Holy Ghost, that they might teach the churches to observe ALL things which the Lord Jesus commanded, and to teach them to observe NOTHING ELSE. See Commands, Examples and Inferences
If thus the apostolic commission ran, if they were expressly required, in their teaching, and in the institutions which they introduced into the Christian Church,
to have implicit respect to the mind and will of Christ, the Church's sole and only Head, who can plead that he may venture to act on a different principle?
Now, how are we to know the mind of Christ?
We can know it only from his infallible word? "To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20).Those who have recourse to tradition, as a ground either of faith or of practice, are guilty of casting away the lamp of life, that they may follow an ignis fatuus, that can only lead them astray; and bring upon themselves the withering rebuke pronounced by our Lord on the Pharisees: "Full well, ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."
Protestants, in general, admit that the Word of God is the only foundation of doctrine, meaning thereby, the principles of faith.
But, unhappily, many that bear the Protestant name, have earnestly contended that,
in regard to worship, discipline, and church government, other principles altogether than those of Scripture may lawfully be brought into play.
Now, if there were no worship, no discipline, no church government instituted with apostolic sanction and authority, and embodied in the Divine Record, there would be some force in such an allegation. But, is it the fact that the worship, discipline, and government of the Church have been left for men to modify and shape, as their varying whims may see fit? Clearly not.
See the Disciples of Christ Creed
Rubel Shelly as the pretend AGENT for the churches of Christ in the Stone Campbell Movement has followed Hamm closely about how to LINE UP THE signs to grasp Scripture. Click Here
This article follows the purveyors of THE SHEPHERDING MOVEMENT. Another article on Whole Life Dicipleship denies the individual the right to read, interpret and teach the Word independant of the community (commune)
See the Promise Keepers NATIONAL SHEPHERDING MOVEMENT
Lynn Anderson PK-like Discipling Dilema
Max Lucado hires a DISCIPLING MINISTER1. The worship of the Christian Church has not been left to be determined by the mere judgments and imaginations of men. There are principles laid down, there are precepts given, there are examples recorded, which show the mind and will of Christ in this matter; and the statements of Paul, in regard to " will-worship " (Col. 2:18-23), decisively prove that those who violate the purity of Christian worship,
are not only those who introduce practices which God has forbidden,
but those who introduce what God has not authorised, or commanded.There can be no meaning attached to the term, " will -worship," but that such "worship" rests, not on the "will" of God, but on the mere "will" or fancy of man.
Now, in opposition to the divine enunciation in regard to "will-worship," the Church of England has admitted into its articles this principle,
that it belongs to "the Church," of her own authority, to " decree rites and ceremonies " (Article XX).
As a matter of historical fact, this principle was never agreed to by the Convocation that adopted the Thirty-nine Articles;
this sentence being found neither in the first-printed edition of the Articles, nor in the draft of them that passed the Convocation, and which is still in existence, with the autograph signatures of the members;
but is believed to have been surreptitiously inserted by the hand of Queen Elizabeth herself, who had much of the overbearing spirit of her father, Henry VIII., and who, as Head of the Church, which the English Constitution made her,
was determined to have a pompous worship in that church, under her ecclesiastical control. [1]
But, however that clause was introduced, once introduced, it has been the grand means of overlaying that church with ceremonies which have no foundation in the Word of God, but are of the very essence of will-worship. Where, for instance, could any warrant be found in the Word of God,
for men wheeling to the east in the midst of their devotions,
making the sign of the cross in baptism,
or kneeling in the Lord's Supper?Some of these things have been borrowed from the Papists, some from the Pagans, [2] but, assuredly, none of them from the Scriptures.
Where, also, in the worship of the Apostolic Church, is there the least hint of the use of instrumental music? In the Old Testament dispensation,
such instrumental music was appointed in the service of God;
[ We doubt that: See Here . These "services" meaning hard bondage were for the dedication or purification of PHYSICAL or CARNAL people, cities, nations or temples]
but that was inseparably bound up with the worship of the Temple, which, says Paul, was
"a worldly sanctuary " (Heb. 9:1),
which, with its (Gal. 4:9) " beggarly elements " and "rudiments of this world" (Col. 2:20)was intended to last only "until the time of reformation" (Heb. 9:10).
That "time of reformation" came, when the Lord Jesus appeared to abolish the "worldly sanctuary," and set up the more " spiritual" dispensation of the Gospel church.
