Musical Instruments in Divine Worship XIII.

Page 94

CHAPTER XIII.

THE CHARACTER OF INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC.

---

There are certain elements in the nature of every institution that assign to it its true position, either as Christian or unchristian, that indicate whether or not, as usually existing, its essential features are consistent with the nature of divine worship. We may properly judge of the character of instrumentation in the church of Christ as he directs us to judge the character of professed teachers of the gospel. “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” “Therefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.” As every ordinance is to be observed for edification it is proper to enquire whether there is any thing in the nature of instrumentation that does edify. First, the act of divine worship is the consecration of the heart to God—the lifting up of the soul to Him. The object of praise is the communication of the living power of truth to the heart to lift it up to God. It is necessary for this purpose that the truth should not only be uttered in singing by the worshipers, but that they should mutually hear its distinct utterance. It is defined by the apostle in Eph. 5, 19, as “Speaking to yourselves;” and in Col. 3, 16, as “Teaching and admonishing one another.” The truth of the song of praise should be so distinctly articulated that all may become speakers and teachers. Thus the harmony and melody of the voice are to be subservient to the unison of the utterance of divine truth. It is thus that singing divine truth in the worship of God by the whole assembly of worshipers becomes such an impressive mode of teaching that truth. The instrument, however, articulates not words, but mere sound. It does not aid the voice in the articula-

Page 95

tion of truth, but, on the other hand renders that articulation less distinct and audible. It is therefore a real obstruction to that distinct enunciation of divine truth in the singing of praise so necessary for edification. It occupies the place therefore of a mere musical attraction, and when the music of the voice or instrument becomes in any measure a mere human attraction it intervenes between God and the soul—between divine truth and the heart. Yet it is undeniably upon the principle of musical attraction that in the vast majority of instances it has in the past been employed by the churches. One of the difficulties with which it is supposed we have to contend as a branch of the Presbyterian church is the want of attractive features in our praise service. Our system of Psalmody is not received with popular favor. It has been supposed that we can supply in musical attraction what is wanting in this respect in the matter of our songs. From this source arises the theory that these songs can be sung into popular favor, and the instrument is sought as an aid to accomplish this purpose. As well may we undertake to preach the gospel into popular favor by the embellishments of mere human eloquence—as well seek to make prayer a popular institution by clothing our petitions in language that will charm the unsanctified ear, or the Lord’s supper by accompanying it with all the forms with which the Romish church has clothed it. But it is the glory of the gospel that it is the preaching of the cross of Christ “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” If we go back to the temple worship we shall have a system appointed upon the principle of external splendor. But New Testament worship, in every ordinance, is in manifest contrast with it. Is it not this restiveness under the burden of the cross that leads us in this age of worldliness, to favor the introduction into the church of means which will enable us more successfully to rival the more popular churches? Is

Page 96

it not this feeling that produces the effort to make our Sabbath School more attractive to the children in order to retain them, and upon the same principle to make our worship more entertaining? Nothing could be more indicative of the waning of the spiritual life and power of the church. That which attracts popular favor as a rule in divine worship detracts from its power; and what is added to the simplicity of divine requirements for the purpose of increasing their acceptableness to men becomes the weakness of decay and death. It is enough to render this proposed new element in our praise at least a suspicious one that it is in such favor with the world. The secular press, so far as it deems the subject worthy of notice, is a unit in favor of the new element, not upon the principle that it is an aid in rendering praise to God, but upon the principle that it is pleasing to the carnal taste. “Do I now seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men I should not be the servant of Christ,”—Gal. 1, 10.

Second. Instrumentation disregards the obligations of charity. There are certain things, as all admit, that are lawful in themselves, the use of which is to be denied when it becomes an offense to Christian brethren. They are things that are not essential to edification. Upon this basis the advocates of instrumentation place the institution. They are careful to say that they care very little about it; that very few congregations ought to use it; and the author of the pamphlet before us claims that he has advocated the mere abstract principle of the lawfulness of instruments, and has “not advocated their use at all.” It cannot be denied that the use of instruments is offensive to the consciences of very many intelligent and pious Christians, and that it has ever been so, even in churches that have long been accustomed to use them.

