Calvin On Instruments In The New Covenant: Restoring Shadows

It is evident that the Psalmist here expresses the vehement and ardent affection which the faithful ought to have in praising God, when he enjoins musical instruments to be employed for this purpose. He would have nothing omitted by believers which tends to animate the minds and feelings of men in singing God’s praises. The name of God, no doubt, can, properly speaking, be celebrated only by the articulate voice; but it is not without reason that David adds to this those aids by which believers were wont to stimulate themselves the more to this exercise; especially considering that he was speaking to God’s ancient people. There is a distinction, however, to be observed here, that we may not indiscriminately consider as applicable to ourselves, every thing which was formerly enjoined upon the Jews. I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile instruction of the law: I speak of the stated service of the temple. For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints only in a known tongue (1 Corinthians 14:16). The voice of man, although not understood by the generality, assuredly excels all inanimate instruments of music; and yet we see what St Paul determines concerning speaking in an unknown tongue. What shall we then say of chanting, which fills the ears with nothing but an empty sound? Does any one object, that music is very useful for awakening the minds of men and moving their hearts? I own it; but we should always take care that no corruption creep in, which might both defile the pure worship of God and involve men in superstition. Moreover, since the Holy Spirit expressly warns us of this danger by the mouth of Paul, to proceed beyond what we are there warranted by him is not only, I must say, unadvised zeal, but wicked and perverse obstinacy.

—John Calvin on Psalm 33:2 (HT: Scott McDermand)

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


3 comments

  1. Calvin’s argument is wanting to me.
    First, David’s words are not the words of Moses in the institution of the ceremonial. Why does Calvin limit David to only “the ancient church” of the Jews, when the heart of David is an example to us all of a heart after God’s?
    Second, if only the voice can articulate “The name of God” and all that pertains to an intelligent worship and service, then why have instruments even in the temple.
    They appear to me to be only incidental to worship in either economy.
    Too, it is not apparent, when said instruments cannot articulate truth, how they were “a part of the education” of any.
    How did they contribute to “the puerile instruction of the law?”
    Third, and most contrary, 1 Corinthians 14:16 is not speaking to the singing of praises, but to public prayer.
    Therefore, Calvin, at best, misappropriates Scripture in making his case.
    I try to read Calvin daily (Institutes), please consider this friendly “criticism” towards fellows I cannot hold a candle to and benefit greatly from…

  2. The regulative principle (the principle that “governs” public worship in Reformed churches) is enunciated in Chapter XXI of The Westminster Confession of Faith, “Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day,” and describes how we are to worship God: “…the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.”
    The elements of worship, according to the Westminster Assembly, commanded and approved by God, are spoken to by the Divines in section 5 of the same Chapter XXI. Prayer is listed in sections 3, 4, and 6, and then we read: “The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.”
    The question addressed herein is, “Did the Westminster Assembly restrict the church to acapella singing in public worship, or may instruments be employed?”
    The acapellists hold to such a restriction. John Calvin is often adduced:

    “It is evident that the Psalmist here expresses the vehement and ardent affection which the faithful ought to have in praising God, when he enjoins musical instruments to be employed for this purpose. He would have nothing omitted by believers which tends to animate the minds and feelings of men in singing God’s praises. The name of God, no doubt, can, properly speaking, be celebrated only by the articulate voice; but it is not without reason that David adds to this those aids by which believers were wont to stimulate themselves the more to this exercise; especially considering that he was speaking to God’s ancient people. There is a distinction, however, to be observed here, that we may not indiscriminately consider as applicable to ourselves, every thing which was formerly enjoined upon the Jews. I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile instruction of the law: I speak of the stated service of the temple. For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints only in a known tongue (1 Corinthians 14:16). The voice of man, although not understood by the generality, assuredly excels all inanimate instruments of music; and yet we see what St Paul determines concerning speaking in an unknown tongue. What shall we then say of chanting, which fills the ears with nothing but an empty sound? Does any one object, that music is very useful for awakening the minds of men and moving their hearts? I own it; but we should always take care that no corruption creep in, which might both defile the pure worship of God and involve men in superstition. Moreover, since the Holy Spirit expressly warns us of this danger by the mouth of Paul, to proceed beyond what we are there warranted by him is not only, I must say, unadvised zeal, but wicked and perverse obstinacy.” John Calvin on Psalm 33:2

    It appears that Calvin’s argument is wanting.
    First, David’s words are not the words of Moses in the institution of the ceremonial. Why does Calvin limit David’s words regarding instruments to only “the ancient church” of the Jews, but not the sentiments involved?
    Second, if only the voice can articulate “The name of God” and all that pertains to an intelligent worship and service, then why have instruments in the temple to begin with? Certainly it is because they are only incidental to worship in either economy. It is not apparent, when said instruments cannot articulate truth, how they were “a part of the education” of any. How did they contribute to “the puerile instruction of the law?” Calvin does not tell us.
    Third, and most importantly, 1 Corinthians 14:16 is not speaking to the singing of praises, but to public prayer. Therefore, Calvin, at best, misappropriates Scripture in making his case.
    Another quotation is brought from Calvin from the acapellists:

    “The musical instruments he mentions pertained to the time of instruction. Nor should we stupidly imitate a practice which was proper only for God’s old [covenant] people…. They were for use under the legal cult.” John Calvin, From his commentary on Ps 149:2 and Ps 150:3 .

