FULL REVIEW AT: A Review Of Girardeau's Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church, by R.L. Dabney

Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church, by John L. Girardeau -- this book is free online at  in text format, and as 5 Free SWRB MP3s -- and both versions are also on the Puritan Hard Drive.

The author in his eloquent conclusion anticipates that some will meet his arguments with sneers rather than serious discussion, which he proposes to endure with Christian composure. It is a reproach to our church, which fills us with grief, to find the prediction fulfilled in some quarters. Surely persons calling themselves Presbyterians should remember that the truths they profess to hold sacred have usually been in small minorities sneered at by the arrogant majorities. So it was in the days of the Reformers, of Athanasius, of the Apostles, and of Jesus himself.

The resort to this species of reply appears the more ill-considered, when we remember that Dr. Girardeau is supporting the identical position held by all the early fathers, by all the Presbyterian reformers, by a Chalmers, a Mason, a Breckinridge, a Thornwell, and by a Spurgeon. Why is not the position as respectable in our author as in all this noble galaxy of true Presbyterians? Will the innovators claim that all these great men are so inferior to themselves? The idea seems to be that the opposition of all these great men to organs arose simply out of their ignorant old-fogyism and lack of culture; while our advocacy of the change is the result of our superior intelligence, learning and refinement. The ignorance of this overweening conceit makes it simply vulgar. These great men surpassed all who have succeeded them in elegant classical scholarship, in logical ability, and in theological learning. Their depreciators should know that they surpassed them just as far in all elegant culture. The era of the Reformation was the Augustan age of church art in architecture, painting and music. These reformed divines were graduates of the first Universities, most of them gentlemen by birth, many of them noblemen, denizens of courts, of elegant accomplishments and manners, not a few of them exquisite poets and musicians. But they unanimously rejected the Popish Church music; not because they were fusty old pedants without taste, but because a refined taste concurred with their learning and logic to condemn it.

Dr. Girardeau has defended the old usage of our church with a moral courage, loyalty to truth, clearness of reasoning and wealth of learning which should make every true Presbyterian proud of him, whether he adopts his conclusions or not. The framework of his argument is this: it begins with that vital truth which no Presbyterian can discard without a square desertion of our principles. The man who contests this first premise had better set out at once for Rome: God is to be worshipped only in the ways appointed in his word. Every act of public cultus not positively enjoined by him is thereby forbidden. Christ and his apostles ordained the musical worship of the New Dispensation without any sort of musical instrument, enjoining only the singing with the voice of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.* Hence such instruments are excluded from Christian worship. Such has been the creed of all churches, and in all ages, except of the Popish communion after it had reached the nadir of its corruption at the end of the thirteenth century, and of its prelatic imitators. 

But the pretext is raised that instrumental music was authorized by Scripture in the Old Testament. This evasion Dr. Girardeau ruins by showing that God set up in the Hebrew Church two distinct forms of worship; the one moral, didactic, spiritual and universal, and therefore perpetual in all places and ages—that of the synagogues; the other peculiar, local, typical, foreshadowing in outward forms the more spiritual dispensation, and therefore destined to be utterly abrogate by Christ’s coming. Now we find instrumental music, like human priests and their vestments, show-bread, incense, and bloody sacrifice, absolutely limited to this local and temporary worship. But the Christian churches were modelled upon the synagogues and inherited their form of government and worship because it was permanently didactic, moral and spiritual, and included nothing typical. This reply is impregnably fortified by the word of God himself: that when the Antitype has come the types must be abolished. For as the temple-priests and animal sacrifices typified Christ and his sacrifice on Calvary, so the musical instruments of David in the temple-service only typified the joy of the Holy Ghost in his pentecostal effusions.