In the United Presbyterian church there is a large proportion of her members to whom the use of the instrument is offensive. Nor can it be justly claimed that the use of the instru-

Page 97

ment in a given congregation, does not affect the consciences of brethren in other congregations where the instrument is not used. The unity of the organization involves all its members in responsibility for a tolerated corruption in the worship of that organization. “Whether one member suffers, all the members suffer.” It may be safely assumed that in the United Presbyterian church there is scarcely a congregation which has not those in its membership who cannot use the instrument in faith. “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” The faith of very many in reference to the mission of the church, will be greatly weakened by the repeal of a law that has until recently protected them against this offense. That repeal, if it shall be accomplished, will be in disregard of the consciences of a large element of the church. The advocates of instruments admit that God can always be praised acceptably without the accompaniment. The opponents believe that the accompaniment is a corruption of praise, and under this belief they can never praise acceptably in the use of the instrument, because “whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Yet they must worship together. Nothing is clearer than that under these circumstances it is the manifest duty of the church to exclude instrumentation from its worship.

We as a church have always stood upon the principle that the inspired Psalms should be exclusively used by all the churches, because all Christians can sing them conscientiously. We believe we are warranted in maintaining a separate organization because other churches persist in using hymns of human composition. We claim that we have the union Psalmody, because the singing of Psalms offends the conscience of no one. All can sing them in faith, and we throw upon other churches the responsibility of schism, because they do not confine themselves in the matter of praise to that system in which all can unite without offense. But if instruments are employed in the church in violation of the consciences of brethren, we as a church

Page 98

repudiate the principle upon which we have upheld our Psalmody and persistently commended it to other churches as a basis upon which all can conscientiously unite. All can conscientiously praise God without instruments: very many cannot do it with their use. The principle of expediency alone forbids their introduction under such circumstances. That charity that forbids the use of any thing simply warranted whereby a “brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak,” requires the continued exclusion of instruments from the United Presbyterian church. We can all sing together in the faith that we are doing so in obedience to divine appointment. We cannot all sing to the accompaniment of instruments in that faith. What does that charity which “beareth all things” require under such circumstances? Nothing can be clearer than that the instruments ought to be excluded—not by the judgment of the congregation, but by the judgment of the whole church. But instrumentation professes to pursue a course which is the very reverse of this, by taking the barrier out of the way and giving license to that which is offensive to the consciences of Christian brethren who believe it to be a corruption of the worship of God. Under the plea of liberty it becomes a spiritual oppressor. Admitting its highest claim to be that of mere expediency, it proposes to disregard the rights of those who believe it to be an unwarranted innovation—to trample upon the Christian conscience in the pretense of exercising Christian liberty. But this plea assumes a very mild form. It is maintained that very few congregations desire the instrument, and that it is not probable that many of them will be employed—that those who are restive under a law excluding the use of instruments will be content to forego their introduction. Does the history of any great contest for the principle of liberty warrant any such conclusion? We are apt to use what we obtain at the expense of labored effort. It is not likely that the course of the United

Page 99

Presbyterian church will differ in this respect from that pursued by other churches in which there is the license to use instruments. Many faithful pastors have been compelled to leave their congregations by the intrusion of instrumentation upon them, when the relation otherwise promised to be one of great and permanent usefulness. The peace of congregations has often been thus permanently broken up, and very many godly people have felt it to be their duty to sunder dear relations to the church in which they were born and nursed, because of the employment of what they deemed to be an unauthorized mode of worship. Whatever be the cause, there can be no question but that these scenes will be re-enacted if the present law shall be annulled. It is in the face of such results, proved by the experience of the past to be inevitable, that instrumentation proposes to assume a place in the United Presbyterian church, in disregard of the convictions of brethren whose liberty is as dear to them as that of the advocates of the instruments can be to them.

