Begg on the Use of the Organ, Chapter 5

[Page 134]

CHAPTER V.

MOVEMENTS IN DISSENTING CHURCHES.—THE PRESENT DUTY OF DISSENTING PRESBYTERIANS AND OF ALL EARNEST CHRISTIANS.

“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”—Deut. xii. 32.

---

IN so far as the Scottish Presbyterian Dissenters are concerned, it is gratifying to be able to state, that they have hitherto, upon the whole, with some indications of a restless spirit and some minor “innovations,” conducted their worship according to the simple and scriptural principles of the Reformation. An attempt was made, some time ago, to innovate, first in the Relief, and afterwards in the United Presbyterian Church, but in both cases the attempt to introduce an organ was defeated. The old principles have, in all our churches, been generally and firmly maintained, and it is to be hoped that we shall see more and more clearly the duty and wisdom of “standing in the old

[Page 135]

ways,” as that wherein our great strength lies. We should firmly resist the rage for having harmoniums in Sabbath schools, singing classes, and soirees, not only as inconsistent with principle, but as directly leading to the ultimate corruption of public worship. At the same time, ministers ought to instruct their people in right principles in regard to a matter so sacred and important as the right and acceptable way of worshipping God, so as not to leave them a prey to the sophistries of crude gainsayers; and it is most important that vocal music should be earnestly cultivated in our schools and churches, that men may “sing skilfully,” and with a full swell of melody. Moreover, it is of unspeakable importance that the art of preaching in a powerful and interesting way should occupy a much higher place in the training of our future ministers than has lately been assigned to it, and that we should never cease to pray for the universal diffusion of a more earnest and devotional spirit amongst all our congregations. As the power of preaching and of earnest spiritual

[Page 136]

worship languish, in the same proportion, we may rest assured, formalism and ritualism will seek to force their way, and will probably succeed.

Whilst the state of the nonconformist Presbyterian Churches of Scotland, however, is upon the whole satisfactory, we are sorry that so much cannot be said for the Presbyterian Churches in England. Already the English Presbyterian Church tolerates two organs, to the manifest damage of her own consistency and position; whilst a restless movement in a similar direction seems to have begun amongst the United Presbyterians on the other side of the Border. We trust the United Presbyterian Synod will resist this movement on every ground. If it be successful, it must ultimately lead to very serious consequences. If the principles of the Presbyterian Church in regard to worship are correct, these hankerings after what is notoriously a Popish corruption, can only lead to the breaking-up of existing unions, instead of paving the way for more extended ones. Our union, to secure the Divine blessing, must be always

[Page 137]

“in the truth,” and any proposal to make what is called an “open question” of what God himself has clearly settled and closed in the negative, must be sternly resisted by all who have any just regard for the Divine authority. We shall not anticipate, however, any such sad result, but rather hope and believe that the United Presbyterian Church will be faithful, and that the English Presbyterian Church, taking a lesson not only from the Bible but from the success of Mr Spurgeon, who has no organ or instrument in his worship, may abandon all spirit of compromise, turn the two organs already existing out of doors, and trust for success to God’s blessing on the plain and earnest preaching of the word—bearing a faithful and growing testimony in favour of the old Puritan principles, and against the growing corruptions by which she is surrounded. She has a noble opportunity at present, if she is only firm, resolute, and zealous. The Established Church of England is in a sad state of disorganization—the fruit of carnal policy and of tolerating erroneous principles. The Dissenters are to a large

[Page 138]

extent powerless amidst the rising tide of Popery and infidelity, scarcely excepting the Wesleyans, because they all more or less act upon carnal policy, and have in a greater or less degree substituted a system of man-pleasing, especially in worship, for the stern and noble principles of worship set forth in the Word of God, and maintained to the death by their noble ancestors.

