PM Vermigli and instruments

[py3ak]

In Peter Martyr Vermigli's second sacred prayer drawn from Psalm 81* he says this:

O almighty God, because of your supreme benefits we ought strenuously to give you both thanks and praise so that we glorify your name not only with our voices but also with musical instruments.

I don't recall running across similar references to instruments as an obligation in other Reformers, but this made me wonder if someone knows if Peter Martyr addressed the question at more length somewhere else, and if this take is unique to him or was more widely diffused.

*John Patrick Donnelly, S.J., trans. and ed., The Peter Martyr Library Volume Three: Sacred Prayers Drawn from the Psalms of David (Kirskville: The Thomas Jefferson University Press and Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, Inc., 1994), 78.

 

[MW]

https://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-favorites/william-ames/a-fresh-suit-against-human-ceremonies-in-gods-worship-by-william-ames-1576-1633/

P. 405: those words of P. Martyr: Musicall organs perteyne to the Iewish Ceremonie, and agree no more to us, then Circumcision.

I will leave it to the PB detectives to hunt down the original.

 

[Phil D.]

In 1543 Vermigli directly advocated the use of musical instruments in worship (starting at the bottom of page 160). Perhaps he later changed his mind. When I get time I'll try and track down a possible source and date for his comment on Jewish Ceremonies.

 

[83r17h]

Ames is referencing Bellarmine. Page 591 of the PDF here, where he says:

Neqs valet responsio Petri Martyris ad exemplum Testamenti veteris : scribit Petrus Martyr, in cap. 14, prioris ad Corinth. instrumenta Musica pertinere ad Iudaicas cæremonias, neq; no bis magis conuenire, quàm Circumcisionem, & neomenias.

Nor is Peter Martyr's response to the example of the Old Testament valid: Peter Martyr writes, in chapter 14 of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, that musical instruments pertain to Jewish ceremonies, and are no more fitting for us than circumcision and new moons.

Vermigli's commentary (looks like published in 1551) on chapter 14 starts on page 759 of the PDF here. Looks like the relevant bit starts at pg 768. I glanced through quickly, but didn't see the exact line quoted. If no one gets to it, I'll take a closer look later.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

He must have changed sometime between 1543 and 1551. Would be interesting if he does any mei culpa here or elsewhere that would pinpoint it.
P. 378.
Organa vero et externa musica instrumenta, quo pacto in templis retineri possint non video, cum ex eorum strepttu, verborum dei nihil intelligatur.
Deinde quae adducuntur ex veteri testamento, ad nouum non sunt necessario transferenda, nisi velimus ceremonias et sacrificia legis antiquae revocare.
But I do not see how organs and external musical instruments can be retained in temples, since nothing is understood of the words of God from their noise.
Then, what is brought from the old testament, are not necessarily to be transferred to the new, unless we wish to recall the ceremonies and sacrifices of the ancient law.

 

[Phil D.]

Vermigli's initial argument against instruments here seems to be somewhat practical - the way they tend to be used interferes in various ways with the hearing of the preached Word, and thus he advocates their disuse. He also seems to suggest that the abuses in this area that he is most familiar with are worse than what happens in the Roman Catholic Church... He then goes on to argue that the use of instruments in worship can't be shown as necessary or preferable either from the Old or New Testaments. But I guess I'm not quite seeing an argument here that I would characterize as positing that instruments are strictly prohibited in worship. But I could be missing something.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Yet it is a stark change, no? Baby steps.

Vermigli's initial argument against instruments here seems to be somewhat practical - the way they tend to be used interferes in various ways with the hearing of the preached Word, and thus he advocates their disuse. He also seems to suggest that the abuses he is most familiar with are worse than what happens in the Roman Catholic Church... He then goes on to argue that the use of instruments in worship can't be shown as necessary or preferable either from the Old or New Testaments. But I guess I'm not quite seeing an argument here that I would characterize as positing that instruments are strictly prohibited in worship. But I could be missing something.

 

[Phil D.]

