Harper Part Third

PART THIRD.

Ecclesiastico-Political Aspects of the Question.

---

It now remains for us to inquire how the question of instrumental music should be dealt with by churches in their organized capacity. Especially, our inquiry will relate to the manner in which a denomination of the Presbyterian order should deal with this matter.

Shall the use of an instrumental accompaniment be commanded? or, Shall it be simply permitted, each session being left to decide for the congregation under its care whether to admit or reject instruments? or, Shall it be prohibited?

Of course the answers given to these questions will turn largely on the divergent views held, not only as to the instrumental question in itself, but also touching the form of church government, and the proper terms of ecclesiastical communion. Occupying the ground that the church, organically considered, as well as individually, is under obligation to seek, receive, profess and maintain the truth as far as possible, as revealed in scripture, I shall attempt to answer briefly in the spirit of this principle, the questions proposed.

1. The church ought not to require the use of instruments unless God has

Page 97

required such use. That he has not, it has been one leading aim of the previous discussion to prove.

2. The church should not recommend the use of instrumental music in worship. Those, who think God has recommended the use of this music for the present dispensation, will of course answer differently.

3. The church ought not to permit the use of instruments unless the principle be accepted that God has left the matter to human option, which I think he has not.

4. If uncertain, whether God has sanctioned instrumental music in the worship of this dispensation, or not, the church should practically debar the use of it till the matter should be made clear, for any rite or ceremony of worship ought to have a positive divine authorization.

5. If satisfied that God has, by clear implication, forbidden or not sanctioned instrumental music in worship, the church should positively prohibit such music, and state the ground of the prohibition.

Different objections to the course indicated may be urged, and that even by persons who profess to be unfavorable personally to the use of instrumental music in worship. Perhaps most of these objections are embodied in the following proposition:—The unlawfulness of using instruments of music in worship in the present dispensation, is not so clear as to justify the absolute prohibition of such a mode of worship.

To this it may be answered:—

(1.) If the unlawfulness of using instruments of music in worship is shown to be even more probable than the opposite view, though not absolutely certain, it would be a duty to shun the use of them; for we ought to be careful in offering any sacrifice to God, that we have his sanction or approval of it. We must aim at offering in faith, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin; and nothing can be offered to God in faith, unless there be reasonable ground to believe that he will accept the offering. In order to be warrantable a form of worship must not come as an unaccredited adventurer, but have a positive introduction from him who alone can grant, in such a matter, authoritative credentials. Instruments of music must be excluded until a satisfactory warrant for the use of them can be produced. They must be shut out not merely when we are certain that they are wrong, but also when we are uncertain whether or not they are right. It is true, if God in his word has sanctioned the use of them for this dispensation, and we with that word before us, fail to discover his mind in this matter, we are culpable; but we shall certainly be culpable, and that in the form of a sin of presumption, whether or not he has sanctioned the use of instruments in his worship, if we so use them without being persuaded that in doing so we have his approval. Now, if it would be the duty of an individual to abstain from adopting a form of worship without satisfactory evidence that it has the sanction of God, it would be no less the duty of the church in like case to abstain, and if it is the duty of the church to abstain from such usage, it is the duty of the church to prohibit it.

(2.) The optional theory is that which most generally prevails among those who desire instrumental music, and these theorists do not profess to be bound in conscience to have this music in worship, in other words, do not think they inevitably commit a sin in leaving it out. Now, ought not those who feel so, to be willing, for the sake of brethren who object to instruments, to abstain from using them, and to be willing, moreover, that the church should prohibit the use of them, on at least the ground of expediency? Rather than cast a stumbling block in the way of a weak brother, Paul professed that he would be willing to abstain from meat while the world lasted. Would he not have been willing then to forego, for the sake of the weak, a preference for instrumental music in worship, if at least he was allowed to state the ground on which he surrendered his preference and further if he had the prospect that such weak brethren would soon be won, over to his side, or be removed by death, as is the confidence of the advocates of instru-

Page 98

mental music, touching the ultimate and even speedy prevalence of their views? But if an individual ought to restrict his liberty out of charity in such a case, ought not an organized company or a church to do so, that is agree to prohibit, at least on the ground of expediency, the doing of that which would be likely to offend a weak brother?