Dr Adam Clarke, commenting on the passage, Col. iii. 16, “Singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord,” says:—“The singing which is here recommended is widely different from what is commonly used in most Christian congregations—[he speaks in regard to England]—a congeries of unmeaning sounds associated to bundles of nonsensical and often ridiculous repetitions, which at once both deprave and disgrace the Church of Christ. Melody, which is allowed to be the most proper for devotional music, is now sacrificed to an exuberant harmony, which requires not only many different kinds of voices, but different musical instruments, to support it. And by these pre-

[Page 139]

posterous means the simplicity of the Christian worship is destroyed and all edification totally prevented. And this kind of singing is amply proved to be very injurious to the personal piety of those employed in it. Even of those who enter with a considerable share of humility and Christian meekness how few continue to sing with GRACE in their hearts unto the Lord.”

The Presbyterian Churches of England, if they could unite together and combine with the Calvinists of Wales, might form a most powerful body in arresting this tide of defection, and in teaching the bewildered Christians of England a “more excellent way.” But this will never be done unless the principles of the Divine word are rigidly adhered to. If one step is taken without the Divine authority, and solely under the guidance of carnal policy, we may say of this as is said of any other violation of the Divine law—“He that offendeth in one point is guilty of all;” a dead fly is at once introduced into the ointment, and the Church becomes comparatively powerless as a witness for God.

[Page 140]

Dr Candlish, in his recent reprint of the able Glasgow Presbytery Papers on the question of organs (1808), makes the following important statements in regard to Presbyterian uniformity which are very applicable to the present time:—

“I dread the agitation of the question in our Presbyterian Churches. I dread it, because I believe that it inevitably tends to schism. . . . In the first place, let the peculiar constitution of the Presbyterian Churches be kept in mind. Where Congregationalism prevails, either avowedly, as among the great body of English Nonconformists, or virtually, as in the English Establishment, uniformity of worship is not necessarily a condition of union. Among our Independent brethren, great diversity may be tolerated, for no one is responsible for what another does; and in the Church of England all sorts of hymns are allowed, and the service conducted in all sorts of styles, from the richest ritualism to the baldest and tamest routine. On the Congregational system, every pastor with his people may take his own way—one using instrumental music, and another con-

[Page 141]

demning the use of it—and yet the harmony of any association they may form among themselves may remain unbroken. This may or may not be a recommendation of that system. That is not now the question. It is enough to say that it is inconsistent with Presbyterianism. Those Presbyterians who disapprove, on conscientious and scriptural grounds, of a particular mode of worship—as, for instance, of the organ—cannot divest themselves of responsibility merely by excluding it from their own congregation. They are bound to resist the introduction of it in all the other congregations of the Church, as well as in their own. . . . All who are conscientiously opposed to it—who regard it as inexpedient and unlawful, unauthorised and unscriptural, must feel themselves bound as Presbyterians to do their utmost against a proposal to have it even tolerated. In their own judgment it is an act of will worship, and there is no plea of conscience on the other side to which they might be bound to let their own judgment defer. . . . I believe that it is a question which touches some of the highest

[Page 142]

and deepest points of Christian theology. Is the temple destroyed? Is the temple worship wholly superseded? Have we or have we not priests and sacrifices among us now? Is the temple or the synagogue the model on which the Church of the New Testament is formed? Does the Old Testament itself point to anything but ‘the fruit of the lips’ as the peaceoffering or thankoffering of Gospel times? Is there a trace in the New Testament of any other mode of praise? For my part, I am persuaded that if the organ be admitted, there is no barrier in principle against the sacerdotal system in all its fulness—against the substitution again, in our whole religion, of the formal for the spiritual, the symbolical for the real.”—Preface to “The Organ Question,” &c. By Robert S. Candlish, D.D. Edinburgh: 1856.

These statements are both important and explicit, and they raise a question of no small importance in connection with the existing negotiations for union, so long as the English Presbyterian Church tolerates organs in two of her places of worship; and as the United

[Page 143]

Presbyterian Presbyteries on the other side of the Tweed are overturing their Synod here to grant them the same liberty to act in opposition to their avowed principles and hereditary practice, in the hope of conciliating the favour of those around them. The Nonconformists of Britain will never be strong, unless they sternly maintain the old principles of the Puritans as found in the Word of God, and as the only means of securing His favour and blessing. The whole spirit and principles of these noble men are thus expressed by the celebrated Thomas Brooks:—

