Harper II.28
James Dodson
CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE PROHIBITORY THEORY ASSERTED—VALUE OF THE HISTORICAL FACT THAT, IN THE EARLY CHURCH, INSTRUMENTS OF MUSIC WERE NOT USED.
Now, assuming, as surely we may, that in the ancient church, during the 2d and 3d centuries, and even some centuries later, instrumental music formed no feature or element of Christian worship, what confirmation of the prohibitory theory does this yield? To answer this duly, several remarks must be made.
(1.) The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only rule of faith and practice. The writings of the Fathers and the usages of the ancient church are no more authoritative over our consciences than the writings of modern authors and the customs of the modern church.
(2.) The order and worship established by the Apostles are, so far as discoverable, to be reckoned as binding on the church now.
(3.) In order to ascertain what forms of worship were established by the Apostles, we must examine closely the New Testament writings.
Page 90
(4.) In the effort to determine what the meaning of the Scriptures is, we may obtain aid from many quarters, as, for instance, from a knowledge of the customs of the times when the Scriptures were written, of the writings of uninspired men who used the language which inspired men wrote, and of the practices of the church soon after the Apostolic age.
(5.) Now, if it is a fact, as it certainly is, that, in the worship of the church for centuries after the time of the Apostles, there was no instrumental music used, how can this be accounted for, except on the supposition that the church, as constituted by the Apostles, used no instrumental music in its worship? I hold that this conclusion is inevitable; and if the worship of the church, as settled by the Apostles, was destitute of instrumental music, is not that a sufficient proof that the Apostles never inculcated, nor commended, nor countenanced this music in the services of the New Testament church, and that it should be excluded from the church still? Of course, if the evidence in the bible made it clear that instrumental music in worship was sanctioned by the Apostles, in settling the worship of the church, that must end the controversy; but we most strenuously deny that any passage, or combination of passages, in Old or New Testament, makes it clear or probable that such sanction was given; and, in addition to this, we adduce the fact, as a proof that our view of Scripture teaching on this point is right, that, so soon as the curtain is removed after the demise of the Apostles, we discover the church to be entirely without instrumental music in its worship.
Those who hold the rationalistic principle that the church order and worship settled by the Apostles form no authoritative guide to us may not feel the force of our argument; but those who hold the opposite view cannot afford to slight the point now urged. Nay, even Rationalists, themselves, must be constrained to concede that, if instrumental music may lawfully be used in the New Testament church, it is most remarkable that the Apostles, shrewd, not to say inspired, men, did not, at least, recommend it, in view of the fact that both Jews and Gentiles had been accustomed to the use of such music in their respective rituals of worship. And had they recommended it even, is it possible that no attention should have been given for centuries to their advice?
(6.) The attempts which have been made, and I know none better adapted, to invalidate our argument, serve only to reveal its strength. It is said, for instance,
A. “That the early Christians were poor and unable to procure the instruments desirable for musical purposes in worship.”
To this it may be answered that a pipe or flute or harp would not have been too costly for the poorest congregation to procure; that we are not to form our judgment as to the cost of musical instruments in those days from the expensive organ of our times; that the early Christians were not all poor, for, even in Apostolic days, rich men were among them, and liberal contributions for benevolent objects were made by them, while, at a somewhat later date, men of affluence ranked among the followers of Christ; and that, such was the spirit of self-sacrifice evinced by the early adherents of the Christian cause, that, had they deemed it a duty, or even an advantage, to have instrumental music in their services, they would, even out of their deep poverty, have procured all the needful appliances for that end. It is urged, further,
B. “That they abstained from using instruments of music lest they should draw upon themselves the notice and rage of their persecutors.”
It is sufficient to say, in reply, that those Christians did not fear to sing in their meetings, as we definitely learn from Pliny’s celebrated letter to Trajan, as well as from other sources; that they were not so timid as to disobey, through fear, any apostolic command, or ignore, even, any apostolic example or advice, for one of the faulty features of their conduct was that they often, of their own accord, went to the magistrates and confessed their faith in Christ, hoping thereby to win the much-coveted martyr’s crown. He who resorts to this evasion knows not the
Page 91
temper of the Christians of the first three centuries. Besides, it would be passing strange if, in the entire church, the utter suppression of instruments should have taken place through fear. It is suggested, moreover,
C. “That they were repelled from the use of instruments of music, because, in their view, these were closely identified with Pagan worship and theatrical entertainments.”
My answer is that instruments of music were connected with the temple worship of the Jews, and, at least, the Jewish element of the early church might have felt attracted to the use of instruments on this ground; that vocal music was used in heathen worship and theatrical exhibitions, yet the Christians did not repudiate singing; and that, surely, if they had understood the Apostles to have enjoined, or even favored, by word or example, the use of instrumental music in worship, this direction or advice would not have been universally neglected by the church for centuries after the Apostolic age.
D. The surmise has been offered that “the early Christians declined from the use of instruments after the personal Apostolic supervision ceased, just as they degenerated into prelacy in church government, and into many gross superstitions and errors.”
It may serve as an offset to this objection to say that, if a declension of the kind suggested took place, it must have occurred very abruptly, for, as soon as the veil is raised after the death of the Apostles, the church appears as destitute of instruments as it ever became—that is, totally destitute; that there is not a single hint from the ancient times that such a serious declension, or that any declension, in this matter ever occurred, whereas the growth of prelacy and kindred corruptions can be clearly traced; that the marked tendency of the church, from the time of the Apostles onward till popery stood forth undisguised, was in the direction of sensuousness and pomp, not in the direction of simplicity of worship, as it must have been, so far as music is concerned, were this objection well founded. To account for the coming in of instrumental music into the services of the church, we need only to consider the general drift or tendency which characterized the early church; but to account for the expulsion of instruments, supposing them once to have been admitted, especially under Apostolical supervision, nothing known to me, in the general tendencies of human nature, or in the peculiar tendencies of the times alluded to, will suffice.
In view of the facts and principles enumerated, it is to me utterly inconceivable that instrumental music can have had place in the worship rendered by the Apostolic church, or that the Apostles can, either by word or act, have favored the use of it in worship; nor can I understand how the practice and sentiment of the church for centuries after the time of the Apostles, in relation to instrumental music, can be accounted for, unless on the supposition that it had been swayed by a mighty influence repressive of the tendencies of fallen human nature and adverse to the use of instruments in worship. I know not whence that influence can have come, except from the Apostles, and through them from the great Head of the Church.
The second proposed stage of our historical investigation relates to the circumstances in which instrumental music found entrance into the worship of the church. This department of research is subsidiary to that from which we have passed, and, although interesting and important, is yet but of secondary moment. Hence, a superficial treatment of it is all that will be here attempted.
Whatever may be thought about the use, in a very limited degree, of instrumental music in some parts of the church, at a somewhat earlier date, it cannot be denied that the first tangible and trustworthy evidence of its use in worship dates from about the middle of the eighth century. But at this time the church had become grievously corrupt, and the papacy had actually arisen. Popery is the product of unsanctified human nature, acting under peculiar influences, and is at once paganism superficially transformed, and a Satanic travesty of the Mosaic
Page 92
hierarchy and worship. No wonder that, when the priestly order, with the great Pontiff at its head, had acquired control in the church, and when rites and ceremonies were multiplied to an enormous extent, musical instruments should be welcomed, and their pomp enlisted in support of the magnificent and imposing ritual in which Rome delighted, and still delights.
These general hints, which are all that can now be afforded, may serve to show that the very circumstances in which instrumental music gained a foothold in the church are fitted to beget suspicions as to the legitimacy of the addition.