Harper II.30
James Dodson
CHAPTER XXX.
THE PROHIBITORY THEORY DEFENDED—EVIDENCE IN ITS BEHALF FROM MODERN CHURCH HISTORY.
(4.) Within the present century, and notably since the outbreak of the ritualistic spirit in England about the year 1830, a disposition to use instrumental music in the services of the sanctuary, has been developed among the Congregationalists, Baptists and Methodists in England. Of late years, the English Presbyterian church, anxious, it would seem, to meet the tastes of Episcopalians, from whom they hope for accessions, have permitted the use of instrumental music in worship.
In Scotland and Ireland, the organ has been producing anything but harmony or melody. In a few congregations, belonging to the Church of Scotland, the innovation of instrumental music has been admitted, and although the opposition to it has been, and is, strong throughout the church, the prospect that the grievance shall be removed, is not cheering.
Page 94
In the Free Church of Scotland there has been as yet, so far as is known to the writer, but one instance, that of Broughty Ferry, in which a congregation has been disturbed by the use of an instrument of music in its worship, and according to the latest accounts, the General Assembly having been notified of the disorder and having commanded that it cease, the nuisance has been stopped. There are noble men in the Free Church, prominent among whom are Dr. Begg, Dr. Kennedy of Dingwall, and, I think, Dr. Hugh Martin, the author of several excellent works, especially a treatise on the atonement, who are resolute in the defense of truth, and in the maintenance of the true liberty of the church, its freedom from the yoke of ceremonialism. But a generation has arisen which is not disturbed by the second-hand rationalism of Professor Robertson Smith, and to a large extent is disposed to screen him from the stern censure which his course merits, and, should this generation gain the mastery, the flood-gates, not only of rationalism, but also of ritualism in respect to music and other matters will soon be opened in that church.
In the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the tendency toward an ornate and florid style of worship, has for many years been manifest, some of the congregations of that body having with permission of the Synod, resorted to the use of musical instruments, and while there has set in a strong reaction in that church against laxity of doctrine, such reaction against lax practices in worship has not taken place, and does not seem likely soon to arise.
The Irish Presbyterian Church has been for several years afflicted with practical rebellion in respect to instrumental music on the part of a few, not more it is believed, than five congregations, a rebellion, however, aided and fomented by a powerful party in that church. But though all the arts of political tricksters have been employed by the party aforesaid, the cause of instrumental music has not yet prevailed; its failure being due in a large measure to the wholesome hatred of prelatical ritualism, which still pervades the church, and to the sagacity, firmness and formidable debating powers of such men as, Rev. Francis Petticrew, Rev. A. Robinson, Rev. Dr. Robb, and Rev. Dr. Corkey. Long may these men live to fight the battle of genuine protestant liberty! In the churches of Australia and New Zealand, even those of the Presbyterian order, a strong tendency toward instrumental music exists.
In the Canada Presbyterian church, instrumental music in worship is tolerated, though, I believe, but little used, and in many quarters vigorously opposed.
In the United States, most of the religious denominations allow the use of instruments in worship. It was only toward the end of the first half of this century that the Presbyterian Church in the United States (frequently distinguished now, by other branches of the Presbyterian family, by the name of the “Reunited” Presbyterian Church) succumbed to the ritualistic spirit, and permitted the use of musical instruments in worship; but there is reason to think that this procedure was distasteful to some of the clearest heads of that communion. In an article in the Jan. No., for 1843, of the Biblical Repertory, afterwards known as the Princeton Review, may be found a brief and very modest expression of opinion in favor of the use of instrumental music in worship. The editor of the Review, who at that time was Dr. Charles Hodge, subjoins, in a foot-note, the following remarks: “The opinions expressed above, on the subject of instrumental music, are adverse, as is well known, to those which have prevailed, and continue to prevail, in the Presbyterian church. As a calm and guarded vindication of a practice which we would by no means be understood to recommend, we have given place to expressions from which our readers, no less than ourselves, may choose to dissent.” It was, perhaps, in deference to the feeling of this great man in relation to instrumental music that not till after his death, as I have been credibly informed, was an organ introduced into the Seminary chapel at Princeton. Other distinguished men of the same communion felt more averse than even Dr. Hodge to the introduction of an instrumental service into public worship.