Third. The liberty which is sought by the effort to introduce instrumentation is inconsistent with wholesome law. There is nothing more clearly recognized as a necessity of the very existence of a voluntary society, such as the church, than subjection to the fundamental principles which constitute its distinctive bond of union. There is a measure of personal liberty which must be surrendered as long as the church and the individual continue to be imperfect. So long as there may be difference of opinion only on questions of mere expediency, neither the individual nor the body can suffer seriously, and there need be no interference with any essential or fundamental principles of the church, for the sake of such questions. Nor should the advocacy of a practice that is claimed to be merely lawful, and not required, be carried to the extent of seriously disturbing the peace of the church or weakening her authority. Disregard of that authority can never be

Page 100

justified upon such a principle. The unity of pure Presbyterianism involves as fundamental and essential the principle that determined opposition to any of the objects of the church should not be tolerated in her members. The introduction of an institution into the church, which is in its nature independent of her organic law is the introduction of disintegration. We have shown that instrumental music, in seeking the repeal of the law prohibiting its use in the worship of God, does not propose to place itself under any law defining the conditions under which it should exist. It cannot be regulated by any law or by the general supervision of the governing power of the church. It can only be placed in the hands of a choir to do with it according to its own judgment. It cannot be regulated by the supervision of Presbytery session or congregation. Even the interference of the pastor for this purpose is recognized as intermeddling. What is true of instrumentation when it has established itself in the worship of God, is even more emphatically true of the mode in which it gains admission. The position has been assumed by the author of the pamphlet referred to that imitation of the Savior “involves conformity to convictions even to the extent of disregard of ecclesiastical deliverances while at the same time retaining membership in a church till formally excluded from it.” And in what consists the example of the Savior in reference to this subject? It is not pretended that he ever worshiped by the use of instrumentation except as it was employed under the ceremonial dispensation. But the particular thing referred to in that example, is his persistent opposition to the corruptions of the Scribes and Pharisees, by which they “made void the law of God.” That it should be appealed to as a justification of rebellion against a fundamental principle of the very organization of the church is indeed marvelous. That it should be quoted in justification of a breach of solemn obligations in the effort to secure the

Page 101

the existence of a mere optional institution in the church is still more marvelous. Yet it is in accord with the general character of instrumentation. It is notorious that it comes not under the ordinary system of laws by which the worship of the church is regulated. Whether it shall lead the singing or merely aid it—what shall be the number and character of the instruments employed—whether it shall be introduced by the authority and under the supervision of Presbytery, session, congregation or choir, are questions respecting which it is not proposed to give a deliverance. But it is not in the mere advocacy of this institution that the insubordinate character of instrumentation has exhibited itself in this movement. It has already planted itself in the church in disregard of law and in avowed rebellion against its authority. In taking its position in the United Presbyterian church, it has done so with the avowed purpose of violently breaking down a law that has equal sanction with any other law of the church, and this under the uncharitable assumption that the advocates of the law were determined that it should continue on the statute book, but be held and treated as a dead letter—an impeachment, not only of the common sense, but the honesty of those who seek to maintain the law, and this under the claim of “treating opponents Christianly.” Instrumentation now flaunts itself in the face of the church in the boast of having stolen a march on the friends of law and order, and thus maintains the consistency of its character as established in all its past history as being an institution that usually comes not in by the door, but “climbs up some other way.” If perchance the present law shall be repealed, thus virtually sanctioning instrumentation, it will be to all intents and purposes an ex post facto law, recognized by common usage as unjust, and in the United Presbyterian church a virtual sanction of contempt for her authority. So far as the writer has been able to ascertain, musical instruments have generally planted themselves in the church without

Page 102

the recognition of her courts. Pope Vitalian introduced them into the Catholic church without the usual sanctions, by which a change was effected even in the corrupt worship of that church. The Lutheran church retains them as an inheritance received from the Romish church. The usage of instrumentation has been to plant itself within the church and hold its position merely by tolerance. It does not bear upon its face the inscription that belongs essentially to every institution of divine appointment in the worship of the church, “Holiness to the Lord.” We look in vain upon its face to find a feature that indicates that it is an institution sanctified by divine warrant. We make these reflections not in anger, but in sadness. The consideration that the question has introduced into the United Presbyterian church an element of strife—an element that is even now paralyzing her efforts in a large measure, and that promises many heart-burnings, and much alienation in the future among brethren who might otherwise have dwelt together in unity and labored together in harmony, is one that ought to make every heart feel the weight of the responsibility that is involved in the repeal of the present law. It is a question worthy of serious consideration at this juncture, whether an institution that has already in reforming times been consumed as dross by the fires of persecution, shall not at a day not far distant be consumed again by the same process. Many who in respect to years at least may be called fathers, and who have been clinging to the small meed of consolation allotted to Hezekiah in his old age, that there should “be peace and truth” in his days, are doomed to disappointment if this struggle shall be continued as has been its wont.