“When a man suffers for doing that which Christ commands, then he suffers for well-doing, then he suffers as a Christian, and then his cause is good. You know there is nothing in all the Scripture that God stands more upon than purity of religion, than purity of worship, than purity of ordinances, in opposition to all mixtures and corruptions whatsoever. O sirs! the great God stands upon nothing more in all the world than upon purity of His worship. There is nothing that doth so provoke and

[Page 144]

exasperate God against a people, as mixtures in His worship and service; and no wonder! for mixtures in His worship are exactly cross to His commands, and pollutions in worship do sadly reflect upon the name of God, the honour of God, the truth of God: and therefore His heart rises against them. Defilements in worship do sorely reflect upon the wisdom of Christ, and the faithfulness of Christ, as if He was not faithful enough, nor wise enough, nor prudent enough, nor understanding enough, to order, direct, and guide His people in the matters of His worship, but must be beholden to the wisdom, prudence, and care of man, of vain man, of sinful man, of vile and unworthy man, to complete, perfect, and make up something that was wanting in His worship and service, &c. Now if a man suffers for owning pure worship and ordinances, for standing for pure worship and ordinances, his cause is good, and he suffers as a Christian. . . . Now then, when a man suffers for refusing to worship God with a mixed worship, or with invented or devised worship, which Christ in the Word

[Page 145]

doth everywhere condemn, then his cause is good, and he suffers as a Christian.”

REPRINT OF MY LATE FATHER’S TREATISE ON INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP.

Applications have been lately made from many quarters for a reprint of the annexed treatise, in which the whole question of instrumental music in Christian worship is discussed and sifted with characteristic plainness and vigour.

The remarks which follow, slightly altered, were written some years ago by the author as a preface to a reprint, rather of a private nature, of the same pamphlet, during the struggle about organs in the English Synod:—

“The following treatise was published by my late father during the organ controversy, in Glasgow, in the year 1808. At that time the question was very fully considered. Truth, however, requires constant defence. New generations grow up in ignorance of their own professed principles, and every half century seems

[Page 146]

destined to bring along with it a necessity for clearing up the old landmarks.

“However natural and consolatory to one’s vanity it may be to deride and scorn the arrangements of ancestral wisdom, as if we ourselves had made vast strides in knowledge, we may rest assured that the men who founded the Presbyterian Church were possessed of solid learning and profound scriptural sagacity. They did not discard musical instruments from the Divine worship without a reason, and whilst liberality towards those who differ from us is both amiable, scriptural, and wise, a loose and ignorant indifference to the distinctive principles of our system is treason to truth, and is not fitted to command the respect even of those from whom we differ. It is obvious at the same time that the responsibility of a debate at present, on this subject, must rest with those who have introduced or defended this innovation. The wildest advocates for change must admit this; they must also admit that there is some point at which even they would make a stand in defence of the purity of the worship of God.

[Page 147]

It is therefore a perfectly fair question, Why not make your stand at the present point, and defend the ground on which the Presbyterian Churches of Britain have always stood since the Reformation? Our own deliberate opinion is that it is the only ground on which a scriptural and consistent stand is possible upon Presbyterian principles.

“It is no answer to this to say, with real ignorance but affected superiority, Why not let all men have their own way?—Why should you raise a question about a matter so insignificant? This assumes, without proof, the whole matter in debate, viz., that no principle, or at least no important principle, is involved in this question. This has been the plea of innovators in all ages but those who hold such a view ought to be the very last to convulse churches by innovations if they were only consistent. Those who read the following clear and conclusive treatise, however, which did good service in Scotland half a century ago, will have some difficulty in repeating such a pretence. They will see, on the contrary, that the question of instrumental music

[Page 148]

in Divine worship involves, when properly understood, the whole line of those foundation truths, in so far as Divine worship is concerned, upon which the Presbyterian Church rests, not to speak of the same distinctive principles out of which sprang the recent Disruption in Scotland. To go no further, however, it would be interesting to get from some of our innovating friends, or their allies, a commentary on the ordination engagements which all Presbyterian ministers have voluntarily undertaken. Amongst other clauses the ordination service contains the following—Will you, ‘to the utmost of your power, assert, maintain, and defend the purity of worship as presently practised in this Church?’ Again, ‘you shall follow no divisive courses from the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Church.’ To me it seems evident that every minister is held by existing engagements to have satisfied himself that the simple worship of the Presbyterian Church, the actually existing worship, by reading the word, preaching, singing, and prayer, is thoroughly scriptural, and to have promised