Page 95
In the United Presbyterian Church of North America, to which the writer belongs, a positive stand has been taken against the use of musical instruments, for in its “Directory for Worship,” the use of musical instruments in worship is forbidden, and that on the ground that such music in the New Testament church has no sanction in the word of God. For some time, however, a spirit of disaffection toward this rule has been at work, culminating, as in the Irish Presbyterian church, in practical rebellion on the part of six or eight congregations. Instead of commanding those congregations to desist from the palpable violation of law in this matter, and directing the presbyteries having immediate jurisdiction to take the proper steps for the correction of the evil, the General Assembly of the church, at its meeting in May of the current year (1881), resolved, by a large majority, to submit to presbyteries the question whether or not the rule referred to, in the “Directory for Worship,” shall be repealed, the result of the vote in presbyteries to be reported to the Assembly at its meeting next year.
Now, let us seek to gather up some of the lessons which this hasty and incomplete survey of the attitude of the modern church toward instrumental music is fitted to yield.
First, It appears that the greatest leaders whom, in his mercy, God has given to the church, since the days of the Apostles, were opposed to the use of instruments in the worship of God. It may be said that they swung off to an extreme because of the abuse of instrumental music in the Romish communion, from which they had withdrawn. But singing, too, had been abused by the Romanists, yet the Reformers did not oppose singing. Rather, they extended its use, by calling on the congregation, instead of the selected choir merely, to sing. Besides, those great men were possessed of minds so well balanced that, all things considered, they preserved a marvellously sober temper in dealing with the errors and abuses of Romanism. The opposition of Calvin and Knox, in particular, to instrumental music in worship rested expressly on the ground that such music is unwarranted by God, in this dispensation. Small men, in our day, will, no doubt, sneer at the citation of the opinions of those men, but no one who is competent to measure the real grandeur of those departed heroes will be disposed to rate lightly their settled judgment in this matter.
Second, It is noticeable that those branches of the church that took the highest and purest protestant ground at the time of the Reformation were the most opposed to the use of instruments in worship. The Lutheran church, retaining largely the Romish tincture, took very readily to organs. The Calvinistic, or Reformed churches, in general, opposed organs. Is there no significance in this?
Third, Those branches of the church that have most tenaciously adhered to the scripture Psalter in offering the service of praise have been the most noted for their aversion to instrumental music in worship. It is easy to see the reason of this, for the principle that, in worshipping God, we must be regulated by his own appointment, underlies at once the opposition to uninspired hymns and to instrumental music in worship.
Fourth, A certain timidity in relation to instrumental music has marked the churches that have admitted it. As already noted, not one of them has enacted it as a law that congregations should avail themselves of instrumental help in worship; nay, not one of them has earnestly urged or recommended such a course. Is not this singular, if those churches feel confident that God either commanded or recommended the use of such help? Does not this timidity argue some misgivings as to the propriety of employing instrumental aid? This I know: that ministers, belonging to churches which use instruments, have intimated that, if we who have no organs in our churches only knew what they experimentally know, we would not fight much for instruments.
Our historical argument, then, for the prohibitory theory amounts to this, that in the early church, for some centuries after the time of the Apostles, no instru-
Page 96
mental music was used in worship, the common sentiment being that such music had been appointed by God for the Jewish church and dispensation alone; that the facts just mentioned are unaccountable on any other ground than this: that, in the Apostolic church, instrumental music in worship had been unused and discountenanced; that the notion that the word psallo, as found in the Apostolic writings, includes the idea of instrumental music is thus rendered highly improbable; that the view of the condition of the church, at the time when instrumental music began to be used in its services, is fitted to beget suspicions as to the propriety of the innovation; and that, since the Reformation, the churches most distinguished for their desire to adhere closely to the teaching of the word of God have been the most averse to the practice opposed in these pages.
Thus the proposed discussion of the three rival theories as to the use of instrumental music has been completed. Almost all the pleas urged in favor of the use, whether imperative or optional, of instruments in worship have been considered with some care. No difficulty has been consciously overlooked, that may press, or that might be supposed to press, on the side I maintain; and no argument of any weight for the opposite side has been wittingly left unnoticed. I have written especially for those who, like myself, profess adherence to the Westminster formularies; but some pains have been taken to frame an argument to meet the case of those who hold a different creed. I am not ignorant that the doctrine advocated in these pages is unfashionable, especially among the rich and those who make pretensions to “culture,” and, doubtless, sneers about tithing “mint and anise and cumin,” and about blind prejudice, will greet this production, if it be not deemed entirely beneath notice. I can clearly say that I should not thus have addressed the public, had I not felt that duty demanded the attempt. A crisis had come, when to be silent would have been to act the craven part of a recreant to some of the deepest convictions of my soul, and no abuse which may be heaped upon me, much as I naturally shrink from such an experience, could be so terrible to me as the consciousness that, when the fair form of truth lay prostrate in the street, I did not try to raise her up, or, at least, evince my sympathy and reverence by standing as a friend at her side.