Hence when the advocates of innovation quote such words as those of the Psalmist, "Praise the Lord with the harp," &c., these shallow reasoners are reminded that the same sort of plea would draw back human priest and bloody sacrifices into our Christian churches. For these Psalms exclaim, with the same emphasis, "Bind our sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar." Why do not our Christian aesthetics feel equally authorized and bound to build altars in front of their pulpits, and to drag the struggling lambs up their nicely carpeted aisles, and have their throats cut there for the edification of the refined audience? "Oh, the sacrifices, being types and peculiar to the temple service, were necessarily abolished by the coming of the Antitype." Very good. So were the horns, cymbals, harps and organs only peculiar to the temple-service, a part of its types, and so necessarily abolished when the temple was removed.

- From A Review Of Girardeau's Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church, by R.L. Dabney

Dabney's Review of Girardeau's Instrumental Music in Public Worship (1889), By Robert Lewis Dabney, Digital Download (Enhanced SWRB PDF)

* Regarding "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" (Eph 5:19 and Col. 3:16): When these words were written in Scripture only Biblical Psalms were sung in public worship and this practice of exclusive Psalmody continued to be the case for a long time after in church history. Thus, there is no way these words could be referring to uninspired man-made hymns that did not even exist when these words, in the Bible, where written and, on top of that, uninspired man-made hymns did not exist for some time well into the future (see below for more on this point, as well as The Puritans On Exclusive Psalmody (Free MP3s, Videos, Books, etc. - The first video, of only one minute and 38 seconds, at this link, states that the first uninspired man-made hymn did not appear until 221 years, or eight generations, after the death of the last apostle, and it was composed in 321AD by Arius, a major early church heretic.).

The Early Church: Concerning the early Church, Bushell notes that, "The introduction of uninspired hymns into the worship of the Church was a gradual process, and it was not until the fourth century that the practice became widespread."6 G.I. Williamson further points out that a "second noteworthy fact is that when uninspired hymns first made their appearance, it was not among the orthodox Churches but rather the heretical groups... If the Church from the beginning had received authority from the Apostles to make and use uninspired hymns, it would be expected that it would have done so. But it did not. Rather it was among those who departed from the faith that they first appeared."7 This historical testimony raises a number of interesting questions for those who claim to adhere to the regulative principle of worship and yet maintain the use of uninspired hymns in public worship. First, if the Psalter had been insufficient, why was there no command to produce new songs for worship, only commands to sing that which was already in existence? Second, if a new manual of praise was necessary, why was it that the Apostles did not write any new songs under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Third, why is it that we do not find even one "hymn" fragment among all the early church writings that have survived to this day. Moreover, there is not even one mention of the use of uninspired "hymns" among orthodox Christians until they began to be written in reply to the heretical "hymns," which had not surfaced until late in the second century?8 Fourth, why was there still strong opposition to the introduction of uninspired hymns well into the fifth century? The Synod of Laodicea (A.D. 343) and the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) both opposed the introduction of uninspired "hymns." In addition to this Bushell states that "as late as the ninth century we find appeals to the earlier Councils in support of a pure psalmody."9 - From: PSALM SINGING IN SCRIPTURE & HISTORY, by Dr. Reg Barrow

At this point those promoting uninspired songs in worship are probably protesting that I have forgotten about Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, but such is not the case. Having come out of a "hymn-singing" tradition, these very scriptures comprised a major part of my initial protest against the position which I now hold. So let's take a look at them. Williamson is most instructive here,

