Harper II.6
James Dodson
CHAPTER VI.
THE PRECEPTIVE THEORY—THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM ANCIENT APPOINTMENT AND ALLEGED NON-REPEAL CONSIDERED.
Having disposed of the plea which has been styled, “The æsthetical plea,” in favor of the theory that musical instruments ought to be employed now in worship, I now advance to the refutation of various arguments more directly founded on Scripture, which are put forward on the same side.
First. It is urged that as God did in ancient times prescribe the use of instrumental music in his worship, there can be nothing intrinsically sinful in such use.
In answer to this argument it may be said:
(1.) The fact alleged that God appointed during Old Testament times the use of musical instruments in his worship is admitted.
(2.) The inference that there is nothing intrinsically sinful in such use is also conceded to be valid.
(3.) These concessions, however, do not warrant the conclusion that it is imperative, or even lawful, to employ instrumental music in worship now. There are many things not in themselves sinful which God never appointed, nay, which he forbade to be used in worship whether, under the Old Testament economy or the New, and there are many things which he appointed to be observed in exercises
Page 25
of worship under the former dispensation which are no longer lawful. The fact that a thing is not in itself wrong, is no proof that it may be used in worship. Before concluding that instrumental music is lawful in worship now, because it was once so used by divine appointment, we must determine the question whether or not the appointment which he made was meant to apply to our time and circumstances. The mere appointment proves nothing more than this, that instrumental music is not in itself sinful, and that it would be a duty to use such music now in worship, if the divine prescription was meant to extend to New Testament times. That it was, however, so meant, I deny.
Second. It is further urged in support of the Preceptive theory that the appointment to use instruments of music in praising has never been repealed, and that, therefore, it must still be in force.
This is probably the argument which weighs most with those who, adhering to the Scriptures as the sole rule of faith, contend for the use of musical instruments in worship; and, therefore, proportionate attention must be bestowed upon it. That it is not as powerful, as it is plausible, the following considerations, it is hoped, will show.
1. There are various ways in which the repeal of a statute may be effected, or indicated. The enactment may contain a clause of self-limitation, declaring that at a certain date, or in certain specified circumstances it shall be null and void. There may be an express repeal of the statute by competent authority. The statute may be part and parcel of a system of law which, on sufficient grounds, is known to be no longer in force; or it may be ignored in subsequent legislation in which the recognition of it might have been expected had it been meant to continue authoritative.
Now, while the opponents of instrumental music in worship do not claim that the law prescribing it is to be deemed defunct by self-limitation, or by express repeal, they may justly claim that the appointment in question has ceased to bind, inasmuch as it formed part of a general system of worship now annulled, and, besides, was not sanctioned either by precept, or authoritative example in the setting up of the new system of worship by which the former system was superseded. If every ordinance of the Old Testament must be still in force, unless it can be shown to have passed away by self-limitation, or express repeal, then the observance of the Seventh day Sabbath, the use of incense, the employment of lighted lamps as religious symbols, are still binding.
2. There are satisfactory grounds for the belief that the use of instrumental music in worship was enjoined as a part simply of the transient ceremonial system of the Israelites. Those grounds will now be presented in detail.
(1.) Such music is in keeping with the sensuousness and carnality of the ceremonial system.
In ascribing sensuousness and carnality to the ceremonial system, I would not be understood to stigmatize it as sinful, or as conducive to sin, but merely to indicate that it was characterized by rites peculiarly adapted to strike the senses. The gospel was under the Old economy, in a far greater degree than under
Page 26
the New, exhibited and enforced by means of outward rites or “sensible signs.” Symbols and types appealing to the senses abounded in the worship of the ancients, whereas in the New Testament church there are, it is our belief, but two symbolic ordinances, and these exceedingly simple, namely, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. It was altogether in consonance with the sensuous character of Old Testament worship, especially in its fully developed stage that instrumental music should be a feature of it. Musical instruments accorded with the externality and pomp which marked the temple service peculiarly, and with which the simple forms of New Testament worship are in such signal contrast. In the sacraments of the New Testament there are employed material elements distinct from our bodies and external to them, but this is a feature absent from all the other ordinances of New Testament worship, unless instrumental music be reckoned among those ordinances. For the observance of the sacraments, we have clear, explicit authority in the New Testament, else we might have deemed them incompatible with the general spirit and tenor of the present dispensation; but no one will be bold enough to say that for the use of instrumental music in New Testament worship, we have equally clear authority. Yet the more sensuous, and therefore, the more allied to the prevailing spirit of Old Testament worship any observance is, the more does it need positive sanction before being accepted as an ordinance of New Testament worship.
But it is contended, on the other side, that the human voice is essentially as outward, and sensuous and carnal as an instrument of music; that the vocal organs are as external to the soul as a harp, or an organ. This is a favorite way of attempting to neutralize the argument against instrumental music founded on its sensuous character. But not thus can our argument be successfully parried; for who can venture the assertion that it is as directly natural to a man to use an instrument as to use his voice in praising God? There is a sense, indeed, in which the vocal organs are as external to the soul as are ordinary musical instruments, and in which the use of the former in worship no more proves the real spirituality of the service than does the use of the latter; but then there is a bond between the voice and the soul of him who uses it, which does not subsist between the soul and an instrument of music. The vocal organs are, what no mere instrument is, a part of the man, being bound up in the personality of which the soul is the centre. In all ages and circumstances men have used their voices in the worship of God. To pray, not mentally merely, but vocally, is a spontaneous impulse of all suppliants, and although the service of song does not appear to have existed as a part of stated worship before the time of David, yet it is so nearly related to prayer as to share in this characteristic of spontaneity and natural impulse. For the production of vocal music God has directly furnished the appropriate apparatus. For the production of instrumental music, mechanical contrivance must be superadded to all the natural endowments of man. Ingenuity in construction must be exerted in greater or less degree, before instrumental music can be obtained. While it must be admitted that there are principles in the human mind which enable and prompt men to use appliances for the production of instrumental music, it must not be
Page 27
overlooked that for the production of vocal music, God has furnished man directly with all the requisite organs. Hence it may truthfully be said that while vocal music is natural, instrumental music is artificial, and that the latter is more external and sensuous than the former. Accordingly, we maintain that, in its own nature, the music of instruments is more allied to a dispensation of outward rites and ceremonies, than to one in which these are comparatively few and unimpinging. Confirmatory of this view is the fact that even in Old Testament times, the vocal element of praise was held superior to the instrumental element; for, while there could be suitable praise rendered to God without the aid of instruments, as is apparent from the method of procedure at the observance of the Passover, and the institution of the Supper by Christ; there could be no rational praise rendered audibly to God without the voice, and the utterance of sentiments in words. In no age and by no denomination has it been held that appropriate formal praise could be rendered to God by the use of musical instruments apart from the use of the human voice, while many have held, and many now hold, that praise may and should be rendered with the voice alone. But this fact indicates that, in the consciousness of the Church, the voice is felt to be the chief instrument of praise, and that the music of Instruments is comparatively external and unimportant in its character.