Musical Instruments in Divine Worship IV.
James Dodson
Page 17
CHAPTER IV.
IS THERE A PERMISSIVE WARRANT FOR ANYTHING IN THE MODE OF PRAISE?
We have come to the necessity of revising the position which we, as a church, have so long endeavored to maintain in reference to praise—that the duty of praise as a distinct ordinance, is bound upon us by divine appointment—that by the same imperative sanction the matter of praise is provided for the church, and that by the same imperative and exclusive sanction the mode of praise is prescribed. It is now claimed that there is a permitted ingredient in the mode which we, as a church, have hitherto overlooked—that the use of instruments has been appointed or sanctioned by divine authority, and that this sanction is a mere optional one. It may be said, in passing, that having once gotten our feet upon one plank of the platform, it will be easy to step over to the second plank, that the matter of praise has a mere optional warrant, and then to the third, as some have already done, that praise itself as a distinct ordinance, has only an optional warrant. It is very certain that, in admitting that there is an optional warrant for the use of instruments in the worship of God, we let fall from our hands a very formidable weapon against innovation in the matter of praise.
It is a question that has puzzled very many, how a church, adhering exclusively to the use of the inspired Psalms, in which so much is said of the employment of instruments, can justify an exclusive adherence to the use of the voice in praise, and, on the other hand, how a church that has ceased, practically, to use the inspired songs, generally employs instruments, as apparently warranted mainly in the Psalms. The explanation is furnished upon the principle simply
Page 18
that there is supposed to be a permissive warrant in the Bible for the use of human composure in New Testament worship, the same as claimed for instruments. What is assumed to be permitted in both instances has become the dominant practice in both. The law authorizing the exclusive use of the Psalms was at one time recognized by the Presbyterian Church. But a permissive warrant was supposed to be found for the use of human composition in divine worship. In the practice of that church what was once held as a binding law has been virtually made void, and it has now scarcely the place of an optional warrant. The voice was once recognized by that church as having an exclusively binding warrant. In time a permissive warrant was supposed to be discovered for the use of instruments. Now the instrument has the predominance, and assumes the exclusive privilege of the solo, and, in a great measure, has hushed the voice of the congregation into silence, or heartless imbecility. The position of the churches adhering to an inspired Psalmody, however, is that every appointment of God for divine worship is obligatory—that there is no such thing as an optional warrant for any institution of that worship—that an inspired Psalmody has been appointed, and, therefore, is to be used exclusively—that singing in praise is required and instrumentation not required, and, therefore, has no place in praise. The whole literature of the controversy on Psalmody has its pivotal point in this one question. The advocates of an inspired Psalmody have, throughout the controversy, unanimously maintained that there is no permissive warrant for any part of the formal worship of God, and upon this ground they must stand or fall. If there be an optional warrant shown to exist in the word of God for the use of instruments, and the United Presbyterian Church accepts the position, she has abandoned her main stronghold in defense of an inspired Psalmody, and the result of such a surrender will not be long in manifesting itself.
Page 19
It is very important that we keep the question distinctly in view. It is not whether God has appointed anything as optional with men or with the church, or whether in reference to anything there is in Scripture a permissive warrant. The question is simply in reference to the mode of worship. There has been much said in this controversy respecting permissive appointments, of circumstances that have no connection whatever with the question—matters about the worship of God that are not in it. There is not, in all the examples gathered from Scripture that have come under our notice, of a permissive warrant, one that touches the question at issue. The question is simply in reference to the mode of worship, and specifically the mode of offering formal praise. Permissive warrants respecting other things may be used as a means of throwing dust—but they accomplish nothing else in the settlement of this question. God prescribed the mode of observing the passover. If He did not specify all the persons who had the privilege of this feast, and gave any class an optional warrant to observe it, the question of the mode of observance is not the least affected by that consideration. We deny emphatically that the command requiring all the males to appear before the Lord three times a year, left it optional with the women, and for this we have abundance of good company—among them Fairbairn. At all the stated feasts, and in the presentation of all their offerings of every kind in the place which the Lord should choose, they and their households were to rejoice before the Lord. Deut. 12, 7, “Then there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause His name to dwell there. Thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings and your sacrifices; your tithes and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the Lord; and ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God, ye and your sons and your daughters, and your men servants and your maid servants, and the Levite that is within thy gates.” Deut.
