Contact Us

Use the form on the right to contact us.

You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right. 

Form Block
This form needs a storage option. Double-click here to edit this form, and tell us where to save form submissions in the Storage tab. Learn more
         

123 Street Avenue, City Town, 99999

(123) 555-6789

email@address.com

 

You can set your address, phone number, email and site description in the settings tab.
Link to read me page with more information.

Database

Harper II.24

James Dodson

The Prohibitionary Theory.

CHAPTER XXIV.

THE PROHIBITORY THEORY VINDICATED—RECAPITULATION OF SOME ARGUMENTS ALREADY ADVANCED—ARGUMENT FROM THE ABSENCE OF NEW TESTAMENT SANCTION OF INSTRUMENTS IN WORSHIP.

The substance of the prohibitory theory is, that so far as the present dispensation is concerned, the use of musical instruments in worship is unlawful. It is of course obvious from the drift of the previous discussion, that this is the view which seems to the writer warranted and demanded by all the evidence available in the case. It is not here asserted that nothing plausible can be presented in

Page 80

favor of the rival theories. Neither is it affirmed, that there are no difficulties attaching to the view now propounded and about to be further advocated; but it is maintained, and that with a confidence which increases with reflection, that the evidence which can be adduced in behalf of the use of instrumental music in New Testament worship is weak, as compared with that which can be marshalled on the opposite side. In combating the other views, it has been necessary to anticipate most of the arguments by which the prohibitory theory may be substantiated, and hence, while deeming it best to furnish a direct line of argument in its support, I shall feel at liberty to assume some points as already proved, and to adopt a somewhat summary method of treatment. The following line of argument is submitted:—

1. The considerations already presented in disproof of the competing theories. A bare enumeration of these will suffice. It has been urged that on aesthetical grounds, no warrant for the use of instrumental music in worship now can be obtained, but rather indications to the contrary; that the sensuousness, characteristic of the instrumental arrangement, forms presumptive evidence that it pertained to the ceremonial system; that the intimate relation which instrumental music actually sustained to the ceremonial temple services, is suggestive of its temporary design; that there are strong indications that instrumental music in worship was confined among the Israelites to the tabernacle and temple ritual; that specific instruments were appointed to be used, and that these have been lost; and no description given adequate to guide us in reproducing them; that the New Testament yields no support to the view that the instrumental service in worship was to be continued lawfully in the New Testament church; and that if the precepts of scripture, enjoining the use of instruments in worship, apply to the present dispensation, we are guilty of a sin of omission, so long as we attempt to praise God in song, unaccompanied by instrumental music, a position from which most advocates of the use of that music in worship recoil. If this line of argument is valid against the imperative and permissive theories, it is valid in favor of the only alternative theory, that of prohibition; for if God neither commands nor permits the use of instruments in his worship now, he certainly forbids such use.

2. The lack of New Testament sanction for the use of musical instruments in the worship of the New Testament church.

This, it will be seen at once, is nearly identical with an argument already produced in proof of the ceremonial nature of the instrumental music of the temple. The special point, however, to be insisted on now, is that the absence from the pages of the New Testament of any hint that in the ritual of the New Testament church instrumental music should, or might be, included, is damaging, if not fatal, to the view that such music is admissible in the service of song now. Formerly the silence of the New Testament was used to prove that the instrumental element in the service of the temple was, simply ceremonial. Now this silence is used to show more directly that instrumental music is not a part of the order of the New Testament church.

There are two questions which present themselves here, and need to be deter-

Page 81

mined in order to the just appreciation of this argument, namely:—First, Does the New Testament give any hint that instruments of music must, or lawfully might, be used by the New Testament church in worship? Second, Does the absence of any such hint, supposing the absence to be a fact, indicate that instrumental music is not among the features or forms of New Testament worship?

To the first of these questions our answer has already been given, which is to the effect that, although the New Testament plainly contains directions to use vocal music in praising God, it yields no evidence that instrumental music may be so employed, no instrument being ever named as in use in worship under apostolic direction, and no other hint being given in the New Testament sufficient to show that it is the preceptive will of God that in this dispensation he should be worshipped with musical instruments.

To the second of the questions just stated I would give an affirmative answer, meaning thereby that the absence from the New Testament of any evidence in favor of the continued use of instrumental music in worship, is an indication that such music is not authorized in the devotional services of the New Testament church.

Let it be marked here that, in taking this ground, there is no intention to slight the Old Testament scriptures, as if nothing revealed in them were authoritative or lawful in doctrine or practice unless endorsed in the New Testament. What is alleged is simply this: that, as a matter of fact, God has seen fit to furnish New Testament support and sanction to every ordinance of worship which he meant to have place in the New Testament church, unless, indeed, instrumental music is an exception. It seems peculiarly appropriate that those parts of the bible which were prepared under divine inspiration, at the time when the church assumed its New Testament form, should exhibit the various rites and forms which were intended by God to mark the church in its New Testament development. Before his ascension, our Lord talked much with his disciples, instructing them in respect to matters pertaining to his kingdom (Acts 1:3), and the Holy Spirit, it had been promised, would, at a later day, bring these instructions to their remembrance. It is but natural to look, therefore, to the writings of those men, trained by the Saviour himself, and qualified by the gift of inspiration, for information touching the form which the church was, under their direction, to assume, and the worship it should render.

The more ancient sacred writings, it is freely granted, might furnish foreshadowings and strong intimations of the coming order and worship; but we should anticipate that the New Testament pre-eminently should afford guidance as to New Testament ordinances. But, as we cannot always trust our own judgment as to the fitness of things, we would hesitate to assert the principle now contended for, did we not find, on actual inspection, that, aside from instrumental music, which is now in debate, every ordinance of New Testament worship and government does obtain sanction in the New Testament writings.

What are the commonly acknowledged ordinances of the New Testament church? The sacred observance of the Lord’s day; the reading of the scriptures;

Page 82

preaching; the benediction; prayer; the singing of psalms; the giving of our substance for the cause of God; fasting in certain circumstances; vowing to God; the observance of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; the form of church government; and the administration of discipline. Now, some of these, doubtless, have a more explicit and definite appointment in the New Testament than others of the number have; but every one of them finds, if not original appointment in the New Testament, at least sanction and endorsement therein, a fact which leads us to suspect the claim of any rite to be accepted as belonging to the worship of the present dispensation, if the claimant has not the countenance and support of the New Testament. The survey of the facts seems to justify this position, that the whole ritual of the Old Testament church is abrogated, except so much of it as has received the sanction of the New Testament, as a part of the worship and order designed for New Testament times. The counter-rule, that everything in the Old Testament ritual remains, except so much as is expressly, or clearly exempted in the New Testament, is not safe; for under it there might be a difficulty in excluding the use of incense, of lighted lamps as symbols, of priestly vestments to be worn by all believers who are priests unto God. To say the very least, the evidence in favor of the perpetuation of instrumental music as a part of worship, would need to be greatly stronger than it is to countervail the presumption which lies against it in the fact, as I take it to be, that, while all the other parts of the order and worship of the New Testament church have New Testament sanction, instrumental music has none.