The proper interpretation of scripture terms requires that we discover, not what we mean by these terms when we use them today, but what the inspired writer meant when he used them. And it is one of the oddities of biblical interpretation that this rule is commonly observed with reference to the term 'psalms', and commonly disregarded with respect to the terms 'hymns' and 'songs'. For the fact is that all three of these terms are used in the Bible to designate various selections contained in the Old Testament Psalter. In the Greek version of the Old Testament familiar to the Ephesians and Colossians the entire Psalter is entitled 'Psalms'. In sixty-seven of the titles within the book the word 'psalm' is used. However, in six titles the word 'hymn' is used, rather than 'psalm', and in thirty-five the word 'song' appears. Even more important twelve titles use both 'psalm' and 'song', and two have 'psalm' and 'hymn'. Psalm seventy-six is designated 'psalm, hymn and song'. And at the end of the first seventy two psalms we read that 'the hymns of David the son of Jesse are ended'. (Ps. 72:20.) In other words, there is no more reason to think that the Apostle referred to psalms when he said 'psalms', than when he said 'hymns' and 'songs', for the simple reason that all three were biblical terms for psalms in the book of psalms itself. We are in the habit of using the terms 'hymns' and 'songs' for those compositions that are not psalms. But Paul and the Christians at Ephesus and Colossae used these terms as the Bible itself uses them, namely, as titles for the various psalms in the Old Testament Psalter. To us it may seem strange, or even unnecessary, that the Holy Spirit would use a variety of titles to describe His inspired compositions. But the fact is that He did so. Just as the Holy Spirit speaks of His 'commandments and his statutes and his judgments' (Deut.. 30:16, etc.), and of 'miracles and wonders and signs' (Acts 2:22), so He speaks of His 'psalms, hymns and songs'. As commandments, statutes and judgments are all divine laws in the language of scripture; as miracles and wonders and signs are all supernatural works of God in the language of scripture; so psalms, hymns and songs are the inspired compositions of the Psalter, in the language of scripture itself... The New Testament evidence sustains this conclusion. On the night of the Last Supper Jesus and His disciples sang 'an hymn' (Matt. 26:30). Bible expositors admit that this was 'the second part of the Hallel Psalms (115-118)" which was always sung at the Passover. (New Bible Commentary, p. 835.) Matthew called this psalm a 'hymn' because a psalm is a hymn in the terminology of the Bible. To the same effect is the Old Testament quotation in Hebrews 2:12, in which the Greek word 'hymn' is quoted from Psalm 22:22. In this quotation from an Old Testament psalm, the word 'hymn' is used to denote the singing of psalms because the Old Testament makes no distinction between the two. But if Scripture itself says that psalms are hymns, and that hymns are psalms, why should we make any distinction between them? If we grant that the Apostle used biblical language in a biblical sense there is no more reason to think that he spoke of uninspired hymns in these texts (Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19) than to think that he spoke of uninspired psalms, because hymns are inspired psalms in the holy scriptures.24

Furthermore, to reject Mr. Williamson's explanation regarding these verses leads to some major problems. We have already observed that no evidence exists that any uninspired "hymns" existed during the period when these verses were written. Only the inspired Psalms (i.e. psalms, hymns and spiritual songs) were in use as public worship-songs at that time, and no Biblical command is found anywhere to produce additional songs beyond those already contained in the existing book of divine praise -- the Psalms. Is the regulative principle then in error? We think not. Why then were no new songs produced by the early church if these verses were understood to call for them? The Apostles themselves did not produce any such songs, either inspired or uninspired -- not even one that we know of. This helps demonstrate that they did not interpret these verses as modern "hymn-singers" do. Moreover, to approach these verses by importing a modern meaning into the words "hymns and spiritual songs, not only rests on very shaky ground -- leaving much room for doubt and in no way fulfilling the requirements of the regulative principle for clear Biblical warrant in worship practices -- but would also destroy the basis for Grammatico-Historical interpretation of Scripture.25 Therefore, we can see that Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 cannot possibly mean what those opposing the position of exclusive Psalmody say they mean, because their interpretation does not fit any of the existing Biblical (or historical) data -- while the Psalm singers interpretation fits perfectly!

Finally and probably most importantly, Bushell has dug down to the root of the problem in the matter of human innovation in worship,

Arrogance, pride and self-assertion are at the very heart of all attempts to find a musical replacement for the Psalter. William Romaine makes some very pointed comments in this connection, to which advocates of uninspired song in worship would do well to listen: "I want a name for that man who should pretend that he could make better hymns than the Holy Ghost. His collection is large enough: it wants no addition. It is perfect, as its author, and not capable of any improvement. Why in such a case would any man in the world take it into his head to write hymns for the use of the Church? It is just the same as if he was to write a new Bible, not only better than the old, but so much better, that the old may be thrown aside. What a blasphemous attempt! And yet our hymn-mongers, inadvertently, I hope, have come very near to this blasphemy; for they shut out the Psalms, introduce their own verses into the Church, sing them with great delight, and as they fancy with great profit; although the whole practice be in direct opposition with the blessing of God." We see, therefore, that the sufficiency and divine origin of the Psalter are in themselves adequate arguments for its exclusive use in worship. As we have pointed out a number of times already, the very fact that the Bible contains a book of inspired psalms immediately places worship-song in the same category as the authoritative reading of the Scriptures in worship. The former is but the musical counterpart of the latter, and as such is incompatible with the use of uninspired hymns in worship.26

