Harper Introduction
James Dodson
Page 1
INTRODUCTION.
The doctrine, government and worship of the Church are so closely connected, that whatever affects the integrity and purity of any one of them, tends to produce a corresponding modification of the others. It may be a fanciful notion, but I have often thought that the sentiment just expressed is suggested by the words, “And it shall be one tabernacle,” which, in substance, occur more than once, in the instructions which God gave to Moses in reference to the framing of the tabernacle.
All the parts of that peculiar structure were, according to the divine pattern and prescription, carefully adjusted to one another, and adapted to the promotion of the ends contemplated. The outer and the inner arrangements, the casket and the gem, sustained to one another an exact and admirable correspondence.
Moral truth is not, as some seem to suppose, an aggregation of isolated, disconnected principles, but a glorious organism from which nothing can be abstracted, and to which nothing heterogeneous can be added, without detriment to the beauty and power of the whole. That tender, mutual sympathy which the Apostle graphically describes as characteristic of the various members of the human frame, may, in a figure, be affirmed of the different parts of the system of moral and religious truth, “And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it.”
Yet many who profess to be strenuous in maintaining in their fulness and simplicity, unmixed with human philosophy and speculation, what are called “the doctrines” of the bible, that is, truths pertaining to the being and character of God, the nature and state of man, and the way of salvation, are anxious to explain that, for forms of worship and of church polity, they feel little, if any, concern! And this indifference is, in many quarters, reckoned a mark of exemption from besotting prejudice, a token of generous liberality of mind, a manifest fruit of Christian charity!
So prevalent and fashionable is the sentiment in question, that no one who desires to stand well in the estimation of the Christian public in general, will betray any glow of zeal in impugning, or in advocating almost any particular form of worship, or of ecclesiastical government. Pope’s oft-quoted couplet,
“For points of faith let senseless bigots fight;
His can’t be wrong whose life is in the right,”
if not accepted in its full significance, seems to be very generally deemed appropriate in reference to the outward forms of religion at least.
And yet the statements now made require, when we reflect, some modification; for, at the present time, there is an extensive spread of the ritualistic spirit,
Page 2
which reveals itself in an unwarrantable multiplication of outward forms of worship, and in reliance upon them for the victory over hostile influences. It would be more nearly correct to say, that the indifference which, it has been alleged, prevails, relates rather to the divine authority of any particular mode of worship and church government. Extremes meet; and the sentiment, that it matters little in what way we worship God, is radically not very remote from the sentiment of the ritualist, who studies to enlarge and embellish the simple ritual of the New Testament. In either case alike, there is a disregard of the prescription of God, while in one, this disregard assumes the aspect of a disregard, or at least underestimate of all forms; in the other, of a disparagement of the precise forms enjoined by God.
That those who would adhere to divine appointments in the matter of worship must encounter the two streams of sentiment now indicated, and encounter them with substantially the same front, is too obvious to demand extended proof. No one acquainted with the facts will presume to deny that, in a large degree, the ritualistic spirit has made advances in some prominent Protestant denominations. But side by side with this fact, is another not less apparent or significant, that in churches, heretofore noted for the severe simplicity of their religious services, there have arisen a love of pomp and theatrical display, a craving for a florid worship, and a disposition to sneer at all conscientious scruples in the department of worship, as sheer bigotry or hypocrisy. It is nearly always assumed that he who is concerned about what some would derisively call “the mint, the anise and the cumin,” is living in neglect of the weightier matters of the law. Churches, both in the United Kingdom and in America, which, in view of their traditions and professed principles, might have been deemed proof against such an innovation as the introduction of instrumental music into the service of praise, are beginning to be deeply agitated on the subject, while predictions are confidently made that the most tenacious of them will soon succumb to the growing demand for the artistic and ornamental in worship. That sagacious observer and statesman, Mr. Gladstone, has expressed his impression on this point in the following terms:—“The present movement in favor of ritual is not confined to ritualists, neither is it confined even to churchmen. It has been, when all things are considered, quite as remarkable among Nonconformists and Presbyterians; not because they have as much of it, but because they formerly had none, and because their system appeared to have been devised and adjusted in order to prevent its introduction, and to fix upon it even in ‘limine,’ the aspect of a flagrant departure from first principles. Crosses on the outside of chapels, organs within them, rich pointed architecture, that flagrant piece of symbolism, the steeple, windows filled with subjects in stained glass, elaborate chanting, the use of the Lord’s prayer, and the partial movements in favor of such forms already developed, are among the signs which, taken altogether, form a group of phenomena, evidently referable to some cause far more deep and wide-working than mere servile imitation, or the fashion of the day. In the case of the organ, be it recollected, that many who
Page 3
form part of the crème de la crème (cream of the cream) of Protestantism, have now begun to use that which the Pope does not hear in his own chapel, or his sublime Basilica, and which the entire Eastern Church has ever shrunk from employing in its services.”
It is quite common now-a-days to hear the heroic qualities of the Puritans extolled, and that in quarters where their cherished principles are rejected and derided. The age which builds the tombs of martyrs is not always a martyr age. To admire is not to imitate. To laud is not to emulate. In the very home which Puritan courage and principle prepared for posterity, it is reckoned rather a mark of advancement in thought to sneer at the views which the Puritans held on matters of doctrine and worship. A mild illustration of this fact is found in the curt and contemptuous reference made to the opponents of instrumental music in worship, by Dr. W. M. Taylor, of New York, in one of his lectures, delivered some years since, to the students of Yale Theological Seminary. “Those,” said he, “who object to the use of an organ, might as well object to the use of a tuning-fork or a note-book in worship.”
If Dr. Taylor, whose Scottish birth and education might have taught him to rate a little more highly the sense of those he sneers at, should ever read Cotton Mather’s History of New England, he will discover that the taunt he uttered fell on the graves of the sainted leaders of New England thought in bygone days, as well as on the heads of those, who, though not, it may be, descendants of the Puritans according to the flesh, are in a nobler sense, even by mental ties and religious consanguinity, their offspring and heirs.
The Church with which the writer is connected, the United Presbyterian Church of North America, though enjoying the distinction of maintaining not a few unpopular truths, has not escaped the contagion of the times; for it now appears that a question which many supposed was definitely and finally settled in the negative, that namely, as to the use of instrumental music in worship, must be re-opened and subjected to another sitting. This circumstance is the immediate occasion prompting to the preparation of the following argument, as a contribution to the defense of a cause which I deem scriptural and important.
It may be premised that the discussion is shaped with reference chiefly to the state of matters forming the immediate incentive to engage in it, that is, it contemplates mainly the attitude of those who admit, that for all parts of our worship, we must have the appointment of God. At the same time, some care has been taken to handle the question for the benefit of a wider circle, and to meet in some measure the requirements arising from divergence of views touching the law which should control the worship and order of the Church of Christ.
Studying to give, in as concise a way as is consistent with the object in view, a comprehensive survey of the vexed question before me, I will pursue the following line of thought and investigation, namely: First, Submit a statement of the various opinions entertained as to the relation of instrumental music to worship in the New Testament Church, and give a synopsis of the pleas urged on the pro-instrumental side; Second, Consider the claims respectively of the competing
Page 4
opinions or theories; Third, Survey the question in its relation to ecclesiastical polity or order, or in other words, inquire whether the use of musical instruments in worship should be left an open question in the Church, or should be debarred and condemned in explicit terms.