Yet it is a stark change, no? Baby steps.

It is definitely a substantial retreat from his earlier statement.

 

[TylerRay]

Vermigli's initial argument against instruments here seems to be somewhat practical - the way they tend to be used interferes in various ways with the hearing of the preached Word, and thus he advocates their disuse. He also seems to suggest that the abuses in this area that he is most familiar with are worse than what happens in the Roman Catholic Church... He then goes on to argue that the use of instruments in worship can't be shown as necessary or preferable either from the Old or New Testaments. But I guess I'm not quite seeing an argument here that I would characterize as positing that instruments are strictly prohibited in worship. But I could be missing something.

I don't think that by, 'nothing is understood of the words of God from their noise,' he's saying that it interferes with the hearing of the preached word; he's saying that it interferes with the singing of the Psalms, because you can't make out what's being sung because of the overpowering and distracting sound of the organ.

I ran across an interesting portion from James Owen's Church-Pageantry Displayed: OR, Organ-Worship, Arraign'd and Condemn'd, As inconsistent with the Revelation and Worship of the Gospel, the Sentiments of the Ancient Fathers, the Church of England, and several Eminent Divines, both Protestants and Papists. (shoutout to @davejonescue & @Logan - this came from Puritan Search)

Peter Martyr, (who died about Year 1562) speaking about this sort of Church
Music saith,

It cannot be lawfully retained, because the Auditors are so taken with it,
that they cannot apprehend and perceive the Words if they would.

And therefore, I think it's almost as good, for a Man to pay his Religious
Devoirs to Heaven at B — in the midst of Rosemary-Lane S —where nothing is
heard but the confused Rumblings of sonorous and clat'ring Tongues. Or, for
ought I know, his Advantage may be as great, if he spends two or three
Hours at a Quakers Dumb and Silent Conventicle. The Truth on it is Sir, I
Love Music dearly well in it's proper Time and Place; and Scruple not to
divert my Self now and then, by a pair of Domestical Organs, but really I
had almost as good hear the Mysterious Humms of a Parcel of Leaden-Hall
Quakers, as the loud inarticulate confused Noise of Ecclesiastical Pipes.
The one is as intelligible and edifying as toother: But I must not attend
my demure Enthusiastical Quaker too long, lest my Cloaths be singed, for he
smells strong of Italian Smoak which makes me presume there are some Roman
Cinders in his Chimney.

 

[Phil D.]

I ran across an interesting portion from James Owen's Church-Pageantry Displayed: OR, Organ-Worship, Arraign'd and Condemn'd, As inconsistent with the Revelation and Worship of the Gospel, the Sentiments of the Ancient Fathers, the Church of England, and several Eminent Divines, both Protestants and Papists. (shoutout to @davejonescue & @Logan - this came from Puritan Search)

I saw that as well - interesting indeed...

I don't think that by, 'nothing is understood of the words of God from their noise,' he's saying that it interferes with the hearing of the preached word; he's saying that it interferes with the singing of the Psalms, because you can't make out what's being sung because of the overpowering and distracting sound of the organ.

That seems right. He does lament that there was often so much music in the morning service - apparently by popular demand - that "it is necessary to postpone the sermons to the afternoon when people are drowsy and pay little attention."

 

[Phil D.]

Toward the bottom of folio 378a

As for external organs or musical instruments, if ever: They should only be used in the manner we have noted above, where a human voice is joined with them, allowing the words and praises of God to be understood, in whatever way they might be conveyed. But as they are in use today, I do not know how they should be tolerated.​

Externa etiam organa seu musica instrumenta, si quandoq: salvis his quæ superius annotauimus sic adhiberentur, ut vox humana esset adjuncta quæ, sic accineret, ut verba dei et laudes intelligerentur, utcunque possent ferri. At ut hodie sunt in usu, nescio quomodo tolerari debeant.​

 

[MW]

You fellows are brilliant. I use the word fellows deliberately. It is like being a part of a university fellowship of old.

 

[Phil D.]