The "worldly sanctuary" of Judaism, with its sacrifices, and incense, and instrumental music, had a "glory" for the time that the wisdom of God saw fit that it should last, that is, while the Church was under age (Gal. 4:1-3). But it had "no glory in comparison of the glory that excelleth," when the Church came to its full age,
when the "worldly sanctuary" was done away,
and when the spiritual sanctuary, or Gospel Church, was filled with the glorious indwelling of the fulness of the Spirit.With the abrogation of the "worldly sanctuary,"
the instrumental music, which, as much as the offering of sacrifice, was identified with it,
and which was not used in the service of the synagogue, was equally abrogated.So certain is it that the instrumental music of Judaism was identified with the Temple service, that the Jews themselves have, ever since the destruction of the Temple, till very recently,
held it utterly unlawful to introduce such music into their synagogues; and when, about the beginning of the present century, an organ was, for the first time, introduced,
nothing but the influential position of the individual concerned in its introduction, saved him from being summarily excommunicated. [3]
With this opinion of the Jews, in regard to the position of instrumental music, the practice of the Apostolic Church most exactly corresponded. We have reference in the New Testament, again and again, to the worship and praise of the Gospel Church, we read of "psalms and hymns, and spiritual songs," but never once do we read of these being accompanied by any instrument of music.
In the Apocalypse, no doubt, we read of " harpers harping with their harps;" but the book where this occurs, is a symbolical book; and it would be absurd to understand it in any other than a symbolical sense.
If the "harpers" are to be understood literally; the offering of " incense," referred to in that book, must be understood literally too.
The beast with the seven heads and ten horns, must be a literal beast;
and the woman that sits on the back of it, must be a literal woman.Who, in his senses, would contend for such a principle of interpretation in regard to these? But this must be contended for, and maintained, before any argument can be drawn from the "harpers" of the Book of Revelation, in favour of the use of instrumental music in the Gospel Church.
We have statements from uninspired men, coming down to the end of the third century, and even later, in regard to Christian worship and psalmody; and, even till then, there is evidence that there was no such thing as instrumental accompaniments to the praise.
Of course, I do not adduce the evidence of these early Christian writers, as if their authority was any proof of the right or the wrong on this question; but only as bearing testimony in regard to a matter of fact, about which they could not be mistaken; and which, once admitted to be a fact,
can be accounted for only on the supposition, that the instrumental music of the Jewish worship
fell with the " worldly sanctuary " of Judaism.Yet, notwithstanding of all this, the English Church, by virtue of her power to "decree rites and ceremonies," and to introduce unauthorised modes of worship, imitating the Church of Rome,
has introduced the loud-pealing organ, to make her worship more attractive to the carnal mind, than the simple spiritual worship of the New Testament Church could be. This, however, was not the mind of the first Reformers, even in the English Church; for, in the Book of Homilies, they have left unequivocal evidence of their opinion on this subject; and there
they characterise " piping, and playing upon organs," as well as pictures and images, as a " filthy defilement " of God's "holy house and place of prayer." [4]
If any one says, "But what great harm, after all, can there be in this?" I answer, "There is all the harm of 'will-worship,' which the Lord so emphatically condemns." If there was no such thing as an organ, or any instrument of music, used in the worship of the Apostolic Church, and if it be supposed that instrumental music is really helpful to the devout feelings of a Gospel-worshipper, then see what is the inevitable inference:
Either the Apostles, who were commissioned to teach the churches "ALL things whatsoever" that Christ had "commanded them,"
failed in their duty, and omitted a very important part of their instructions;
in which case, the very men on whose testimony the truth of the Gospel narrative essentially depends, are found unfaithful, and consequently, may have been "false witnesses of God:"
or, the Lord Jesus, himself, was so deficient in wisdom, or in kindness, as to omit an instruction which was indispensable to the happiness and spiritual improvement of his people, and which it was left for the Papacy,
in the dark ages, to discover! In every case, "will-worship" is of a most malignant influence, and most presumptuous in its very nature.
In the early days of the Church of England, the best men in that church were fully alive to the sin of " will-worship," and none could more earnestly lament, than Hooper and Coverdale, Fox and Jewell, "the dregs of Popery" and " relics of the Amorites," which, to adopt the language of the last-named bishop, were retained in it.