[Page 149]

that he will unflinchingly, and in all circumstances, defend the same, and resist all unauthorised changes. If the sudden and violent change of that worship by the use of organs, and the giving of public expression to all sorts of defences and vindications of such conduct, fitted to unsettle the minds of our people, can fairly be described as to ‘the utmost of their power asserting, maintaining, and defending the purity of worship as presently practised in this Church,’ it would be interesting to know what proceeding of theirs could properly be said to rank under the head of opposition to said worship. It has been said that the use of instruments is not prohibited in our Directory for worship. It is quite true; but neither is the mass nor other peculiarities of Rome prohibited. The object of a Directory is not to prohibit but to enjoin; and our Directory enjoins the whole of our existing mode of worship, and nothing else, including ‘the singing of psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family;’ and intimates in connection with this that ‘the voice is to be tunably and

[Page 150]

gravely ordered,’ which manifestly implies the exclusion of instruments.

“Apart from this, however, the question lies in a nutshell. What theory in regard to the purity of public worship do our friends intend to maintain? The time seems to have come when the whole range of foundation principles on this subject, brought into conflict at the Reformation, must be again re-examined, and nothing will ultimately stand that is not clearly based on scripture truth. Now experience proves that all the theories that have ever been maintained in the Christian Church on the subject of Divine worship may be reduced to three. The first is the Popish theory, obviously untenable, viz., in substance, that the Church can introduce into the Divine worship whatsoever forms and ceremonies she pleases. The second is the Lutheran theory, also acted upon by the Church of England,* viz., that everything is

_____

* “The Church of England has admitted into its articles this principle, that it belongs to ‘the Church,’ of her own authority, to ‘decree rites and ceremonies.’—(Article 20.) As a matter of historical fact, this principle was never agreed to by the Convocation that adopted the Thirty-Nine

[Page 151]

lawful in the Divine worship which is not expressly condemned in Scripture. This makes way for the introduction of many things which can evidently plead no scriptural authority, and many thoughtless Presbyterians speak as if this were also the principle of their Church. But the third theory, and that of the Presbyterian Church, is much more stringent, viz., that nothing is to be admitted into the Divine worship, which cannot plead a direct scriptural authority. This principle is found often in our standards. It is very clearly asserted in the Shorter Catechism. In answer to the question, ‘What is forbidden in the second commandment?’ it is said ‘The second commandment forbiddeth the worshipping of God by images,

_____

[continued from p. 150] Articles, this sentence being found neither in the first-printed edition of the Articles, nor in the draft of them that passed the Convocation, and which is still in existence, with the autograph signatures of the members; but it is believed to have been surreptitiously inserted by the hand of Queen Elizabeth herself, who had much of the overbearing spirit of her father, Henry VIII., and who, as head of the Church which the English constitution made her, was determined to have a pompous worship under her ecclesiastical control.”—See authorities in Presbyterian Review, July, 1843.—Rev. Alex. Hislop.

[Page 152]

or in any other way not appointed in His word.’ This again is taken from the express words of Christ Himself, ‘Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;’—Matthew xxviii. 20. This was the great principle of John Knox—the essential principle of the Disruption, only then it was applied to the government of the Church in opposition to human enactments. It is equally applicable, however, to doctrine, worship, and discipline; and if any distinction is to be made at all, its sacred importance must be specially admitted when it is applied to the worship of God.

