The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1889-07-10
Harps I'm Heaven.

81 heard the voice of harpers harplng with
their harps." (ltev. xiy:2.)
I commence this article by repeating the
conclusion OF my former one, whIch W. was
remarked II am not either defending or as.
sailing instrumental music In churches, out
simply considering passage o. scripture 1
says with reference to these words, Il think
It hardly fair to say that referred TO the
barps as an argument for instrumental music
in churches. 1 will continue TO think that
most of my readers will understand that l
had another object in view In the little squ1D
that wrote about the 'harps' than to present
an argument for instrumental music
admit that most Of bis readers knowing
him better than do could very probably un,
could. Here L was at disadvantage; Dut l
supposed, thai when a protesting Christian
writes about tie realities OF the eternal Worid
he is writing seriously and means in SUD.
sLance) what he says, consequently the
thought of q sq,ib, or or anything OF as small
a size as q squlb Especially, "a attte squib,,l
never occurred to my mind. But, as ne now
intimates, that injustice is done to him, by
regarding him as using what he said about
haTps as an argument simply say that II |
had known 1t was only little .squio' lshouid
not have written single line, unless, indeed.
I had written to protest against irreverenee.
or course am we'll aware. as he has ex.
pressed II, that "thegeneral subject OF SYM
bols has been discussed by our theologians
and experts In exegesles," simply gave my
opinion (for what 1t was WORTHY that the IAN
guage concerning the harps was symbolic. !
said that to explain 1t literally as an argument
for instrumental music In churcnes Woulo
carry with 1t certain consequences-am among
them the use OF "horses in churches. say
the same still. "The general subject" TO
which j. o. l.. calls attention was not the sub
ject under discussion, and even on the sup
incorrect, the assertion l made about the con-
sequences OF q literal Interpretation Is not
in the iedst invalidated. Let the language De
sunbohc as suppose, or ~. o. l.. supposes IL
far as my course of reasoning Is concerned. l
did not write my former article 1or Inc Pur-
pose OF gaining proselytes to symbolical In
depreciation 10 the passage. II VIII conLihue
most of my readers will understand that
had another object in view." This being the
case was under no obligation 10 give tne
proof that was correct. did not deslgn 70
symbols" much less to give "a positive reye-
Iation," as j. o. l.. seems TO suppose. SO ar
from It, If he had seen proper TO nave given
his views on this subject, none OF his readers
tention than myself. But If j. Q. L. has made
the Impression on the minds Of any that my
symbolic opinion OF the passage 1s OF sucn
singular nature that 1t should be held up lor
ridicule, it Is but for me to say that aIn not
ashamed Of the company in which am found
on this subject, that have as defenders OF my
opiniOn "theol Ogians and experts In exege-
sis" lust as he has for any opinion tnat ne
may entertain. on this or on any other subject.
The very fact that there has been discussion
by scholars concerning the nature OF sym.
bolIc language shows that the scholars nave
differed, and consequently scholars have been
found on each side OF the question as TO What
is symbolic and what Is not.
J.O. L. has, in effect, partly accepted OF some
of the consequences OF literal Interpretation
or "hn11ps" in heaven by, writing 80 much
about 'thorses" In heaven, unless indeed ibis
is meant as another "squib." Readers can judge
for themselves.
He says, "the Apostle John had heaven
open before him and he saw with his own
eyes right into II, and he says he heaTd the
harps and saw the horses. Now, believe
will accept his account and reject Mr.. Will
den's assertion that they are not there:
no more deny what John says ne saw
he does, that the Savior was speaking symbol.
ically when he said. "this Is my body" II
would not be proper for q Romanist to accuse
him of saying that the Savior never SAID tnls.
The Romanist and ]. O. l.. look from dl1erent
standpoints-the RoInanist regarding the
passage as literal and ]. o. L. regarding IL as
svrnboLtc That ia all. leave 1t for readers 10
make the application in the present case.
/ now close with what wrote before: "The
argument from the music In heaven az an ar
gument for the music in churches on edTth Is
not valid for II proves too much. " because
God has associated the heavenly dispensatlon
with choirs Of instruments, we are Justln 60
in using musical instruments in churches,
then 1t follows we are justified In introducing
other things in churches, the riding upon
white horses IN churches and the use OF altars
and incense In worship" (Rev;v w yiii;S;Xx:h) S
Hillside, y. c., 90 June, 1899.