But now, with rare exceptions, Episcopal divines, even though evangelical in their doctrine, cling to these very "dregs," and "relics of the Amorites," as if they formed a great part of the distinguishing glory of the Church of England. There are, here and there, exceptions, however, skill; and it is refreshing amid so much of an opposite kind, to find such a testimony, on this subject, as the following, borne by the late distinguished Dr. Arnold, of Rugby:
"The more I think of the matter, and the more I read of the Scriptures themselves, and of the history of the Church, the more intense is my wonder at the language of admiration with which some men speak of the Church of England, which certainly retains the foundation sure, as other Christian societies do, except the Unitarians,
but has overlaid it with a very sufficient quantity of hay and stubble, which I devoutly hope to see burnt one day in the fire."
Such is the testimony of one of the most learned divines of the Church of England itself. If there be such a "quantity of hay and stubble overlaying" the truth in that church, does it not deeply concern its members to be aware of it? to use vigorous efforts to have it cleared away? and to return to the simplicity of worship, as practised in apostolic times, and by apostolic men, according to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ himself?
2. But, our text refers not merely to doctrine and worship; it equally refers to discipline. The Lord Jesus, the sole Head of the Church, has appointed a discipline for the suppression of scandals, the reclaiming of transgressors, and the separation of obstinate offenders from the communion of the faithful. In the Gospels we find distinct principles, and modes of procedure, enunciated by the lips of Christ himself. In the Acts of the Apostles, and the Apostolic Epistles, we find these principles embodied and carried into effect in the primitive Church. On this subject, then, also, the command applies: "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."
The discipline which Christ hath appointed in his Word, no man, nor class of men, neither Popes nor prelates, neither Presbyteries nor General Assemblies, have power or authority to supersede or repeal. There are gross abominations everywhere, and ever and anon springing up around us in this Christian land, intemperance spreads like a deluge, "iniquity abounds, and the love of many waxeth cold." It cannot be said of any portion of the visible Church, that it "looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners." And why is this? Has the Gospel failed? Is the Spirit of the Lord straitened? Is his hand waxed short? No. Why, then, does not the Gospel leaven leaven the whole masses of our population? Why does heathenism increase on every side? May it not be that the discipline of Christ's house, as Christ himself appointed it, is not faithfully applied, that sin, to a large extent, is connived at,
that there are Achans in our camps, that there are spots in our feasts of charity, allowed to feast themselves without fear, sporting themselves with their own deceivings, that due pains are not taken to separate between the precious and the vile;
and that therefore the Spirit of the Lord is grieved, and will not give that abundant blessing, even on the preached Word, which otherwise he would rejoice to do, and without which that Word cannot be completely efficacious. While, however, there are few, if any, of the churches, that have much reason to boast of their faithfulness in carrying out the divinely-appointed discipline of Christ's house, the Episcopal Churches stand preeminent for their laxity in this matter.
They have almost entirely cast away every appearance of discipline. In their communion, the Church and the world are openly identified. Any man, of whatever character, may have baptism for his children; any man, however scandalous, may, without let or hindrance on the part of the rulers of the Church, except in certain extreme cases, that almost never occur, come and partake of the Lord's Supper. s
Now, how ruinous must this be to immortal souls, how dishonouring to the Head of the Church, how well fitted to make infidels! The thought of this, made some even of the dignitaries of the Church of England, in ancient days, who were far from being Puritans, to mourn and lament, and to complain bitterly of the opposition of the courtiers of Queen Elizabeth, to please whom, discipline was cast to the winds; and to cry out, like Cox, Bishop of Ely, that, if discipline should continue to be set at nought, as it was, "the kingdom of God would be taken from them." [5] For centuries that discipline has been trodden under-foot; and do not the events of every day give reason to fear, that, unless the mercy of God miraculously interpose, the words of Bishop Cox may come too true; and that the "kingdom of God," in very deed, may be "taken away" from the Church of England.
3. The principle of the text applies also to church-government. If there be one thing implied in the Headship of Christ over the Church, it is this: that the Church must be governed by office-bearers appointed according to the Word and will of the great Head of the Church himself. Whatever offices of authority and power cannot be proved from the Word, must be condemned as infringements on thc royal prerogative of Zion's only King and Lord. "Whatever plant our heavenly Father hath not planted," is found in any Christian church, "shall be rooted up."
Though at the first, the Church of England was reformed from Popery by bishops, and still retained the prelatic hierarchy, with all its different ramifications and dependencies,
it was not because it was pretended in any quarter that such a church-government was founded on the Word of God.