“The simple question which remains, therefore, in connection with the application of this principle, is, Has God ‘appointed’ instrumental music as part of the worship of the New Testament Church? This is the question which the innovators must face, and it is not difficult to answer. Instrumental music, as is proved in the following treatise, was part of the temple service, had no existence in the ordinary synagogue worship of the Jews, and was swept away with the sacrifices, priests, incense, and

[Page 153]

gorgeous ceremonial of the Old Testament system. The only worship ‘appointed’ under the New Testament consisted of preaching, praying, singing, and sacraments. For these there is express divine authority. History proves that this state of things continued in the Apostolic Church until the mystery of iniquity began to reconstruct the whole temple system, with appeals to the eyes by pictures, the nose by incense, the ears by instruments, all accompanied with magnificent temples, a priesthood, and a pretended sacrifice. The Greek Church, which took an early stand against some of the usurpations of Rome, has always, notwithstanding its other corruptions, resisted the introduction of instrumental music, and at this moment, amidst 70,000,000 of people, many of them as musical as any in the world, the praises of God are only celebrated by that best of all instruments—the human voice. Many of the Reformers of England would have abolished instrumental music in their church if they had had the power. The Presbyterian Church, in its earlier days, did this without hesitation, and

[Page 154]

in Scotland, where that system has remained in vigour, the simple singing of praise has always, till now, constituted the only form of church music. If these facts and principles are admitted—and we should like to hear them seriously controverted by any competent Presbyterian—the whole controversy must be held to be settled. It is vain to speak of what other Presbyterian Churches have tolerated, for their proceedings are not our rule of duty. Besides, all our observations lead to the conclusion that, in so far as Presbyterian Churches on the Continent, or in America, have abandoned their distinctive principles, they have only admitted essential weakness into their ranks. It is worse than idle to speak of ‘liberty’ in connection with this matter, as if license were liberty, and as if our Presbyterian order were simply to resolve itself into a spurious form of Independency. Every man in the Presbyterian Church may agitate for any changes he pleases in any matter, in a lawful way, in our church courts, and if he convinces his brethren that his proposed plan is better than that which exists,

[Page 155]

and if the change can lawfully be made, it will be adopted by all. If it is good, why should all not adopt it? If bad, why should any congregation be subjected to it, at the mere will, it may be, of some eccentric minister? Where would such a novel theory of liberty, in regard to worship end? That it would destroy our Presbyterian system is obvious; but why confine its application to the introduction of organs? The Highland minister, in the Assembly, at the former discussion, is alleged to have said, ‘We care naething about your organs, we shall have the bagpipes.’ The Church of Rome goes farther, and uses artillery to give majesty and effect to her worship. Why should not we, upon this theory of liberty, be allowed to do the same? Some with dull ears, and an acute sense of smell, would prefer the restoration of incense, and why should they not have their will? Some prefer pictures and images, why not indulge them? A worthy elder, some time ago, said to me, Does not our metre psalm say, ‘Praise the Lord with organs’? ‘Yes,’ said I, ‘go on with the quotation—“organs in the dance.”’ David

[Page 156]

danced before the Lord with all his might; but a reel performed by the elders in the area would scarcely do for modern worship.’* And yet, if you are to substitute the modern notion of ‘every congregation doing as it pleases,’ for the comely order at present existing and prescribed, and which is founded on the clear principle that God is only to be worshipped ‘in his own appointed way,’ there is no end to the diversity and confusion that might and would arise, nor any possibility of halting in principle short of the gaudy and meretricious ceremonial of the Church of Rome.”

The following treatise will be found very complete, and it has often been noticed with approbation. Speaking of the publications called forth by the former struggle in regard to the organ at Glasgow, Dr Candlish says, “Several, including one by that most strenuous and uncompromising foe of innovation, the late Dr Begg, of New Monkland, are very valuable, and will deserve attention, if the fight is to be

_____

* See Appendix, No. IV.

[Page 157]

seriously renewed.”* The late Rev. Alexander Hislop, of Arbroath, says, “On the whole question of instrumental music in the worship of God, see Dr Begg’s valuable pamphlet on the organ question.”† Dr Gibson speaks in equally strong terms in his late speech on innovations, now forming part of a pamphlet lately published by Murray & Son, of Glasgow. The treatise, however, has become very scarce, and has often been inquired for of late. It is as applicable to the present state of the controversy, as it was when it did good service in 1808.

_____

* “The Organ Question.” By Robert S. Candlish, D.D. P. 28. Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter.

† “Scriptural Principles of the Solemn League and Covenant.” By the Rev. Alexander Hislop. Pp. 61, 62. Glasgow and London: W. R. M‘Phun & Son.