    In neither his commentary on Psalm 149:2, nor that on 150:3, does Calvin cite a text to support his assertion. One can only conclude that he has in mind his erroneous citation of 1 Corinthians 14:16, or some other verses in that same place, which again is clearly speaking to public prayer, not the singing of God’s people.
    The acapellists again:

    “The use of instruments in worship was admittedly part of the Temple service. It had no place in the Tabernacle before David’s day, beyond the use of two silver trumpets made by Moses, in the hands of the priests. There is not a particle of evidence to show that it entered into the ordinary worship of the family or the synagogue. We are now prepared to take a step further, and note that, in the Temple service, it was uniformly and most closely associated with sacrifice and the burning of incense.
    …[T]he playing on instruments was confined to those bands of Levites whom David was training in anticipation of the building of the temple—these acting in this for and as representing the whole people.
    …1 Chron xxiii.26–32. It is very plain from this passage that the service of praise as conducted by the Levitical choirs with musical accompaniment, was associated with the regular morning and evening sacrifice, and with other sacrifices. Robert Nevin, Instrumental Music in Christian Worship: A Review Chiefly in the Way of Reply to Professor Wallace, 2nd edition, rev. (Londonderry: Bible and Colportage Society, 1873), 29, 30 .

    Nothing Nevin states is untrue. Neither does the Scripture he cites conclude or infer that acapella singing is required of the Church today.
    The lengthy quotes of Samuel Annesley ,and John Rainolds , adduced by the acapellists, are too verbose to be needlessly quoted here, nor do they in any way prove the assertion that instruments are not to be made use of in the public assembly of the saints.
    Since the acapellists by generally hold to Reformed creeds, it is of course of interest that they cite them in making their plea for no use of instruments.
    The reader may judge if in the following he finds any such prohibition, but for this writer there is no conclusion or inference to that effect:

    “We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils or decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all; for all men or of themselves liars, and more van than vanity itself. Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatever does not agree with this infallible rule, as the apostles have taught us saying, Test the spirits, whether they are of God. Likewise: any one comes to you and brings not this teaching, receive him not into your house (Belgic Confession, Article 7 [emphasis added]).
    We also believe that although it is useful and good for those who govern the churches to establish and set up a certain order among themselves for maintaining the body of the church, they ought always to guard against deviating from what Christ, our only Master, has ordained for us. Therefore we reject all human innovations and all laws imposed on us, in our worship of God, which bind and force our consciences in any way (Belgic Confession, Article 32).
    96. What does God require in the second Commandment?
    That we in no wise make any image of God, nor worship Him in any other way than He has commanded us in His Word (Heidelberg Catechism, Q/A 96).
    1. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture (Westminster Confession of Faith, 21.1) .

    If the majority of the Church historically practiced acapella singing, it is a fallacy to conclude that one is non-confessional if he is not a proponent and practitioner of acapella singing.
    To use a circumstantial example: whether or not the church has provided a lectern or podium for its worship leaders and preachers doesn’t make a church more or less Reformed or confessional. To say,” If historically men preached in robes, then so should we today,” is the fallacy of asserting the consequent.
    The historical development of music notation and its serves as an example of how this fallacy may lead to even the forbidding of harmonies, loved (rightly) by our acapellists.
    In ancient times music was seldom written but passed on orally. All music was in unison until harmony was developed, and the use of symbols, used primarily for tempo and cadence, developed. Previously the Greeks had used letters of the alphabet for recording pitches, but in between 600-800AD “neumes” (pronounced noomes) came into use as signs of various sorts—curves, dashes, lines and dots, etc.—indicated a melody’s rise and fall..
    Up to 900AD or thereabouts, all music had been in one part (unison). Between 900-1000AD we began to sing two tones at the same time. Therefore, the invention of part-music brought about a development of written music with an adequate notation hitherto unknown in usage. Guido of Arezzo (995?-1050) was a musician who was largely responsible for progress in this process.
    To argue in the manner of the acapellists, the use of modern musical notation, and even part singing, is unlawful to the church because “that’s not the way we used to do it. This writer thinks the absurdity is plain.
    Aside from the fact that the Confession does not denounce acapella singing, it is true that through centuries of church history acapella singing has been endorsed by a number of scholars within the Reformed community, but it has not been uniformly so.
    The assessment often made that the use of instruments in public worship is Romish is tenuous, and lacks charity. As a matter of fact, Pope Benedict and other Romanists were opponents of musical invocations that didn’t preserve the Gregorian Chants or Plainsong that characterize the first 10 centuries after Christ. It is likely they stood on the views of Ambrose and Gregory, as well as Palestrina.
    This writer has weighed the argument of the acapellists and found them wanting. I leave them free to practice their view of moderation. Perhaps they might in charity do the same for those of us who are convinced differently and cease to make separations in the Body of Christ by language intemperate and overzealous. May God grant this prayerful petition!

Comments are closed.