It was only to please "the powers that were," that the good men in that church submitted to the Episcopacy, hoping that, by and by, they might find a more convenient season for getting it done away. Almost all the most distinguished of the bishops themselves were Presbyterian in principle. Latimer and Hooper maintained the identity of bishops and presbyters by Divine institution. [6]
Archbishop Cranmer expressed his decided disapprobation of "the glorious titles, styles, and pomps," which were come into the Church through the "working of the spirit of Diotrephes," and professed his readiness to lay them entirely aside. [7]
Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich, writing to Gualter, a Swiss Reformer, fervently exclaims, "O! would to God, would to God, once at last, all the English people would in good earnest propound to themselves to follow the Church of Zurich, as the most absolute pattern." [8] Now, the Church of Zurich, as well as the Swiss or Helvetic Church in general, was Presbyterian. In a letter from Hooper to Bullinger, another Swiss divine, we find the following statement in regard to the views of several of the most noted of the bishops:,
"The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of Rochester, Ely, St David's, Lincoln, and Bath are sincerely bent on advancing the purity of doctrine, agreeing in ALL THINGS with the Helvetic churches." [9]
Bishop Jewell was of the same mind, and publicly expressed his hope that the "bishops would become pastors, labourers, and watchmen, and that the great riches of bishoprics would be diminished and reduced to mediocrity; that being delivered from regal and courtly pomp, they might take care of the flock of Christ." [10]
Aylmer, a distinguished divine of the same period, thus addressed the right reverend bench: "Come off you bishops with your superfluities; yield up your thousands; be content with hundreds as they be in other reformed churches, where there be as great learned men as you are. Let your portion be priest-like, and not princelike." [11]
These were all indications of soundness on the part of distinguished men, from which great good might have been anticipated. But when once the evil system was submitted to, generations passed away, great damage was done to the cause of truth, and much suffering endured by faithful men, before there was the least appearance of the coming of that "convenient season," for which good men waited. Some even betrayed the cause, for which at one time they seemed so stout and zealous, and persecuted those who were only following the example they themselves had previously set.
Aylmer, whose words have just quoted, who called on the bishops so loudly to lay aside their "prince-like" state, and be "content with hundreds" instead of "thousands," was raised to the Episcopal bench himself, and there appeared in a different light from that, in which he had once appeared in an humbler sphere. When reminded of his former language, he had nothing to say for himself, but in the words of Paul, though grievously misapplied: "When I was a child, I spake as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things." [12]
From that time forward, the court divines
began to teach that there was no divine form of church-government laid down in the Word;
that every nation might erect whatever form of church-government it saw fit, and that the form of church-government which was in use in the fourth and fifth centuries of the Christian era, when the Emperors were professing Christians, was that which was most suitable for the church of a nation, where the people were under monarchical government.
This was utterly repugnant to a large portion, both of the ministers and the people, who began to be called Puritans, who maintained,
that the government of the Church, as well as faith, and everything else,
must be in accordance with the Apostolic model.This was undoubtedly the principle of the early Reformers, though they gave way to evil measures, from an ill-judged expediency.
This is evidently the doctrine of Scripture, where it is plainly intimated, that though apostles should cease, and prophecies, and tongues, and supernatural gifts should "vanish away" (1 Cor. 13:8),
the Lord Jesus hath appointed a government in his Church, that is to last to all time, "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ," till "the whole Church should come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Eph. 4:11-13).
In that divinely-appointed church-government, there is no such thing as diocesan bishops exercising "lordship over God's heritage", a lordship expressly forbidden, and that in the clearest terms (Matt. 20:25; 1 Peter 5:3).
In that divinely-appointed government, there is no room either for the Erastian supremacy of an earthly sovereign, or of any Civil Courts deriving authority from such a sovereign; for nowhere, either in the Old Testament or the New, is the Sovereign or Civil power authorised to rule the Church of God. The whole theory, then, of Episcopacy, and of all its dependent offices, which have simply bees imported from the Papacy, as well as of the Erastian supremacy of the civil power, utterly falls to the ground, when brought face to face with the Word of God.
And thus we have seen, that, alike in regard to doctrine, worship, discipline, and church-government, the Word of God stands firm, "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."
APPENDIX. NOTE, A., p. 12. The Instrumental Music of Judaism. THE scriptural argument in regard to the identification of the instrumental music in the Old Testament dispensation with the temple worship, stands thus:,We find an express appointment by Divine authority of the use of musical instruments for the temple service, and in connection with the offering of sacrifice; (Numbers 10:10; 1. Chronicles 15:16, and 16:4-6,)
the very families being specifically named that could alone use these musical instruments. (1 Chronicles, 25. to the end.)
We find no appointment, or the least hint of the appointment, of any such instrumental music in the service of God anywhere else.