Page 20
xii., 11, 12. So also in Deut. xxxi., 12. “Gather the people together, men and women and children,” &c. This is a simple explanation that Moses gives of the comprehensive phrase “all the males.” It is particularly true of the passover that, while it was observed in connection with the assembly of the whole people, yet it was a family institution, and so to be observed perpetually. There is, therefore, no warrant in reference to the passover that did not apply to the women as well as to the men. But even if the women had not been included in the obligation to observe the passover, everything in the mode of observing it was obligatory, and this is the question at issue.
Again, we have been referred to the special appointment of the reading of the law at the feast of tabernacles, once in seven years, as according to a certain current mode of reasoning, prohibiting the reading of the law at any other time, or at any less interval. If the current reasoning had not found the authority enjoining the reading of the Scriptures at other times and at less intervals, there might be some force in the allusion. If Moses himself had not, upon another occasion, read the “book of the covenant” in the audience of the people, if they had not been required to embrace every suitable opportunity to make the people familiar with the Scriptures; if Joshua, Jehoshaphat, Josiah and Nehemiah had not been fair examples of the obligatory application of the principle, there might have been a show of justice in this charge against “the current reasoning.” As it is presented, it is simply an impeachment of the common sense of the brethren opposed to the use of instruments in the worship of God.
The prolonging of a feast by Solomon and Hezekiah is not a case in point, nor is the question of the appointment of the Feast of Dedication. For it is not a question of times or occasions for worship, but of the mode of worship to be observed in the praise of God. We have a right to infer for several reasons which we need
Page 21
not present here, that the Feast of Dedication was of divine obligation. But it does not matter in the decision of the question of the mode of praise. The prolonging of a feast, or the appointment of a new occasion for others, by no means implies a permission to change a prescribed mode of worship. If the occasion was one for praise it must be rendered as the law required. The principle holds good in reference to every example.
The claim that in the institution of free will offerings the letter of the law makes a distinction between the voluntary and the obligatory “respecting religious worship,” furnishes absolutely nothing in favor of the theory of an optional warrant for anything in divine worship. Moses’ commands respecting the offering, made on the three great occasions of the assembling of the people at the appointed place, that “they shall not appear before the Lord empty.” “Every man shall give as he is able according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which he hath given thee.” Deut. xvi., 16th and 17th. This command included what is in Lev. xxiii., 38, called “gifts,” vows and “free will offerings.” They were all required offerings. Every one was required to know how the Lord had blessed him and to offer accordingly. The offering was to be “of his own will.” But the principle is that the giver recognizing the extent of the blessing he enjoyed should give with a cheerful heart, and his gifts were to be the evidence that his will was in hearty accord with the will of the Lord. It is the very principle on which all offerings are to be presented to God still.
The matter of these offerings was prescribed also, and it is expressly said that if they were not of that which is specified they should “not be accepted.” The same thing is true of the place where they were offered. The mode of the offering is prescribed in the same manner.
Page 22
as the other offerings. See Lev. xii, 26–30. [This appears to be an erroneous reference. Leviticus 12 has no verses 26–30; the intended reference is likely Lev. xxii. 26–30.] Instead, therefore, of there being anything in the letter of the law, which contains an optional warrant for any ingredient in divine worship, the consideration of the free will offerings greatly strengthens the argument that everything in divine worship is required. The subject deserves the closest investigation because of the interesting lessons it furnishes in regard to the matter and manner of New Testament worship, and we believe if it were properly examined some of the loose expressions that have been published in reference to it would have been withheld. “That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform, even a free will offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the Lord thy God which thou hast promised with thy mouth.” Deut. xxiii, 23.
Other examples are alleged as being recognized by the consciousness and universal practice of Christendom as having for them an optional warrant, such as week day services and prayer meetings. It need only be replied here again that when such services are held God has prescribed the matter and manner of the service. Nothing is to be presented in such services but the ordinances as divinely appointed.
We might safely leave the argument for a permissive warrant applicable to the mode of New Testament praise where its advocates have left it. Not a scintillation of light has been shed upon it by anything that has been produced from the word of God. The examples adduced only confirm the theory that no such warrant exists in reference to the mode of praise, and this is the only question in this controversy.