- From: PSALM SINGING IN SCRIPTURE & HISTORY, by Dr. Reg Barrow

Psalm Singing in Scripture & History, by Dr. Reg Barrow 
Discusses Reformed worship-song in the context of the regulative principle of worship [Sola Scriptura in Worship]. Defends exclusive Psalmody from Scripture and the writings and testimony of the most prominent Reformers.

Worship: The Regulative Principle of Worship in History, by Dr. Reg Barrow 
Discusses the very foundation of all faithful public worship. Dovetails splendidly with John Calvin's Necessity of Reforming the Church. Cites numerous examples from Reformation history (Calvin, Knox, Owen, the Westminster Divines, etc.) exhibiting the Reformation consensus regarding the basis of biblical faithfulness in this area. A good short, easy-reading introduction to this topic including many historical testimonies against the use of musical instruments in public worship.

The Regulative Principle of Worship is God's ordained law for worship... You see there is no neutrality in the way in which we approach God in worship. Either we approach the living God according to His revealed Word (i.e. the Regulative Principle of Worship), or we approach Him according to our revealed word. Someone's word is going to expressly guide us in worship. The only question is, whose word will guide us? God's or man's? - Greg Price, Foundation For Reformation: The Regulative Principle Of Worship(Free Online Book)

Foundation For Reformation: The Regulative Principle Of Worship, by Greg Price (Free online book and best short book on this topic!)

The Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) in the New Testament, by Greg Price (Puritan Worship Series, Free SWRB MP3)

The Regulative Principle of Worship in the Old Testament (The Second Commandment In Covenanter, Puritan and Reformation Worship) by Greg Price (Puritan Worship Series, Free SWRB MP3)

What's Wrong With Worship In Most Churches -- False Worship (Violations Of the Second Commandment Or the Regulative Principle of Worship) and Well Intentioned Idolatry Brings God's Wrath and Even Death by Jim Dodson, John Owen and Others

Many Church History Quotes Against Instrumental Music In Public Worship

FREE SWRB MP3: Instrumental Music in Public Worship in the Old Testament (and the Second Commandment In Covenanter, Puritan and Reformed Worship) by Greg Price (Free MP3 and Video)

FREE SWRB MP3: Instrumental Music in Public Worship in the New Testament (and the Second Commandment In Covenanter, Puritan and Reformed Worship) by Greg Price (Free MP3 and Video) 

Sin Of Reviving Forms Of Worship That Have Been Destroyed Vs the Regulative Principle, by Pastor Jim Dodson (Free MP3)

Westminster Assembly: Exclusive Psalmody & Instrumental Music in Public Worship

Exclusive Psalmody by Greg Price, A Modern-Day Puritan Minister (7 Free SWRB MP3s, Best Free Series On Exclusive Psalmody)

The Puritans On Exclusive Psalmody (Free MP3s, Videos, Books, etc.)

The Harp - Praise of the Saints (17 Free MP3s Against the Use Of Musical Instruments In Public Worship; Defends the Apostolic and Classic Protestant Position From the Bible), by Dr. Steven Dilday

Uncommanded Worship Is Idolatry (Reformation, Regulative Principle, Christ's Kingship), by pastor Jim Dodson (Free MP3 and PDF)

Musical organs pertain to the Jewish ceremonies and agree no more to us than circumcision. - Peter Martyr Vermigli, quoted in Ames, A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship, p. 405 

Musical instruments were among the legal ceremonies which Christ at His coming abolished. - John Calvin, Lecture on Exodus 15:20

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. - John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 33 and on I Samuel 18: 1-9