In accordance, therefore, with the principle of the text, "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto," the use of instrumental music in worship, except in the temple service was excluded. Hence the significant fact already adverted to, that since the period of the destruction of the Jewish Temple, till lately, instrumental music had been universally regarded by the Jews as unlawful in the worship of God.
Since the ploughshare had passed over the ruins of that temple, it was universally felt by them,
that there was no place where, in God's worship, the loud cymbals, and cornets, and harps, could be lawfully used,
any more than there was a place where an altar, for burnt offering could be reared, or sacrifice could be offered.
Then, as to the special reason for the use of instrumental music in the temple service on high occasions a word may be said:, Besides the other reasons peculiar to that dispensation, as suited to the Church in its infant state, there was plainly a special reason for such music, in the very nature of the case, on the grand solemnities of Jewish worship.
When the worship of God was celebrated at the tabernacle or the temple, on these occasions, it was the worship of a whole nation assembled by its representatives on one spot.
All the males of all the tribes of Israel, capable of so doing, were required three times a-year to assemble in the place, where the Lord recorded his name. For such immense multitudes, congregated together in one place, to engage in united worship under the mere leadership of the human voice, or to have their devotional feeling excited, and their attention profitably kept up, while the different typical rites were performed, during the time they were assembled together, without some assistance of a peculiar nature, was plainly impossible. In the extraordinary circumstances therefore, there was need of extraordinary means for the edification of the people. These means were furnished according to the genius of that dispensation. [33]
Carrying these remarks along with him, if the reader now peruse the account of the revival of the temple worship by Hezekiah, after it had been allowed to fall into abeyance during the idolatry of his father's reign,
he will see in a very striking light, the intimate connection between the instrumental music and the sacrificial system, and peculiar typical ritual of Judaism. Chronicles 29:25-29.
"And he (Hezekiah) set the Levites in the house of the Lord, with cymbals, with psalteries and with harps, according to the command of David, and Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet; for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophet. 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 the instruments ordained by David, king of Israel.
And all the Congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded, and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished. And when they had made an end of offering, the king and all that were present with him bowed their heads and worshipped." There was doubtless something sublime in this, and being appointed by God, the sublimity was not that of mere blind sentimental feeling. In the case of every true worshipper, through the blessing of God upon his own ordinance, it brought him into holy fellowship with the King Eternal. That divinely-appointed worship had its own glory; but it has now been done away; and the Church, instead of being a loser by its abrogation, has only risen to a higher glory. Let Christians then know wherein the real glory of the Christian Church consists, even its higher spirituality, and consequent independence of mere sensuous aids to devotion, and let them stand fast in the liberty from Jewish rites and observances, from which Christ has made them free.
Footnotes:
[1] See authorities in Presbyterian Review, July, 1843. [back][2] For the Pagan origin of the so-called sign of the cross, see author's "Two Babylons," chap. 5, sect. 6. [back]
[3] See Dr. M'Caul, on the Modern Jews, p. 63. [back]
[4] See an able pamphlet on the discussion of the Organ question, in the English Presbyterian Synod, published by Mr. Duncan, of Newcastle, and by Dr, Munro, of Manchester. [back]
[5] M'Crie's Life of Knox, p. 409. [back]
[6] M'Crie's Knox, p. 408. [back]
[7] M'Crie's Knox, p. 409. [back]
[8] Brown's Puseyite Episcopacy, p. 51. [back]
[9] M'Crie's Knox, p. 408. [back]
[10] M'Crie's Knox, p. 409. [back]
[11] M'Crie's Knox, p. 409. For fuller evidence on this subject, see Brown's Puseyite Episcopacy. [back]
[12] Strype's Life of Aylmer, p. 269. [back]
[33] The reader will observe that the case of Miriam at the Red Sea, with her timbrels and her dances, was an exactly analogous case to that of the worship in the solemn feasts at the temple. The full-grown men of Israel that came out of Egypt, amounted to 600,000. Consequently, the multitude assembled on that sublimely interesting occasion, including women and children, could not be short of two millions. As Miriam herself was a "prophetess," acting under the directions of Moses, the inspired servant of the Lord, the whole worship, on that occasion, must be viewed as conducted by divine authority.
On the whole question of Instrumental Music in the worship of God, see Dr. Begg's valuable pamphlet on the Organ question; also the authentic Report of the discussion on the same subject in the United Presbyterian Synod. That Synod has done honour to itself by its firm decision. [back]
Counter added 11/12/04 2406 Rev 5.06.07 1264 5.16.09