You fellows are brilliant. I use the word fellows deliberately. It is like being a part of a university fellowship of old.

Thank you, that is a very kind and (perhaps overly...) generous compliment, especially for someone with essentially an 8th-grade formal education...

 

[darrellmaurina]

I ran across an interesting portion from James Owen's Church-Pageantry Displayed: OR, Organ-Worship, Arraign'd and Condemn'd, As inconsistent with the Revelation and Worship of the Gospel, the Sentiments of the Ancient Fathers, the Church of England, and several Eminent Divines, both Protestants and Papists. (shoutout to @davejonescue & @Logan - this came from Puritan Search)

Peter Martyr, (who died about Year 1562) speaking about this sort of Church Music saith,

....but really I had almost as good hear the Mysterious Humms of a Parcel of Leaden-Hall Quakers, as the loud inarticulate confused Noise of Ecclesiastical Pipes. The one is as intelligible and edifying as toother: But I must not attend my demure Enthusiastical Quaker too long, lest my Cloaths be singed, for he smells strong of Italian Smoak which makes me presume there are some Roman Cinders in his Chimney.

Italian smoke? Roman cinders in his chimney? Did Peter Martyr Vermigli write that, or was it James Owen commenting on Vermigli, with only this part of the quote from Vermigli: "It cannot be lawfully retained, because the Auditors are so taken with it, that they cannot apprehend and perceive the Words if they would."

If this stuff about "Italian smoke" was from Peter Vermigli, okay. Vermigli was one of the VERY few Italian Reformed people from the early days of the Reformation and a fellow paisan has the right to say stuff like that about us. He suffered directly at the hands of the Italian hierarchy and he earned the right, from direct and bitter firsthand experience and a very real possibility of being burned for his faith, to use that sort of language.

For others, I'd start yowling about anti-Italian bigotry! Remember that we Italians carry. #DagoPower!

 

[TylerRay]

Italian smoke? Roman cinders in his chimney? Did Peter Martyr Vermigli write that, or was it James Owen commenting on Vermigli, with only this part of the quote from Vermigli: "It cannot be lawfully retained, because the Auditors are so taken with it, that they cannot apprehend and perceive the Words if they would."

If this stuff about "Italian smoke" was from Peter Vermigli, okay. Vermigli was one of the VERY few Italian Reformed people from the early days of the Reformation and a fellow paisan has the right to say stuff like that about us. He suffered directly at the hands of the Italian hierarchy and he earned the right, from direct and bitter firsthand experience and a very real possibility of being burned for his faith, to use that sort of language.

For others, I'd start yowling about anti-Italian bigotry! Remember that we Italians carry. #DagoPower!

That's hilarious. I'm 99.9999% sure that part was James Owen. The part about the Quakers would have been him too. There were no Quakers in PMV's day, and even if there had been, it was a distinctively English phenomenon.

I got it from a text document generated via OCR from a facsimile, with apparently very little editing. The only way to tell just when the quote ends is by the content itself.

That said, Papist smoke is Roman smoke, and Roman smoke is Italian smoke.

 

[darrellmaurina]

That's hilarious. I'm 99.9999% sure that part was James Owen. The part about the Quakers would have been him too. There were no Quakers in PMV's day, and even if there had been, it was a distinctively English phenomenon.

I got it from a text document generated via OCR from a facsimile, with apparently very little editing. The only way to tell just when the quote ends is by the content itself.

That said, Papist smoke is Roman smoke, and Roman smoke is Italian smoke.

Yep, the Quaker reference was a clue to me that either the whole passage was spurious, or as you and I both suspect, the issue is that it's not clear where the Vermigli quote ends and Owen's comments resume.

That's important because depending on where the quote stops and starts, Owen could be criticizing Vermigli's alleged "Italian smoke" or saying he agrees with Vermigli that organs are bad. It looks like Vermigli modified his views on organs over the years so Owen might be critical of Vermigli or supportive of him, depending on what book by Vermigli he was reading and when it was written.

