Harper II.25
James Dodson
CHAPTER XXV.
THE PROHIBITORY THEORY—THE ARGUMENT IN ITS FAVOR DRAWN FROM THE SILENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AS TO INSTRUMENTS—THE CAVIL DRAWN FROM INFANT BAPTISM ANSWERED.
At this point we encounter an objection which is supposed to be fatal to our line of argument. The objection is this, that in contending that instrumental music is inadmissible in New Testament times unless it be supported by a New Testament sanction, we virtually accede to the principle of the Baptists, who, to our argument for infant baptism from the Old Testament, reply that infant baptism is not sanctioned in the New Testament, and, therefore, cannot be admitted. Quotations are made also from treatises written by eminent advocates of infant baptism, in which they maintain that he who would lawfully refuse to recognize the infants of church members as entitled to the initial sign of membership, must be able to produce from the New Testament some prohibition of such recognition.
Touching this objection, which again is a sample of the “argumentum ad hominem,” these remarks are offered:—
(1.) It is quite possible that the defenders of infant baptism have sometimes been betrayed into the use of unguarded language. It is one of the benefits arising from a complete survey of the field of theology, and a wide acquaintance with the controversies of the ages, that we thereby learn to correct extravagances and rectify mistakes, into which, from a partial survey, we may be led, and are compelled to test our principles and rules of interpretation by an extended range of application. And if any one, in his zeal for infant baptism, should adopt the principle, that a positive prohibition of it in the New Testament would be necessary to neutralize the Old Testament evidence in its favor, I would be disposed to demur to his position.
(2.) In arguing for infant baptism, no judicious controversialist will depend solely on the fact that, in Old Testament times, the male infants of the Israelites were circumcised, and so recognized as a part of the church as then constituted; but he will seek to show, moreover, the essential unity of the church in all ages, the probability that in the new dispensation the privileges of parents and children
Page 83
would be enlarged rather than diminished, and various hints in the New Testament, which seem to imply the right of the children of professing Christians to the seal of baptism. Now, where do we look for the strongest proofs of the substantial identity of the church of the past with that of the present dispensation? Is it not to the New Testament, particularly to the Epistle to the Romans, and that to the Galatians? Where do we find the clearest evidence that the covenant made with Abraham was evangelical in its character, and that circumcision was not a mere national badge, but a seal of the righteousness which is by faith? Is it not in the Epistle to the Romans? Thus we are in a large degree dependent on the New Testament for the most fundamental argument we can produce in favor of infant baptism, while, besides, from the same source we have a very considerable amount of collateral or coincident evidence on the same question. Will any one be bold enough to say that we have in the New Testament similar countenance given to the view that the instrumental music of the previous dispensation is to be perpetuated in this dispensation?
(3.) In one respect, we who oppose instrumental music occupy a position more akin to that of the advocates of infant baptism, than do those who contend for instruments. While the Paedobaptist strenuously insists that the church, especially since her more formal organization in the time of Abraham, is essentially one great society, he, at the same time, admits that the Old Testament mode of recognizing infant church membership, has been changed, so that baptism now supplants circumcision. The great fact of infant membership remains, but the form of recognition is altered. In like manner, the opponent of instrumental music holds that the ordinance of praise, and of praise rendered to God in musical form, survives, while he also maintains, that in the transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament dispensation, a change in the form of praise has been made by the elimination of instrumental music. The fixed feature is music. The variable and transitory feature is instrumental music. The essence, that is, vocal music, is retained. The accidental or accessory form is dropped. An analogous change is discernible in the transition from the Passover to the Lord’s Supper. In both, there is an act of eating, but in the Passover, the substance eaten was flesh, while in the Lord’s Supper, what is eaten is bread.
(4.) Infant baptism was practised in the church from at least near the time of the apostles, as can be shown by credible, though uninspired writings; whereas instrumental music found no place in the church for centuries after the apostolic age. If we found that for some centuries after the first century of the Christian era there was no trace of the practice of infant baptism in the church, and much positive evidence that there was no such practice, as we do in relation to the use of instrumental music in worship, we should begin to feel rather uneasy as to our interpretation of the bible on the question of baptism.
(5.) Most of those who use the objection under notice wish simply to prove that instrumental music in New Testament worship is allowable, not imperative; but are they prepared to say that infant baptism is only allowable, not imperative? If, however, the plea for it and that for instruments are essentially the same, how is it that the conclusion in the one case is “a must be,” and in the other “a may be?” This argument may apply at least to those who employ as part of the plea for instruments the commands of scripture on that point. Besides, it may be urged that the Baptists themselves, at least most of them, do not feel compelled by regard to consistency to exclude from their religious services instrumental music. Hence, it may be inferred, that our line of argument against instrumental music, which the objector says is substantially one with that which the Baptists use against infant baptism, does not seem to be so accepted by them, which, we might presume, it would be, if of the character attributed to it in the objection which we have been considering. It may be added, without much attempt to expand the thought, that those who dispute our method of reasoning in relation to instru-
Page 84
mental music, will experience some difficulty in consistently maintaining against the Seventh Day Baptist, the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week.
The seventh day, it will be admitted, was once appointed by God to be kept as the Sabbath. It was so observed by the Saviour, and certainly for a time by the apostles. The appointment of it has never been expressly repealed, and no clear disapproval of the observance of the seventh day has been expressed in the New Testament. Ought it not, therefore, according to the reasoning of the opponents, to be still observed? And if it should be replied that the fourth commandment gives us six days for our own employments, while we know that on the first day of the week, Christians of apostolic times held their religious meetings; and that it therefore must have been to them the Sabbath, it might be replied, that the seventh day may still have been held as the Sabbath, and that the first day was, in addition, kept as a day for meetings, though not as the Sabbath strictly so called.