Harper II.29
James Dodson
CHAPTER XXIX.
THE PROHIBITORY THEORY DEFENDED—EVIDENCE IN ITS FAVOR DERIVABLE FROM MODERN CHURCH HISTORY.
The third section of our historical inquiry pertains to the lessons on the subject of instrumental music derivable from the history of the modern church, beginning with the Reformation. In order to extract the lessons, we must know the facts; and these, in a very cursory and imperfect manner, will now be submitted.
(1.) The leading Reformers, among whom may be mentioned Luther, Zwingle, Calvin and Knox, were opposed to the use of instrumental music in worship. Eckhart, a Lutheran advocate of such music, admits reluctantly that Luther called organs “ensigns of Baal.”
Zwingle’s opposition to instrumental music in worship was vehement. Calvin’s mind on the subject may be learned from his own writings, and from the record of the order of worship which he established in Geneva. Among his deliverances on the subject under discussion, are these:—“Musical instruments were among the legal ceremonies which Christ abolished at his coming, and therefore we, under the gospel, must maintain a greater simplicity.” Again he says, “I have no doubt that playing upon the cymbal, touching the harp and viol and all kinds of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education that is the puerile instruction of the law. I speak of the service of the temple; for even now if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it an object, not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praise of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists themselves have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews.”
As to John Knox, the tone of the church which he was the main instrument of establishing, may serve to indicate what his mind was in regard to the use of instruments in worship. In reference to the principle that every part of lawful worship must be divinely appointed, he says significantly, “This principle not only purified the church of human inventions and popish corruptions, but restored plain singing of psalms unaccompanied by instrumental music.”
Let it not be said that the great men, whose views have now been presented, were destitute of an ear and taste for music; boorish men, unfit to give an opinion in the case. Luther was noted for musical enthusiasm and taste. Zwingle also, whose opposition to instrumental music in worship, might almost be styled fierce, was possessed of an unusual faculty and taste for music. Dr. Schaff, in his “Creeds of Christendom,” bears this testimony to Zwingle, “His preference for Puritanic simplicity in public worship gave rise to the fiction of his hostility to music. He was on the contrary singularly skilled in that art, and was called in derision by the Papists, ‘the evangelical lute player.’ A contemporary says, that he never knew a man who could play on so many musical instruments, the lute, the harp, the viol, etc.”
Page 93
Calvin appreciated music, and was at pains to have the Psalms set to music, and took active measures to have the young trained to sing them. Dr. Schaff, in the work already named, has this to say of him, “Although Calvin was devoted to the severe simplicity of evangelical worship, he did not overlook the inherent love of mankind for poetry and art. He himself had a taste for music and knew its power.”
John Knox, so far manifested his zeal for music in the church that he endeavored to have the singing of psalms established, and to have them sung according to the principles of correct taste.
(2.) The Reformed churches, as distinguished from the Lutheran, were averse to the use of instrumental music in worship. In the churches of Switzerland, France and Scotland, no instruments were allowed in worship. In the church of Holland, owing to the pressure of the civil authorities, instruments were admitted or rather were retained from Romish times, but, as has been already mentioned, the church, as such, was restive under this arrangement.
In the Church of England, organs, which were confined chiefly to the cathedrals or principal places of worship, were retained, but greatly against the will of the powerful Puritan party in that church. The Puritans were the proper successors of the Lollards or Wickliffites in England who, before the Reformation, had opposed the organs, in this, resembling the Waldenses, who never used instruments in their worship.
The protestants of Hungary, Transylvania and Poland, together with the Reformed churches in Germany, as Voetius tells us, used at least in former days, no instrumental music in their worship.
The Puritans of New England were vigorous opponents of instrumental music in worship, as any one may see by consulting Cotton Mather’s “Magnalia.”
(3.) No protestant church has ever enjoined, or, as far as I know, recommended the use of instrumental music, as well fitted to express and promote the true spirit of praise. Nay, even the popish authorities have never issued a mandate directing that all congregations provide themselves with organs, or less expensive instruments for the celebration of praise, and as a matter of fact, instrumental music is not yet established in all popish places of worship. Even in the Council of Trent, it is said, a resolution was introduced, providing for the abolition of instrumental music in the churches, but, at the urgent entreaty of the Emperor Ferdinand, was abandoned.
The Lutherans, more probably from state influences than from the desire of the genuine members of the church, have been all along their history identified with instrumental music.