FYI, I don't particularly like organs, or for that matter praise bands with guitars, since they have a real risk of drowning out the congregational singing. I practice predominant psalmody, not exclusive, though I rarely sing man-made hymns. If a church wants to be noninstrumental exclusive psalmody I won't object, but I regard organs as unnecessary and overly expensive, not as a regulative principle violation. I attended a RPCNA congregation when I lived in another state, so I have no problem with their position. I do think we have much worse problems than organs to worry about in the modern Reformed world.

Looks like I need to be sure to have my Beretta in my inside suit pocket or my shoulder holster the next time I read Owen, just in case he jumps off the page and decides to berate the smell of "Italian smoke" in my suit while turning his pages.

 

[TylerRay]

Yep, the Quaker reference was a clue to me that either the whole passage was spurious, or as you and I both suspect, the issue is that it's not clear where the Vermigli quote ends and Owen's comments resume.

That's important because depending on where the quote stops and starts, Owen could be criticizing Vermigli's alleged "Italian smoke" or saying he agrees with Vermigli that organs are bad. It looks like Vermigli modified his views on organs over the years so Owen might be critical of Vermigli or supportive of him, depending on what book by Vermigli he was reading and when it was written.

FYI, I don't particularly like organs, or for that matter praise bands with guitars, since they have a real risk of drowning out the congregational singing. I practice predominant psalmody, not exclusive, though I rarely sing man-made hymns. If a church wants to be noninstrumental exclusive psalmody I won't object, but I regard organs as unnecessary and overly expensive, not as a regulative principle violation. I attended a RPCNA congregation when I lived in another state, so I have no problem with their position. I do think we have much worse problems than organs to worry about in the modern Reformed world.

Looks like I need to be sure to have my Beretta in my inside suit pocket or my shoulder holster the next time I read Owen, just in case he jumps off the page and decides to berate the smell of "Italian smoke" in my suit while turning his pages.

I think this is the part that is Vermigli:

It cannot be lawfully retained, because the Auditors are so taken with it, that they cannot apprehend and perceive the Words if they would.

The rest is James Owen.

 

[darrellmaurina]

I think this is the part that is Vermigli:

It cannot be lawfully retained, because the Auditors are so taken with it, that they cannot apprehend and perceive the Words if they would.

The rest is James Owen.

We both think the same. As I said above: "Italian smoke? Roman cinders in his chimney? Did Peter Martyr Vermigli write that, or was it James Owen commenting on Vermigli, with only this part of the quote from Vermigli: 'It cannot be lawfully retained, because the Auditors are so taken with it, that they cannot apprehend and perceive the Words if they would.'"

I would want to see the full context, but it sounds to me like Vermigli was saying, using language from five centuries ago, that organ music is so distracting and so loud that it prevents people from perceiving the words being sung even if they want to do so.

That's a pragmatic argument against organs and one with which I probably agree. The response, of course, would be that organs can be played well so that they lead rather than dominate congregational singing, though there is a tendency toward artistry in music that makes them into an organ concert, not organs accompanying and aiding the congregation in singing.

I grew up in a church with a full-time paid organist and paid choirmaster and numerous robed church choirs. There's probably a photo of me somewhere singing as a boy in the cherub choir wearing robes that I now understand date back to the pagan Roman priesthood and which I would never wear today. I understand the beauty of organs, orchestras, or choral music. Baroque music is beautiful. Same for much of Renaissance and post-Renaissance (i.e., Reformation-era) music. But it's a concert and doesn't belong in a church service.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I don't think that by, 'nothing is understood of the words of God from their noise,' he's saying that it interferes with the hearing of the preached word; he's saying that it interferes with the singing of the Psalms, because you can't make out what's being sung because of the overpowering and distracting sound of the organ.

His meaning may actually be that the organ itself does not speak God's word, and therefore does not edify. The use of the preposition "ex" rather than "propter" seems to hint at this.
Voetius seems to take Vermigli in this way. One of these days Voetius on instruments in worship will be out...