HEART AND VOICE: INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP NOT DIVINELY AUTHORISED. BY JAMES GLASGOW, D.D. Late Fellow of the University of Bombay; late Member of the Bombay ODLE BELFAST: C. AITCHISON; J. CLEELAND. DUBLIN: ROBERTSON & CO.; G. HERBERT. DERRY: JAMES MONTGOMERY, BISHOP STREET. PREFACE. THIS IIS little treatise originated while I was engaged in the Exposition, since published, of the Apocalypse. This dates earlier than the appearance of some pamphlets which preceded the Irish General Assembly of 1872. Thus it was not consequent on public discussion, but collateral to Scriptural interpretation. I cannot, therefore, be justly accused of receiving any bias from recent events in our Church. Since that Assembly, I have, indeed, made a few additions, without modifying my original ideas, and I have generally expressed the arguments which I oppugn, in words used publicly or in conversation. While I think it right to present popular arguments in the phraseology in which they are urged upon me, I put myself in antagonism to no writer or speaker, but simply endeavour to bring popular ideas to the test of the closest critical investigation of the actual meaning of all Scripture bearing on the subject. The more I have studied this question, the more am I con vinced that it is of no trifling nature, and not to be satisfactorily settled by public speeches and personal conflicts. Harangues, replies,1 and light pamphlets cannot go thoroughly into the subject. Thus views have been published, some of them contrary to what I had previously in manuscript. I believe I had formed my opinion as laboriously, and perhaps on as wide a field of evidence as their authors; and I lay claim to the same deep conscientious convictions, which I deny not to them. They are brethren whom the better feelings of my heart would never permit me to assail. But that renders it all the more necessary that a closer appeal should be made to the inspired text, and altogether dissociated from personalities. The ritualistic practice in the Anglican Church is fostered by the twentieth article, that "the Church has power to decree rites and ceremonies," &c. That article, however, adds, that "as the Church ought not to decree anything against it (Scripture), so besides the same it ought not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation;" from which, if we judge from ecclesiastical procedure, it would seem to follow that rites and ceremonies, as not being essential, may be enforced. On this, as on everything else, our appeal is to Scripture. 1 Or rather successive speeches apparently prepared, and not bonâ fide replies. PREFACE. The When told that we may observe this or that practice as not forbidden, we must demand the warrant for this assurance. How knows the assertor of it that he is correct? It is but his frail, erring opinion; and we have surely the same right to think differently. If we worship without divine direction, are we not worshipping according to mere human judgment and will? example of others will be of no avail where no divine authority exists. To appeal to the light of nature, as has been done, is to follow a light which to the heathen has been but darkness. On this point I have sought to vindicate the words of the Westminster Confession from misinterpretation, and made my unhesitating appeal "to the law and to the testimony." The principle of innovation in matters of religion is false in theory, as implying that God has left the manner of His worship to human development; and it would be endless to attempt a sketch of the evils it has wrought in practice. How can modern innovations have more weight than early traditions? With what consistency can those who refuse to follow the guidance of ancient tradition recommend modern innovation as a guide? Having examined all the places of Scripture that seem to me to testify on the subject, and endeavoured to set them in their true critical light, I have summarised with some illustration the main arguments on both sides; but |