(3.) This is a practical question, which must be decided in some way. In the circumstances which in the present day surround us, a church which does not prohibit the use of instruments in worship sanctions it constructively. If there was a common understanding that no instruments of music should be employed in worship till a general consent to such use had been obtained, it might be less needful to lay an interdict on the use of them; but some, in their haste, will rush recklessly forward in the path of innovation, and hence, if confusion and strife would be prevented, a prohibitory policy must be adopted.

(4.) It may be found, on close inspection, that more can be said against the lawfulness of instrumental music in worship than against many other opinions and practices which most churches condemn, and if we begin to expunge from our “Directory for Worship” an article forbidding the use of instrumental music in worship, we may feel ourselves compelled, by a regard for consistency, to eliminate from our Standards not a few other provisions. Let conservative men, who may lend help in the effort to cancel the prohibitory rule touching instrumental music, take note that there are breakers ahead.

(5.) In a Presbyterian denomination, one conspicuous feature of whose church polity it is that each part is subject to the whole, and that whatever is the profession of one part is the profession of the entire body, to relegate to sessions the right and responsibility of deciding as to the admission or exclusion of instrumental music would be incongruous and suicidal. To do so would be to erect a kingdom within a kingdom, to sanction a system of conflicting local tests and creeds, and break up the unity of the body. Such a condition of matters would be anarchy, and, worse still, legalized anarchy. As an illustration of the working of such a policy, let the case of a minister be taken into account, who is conscientiously opposed to the use of instrumental music in worship. Such a man must be shut out from as many congregations of his own church as shall have in their worship the element to which he is in principle opposed. He cannot accept a call to any of those congregations, nay, can hardly, with a clear conscience, conduct the services of public worship in any of them. He is in good standing, yet he is virtually, on the ground of principle, excluded from a number of the congregations of the same church to which he belongs. Is there nothing preposterous and disorderly in such a state of matters? Still further, it is conceivable that all the ministers of a church having such a policy might become opposed to the use of instruments of music in worship, whereas all the sessions might be in favor of the practice, and might introduce it into the congregations of which they had the charge, respectively. Thus it is supposable that all the ministers might be practically shut out from accepting a call to any of the congregations of the church to which they belonged. This would be a legitimate fruit of the principle that such a matter as deciding in reference to the admission of instrumental music in worship be left to the local option of sessions. But the logical consequence being bad, the premises from which it properly flows must also be bad.

It has been stated, that not only may the use of instruments be forbidden, but the ground of the prohibition may be declared in the standards of the church. There might be circumstances in which it would be sufficient to shut the instruments out of worship practically, without explicitly asserting that they are unsanctioned by God. As a matter of fact, this has been hitherto the attitude maintained by most churches from whose services instrumental music has been excluded. But there may arise such a rage for this music that the church, in resisting it, shall be compelled to state the ground of its opposition. For, the

Page 99

question will be continually recurring, “Why do you debar the use of musical instruments in your services?” Opposition forces a faithful church to enlarge its explicit creed from age to age. Step by step, such a church is driven to assume a positive and decided attitude. Never since the world began, was there greater need than now, for a firm and explicit condemnation of instrumental music, as unwarranted by the word of God in the worship of New Testament times.

Having once taken such a positive ground, the church should not readily abandon it. A position calmly and solemnly taken, and only in a calm and solemn way should a position be taken on such a question, is not lightly to be relinquished, lest haply the sin of backsliding from just attainments should be added to the sin of not maintaining the truth. And at such a time as this when the very atmosphere seems to be tainted with the poison of ritualism, as well as of rationalism, we should be doubly jealous of any step backward, especially when the retrogression is in the direction manifestly of one of the dangerous currents of the day. The cautious steersman seeks to brace himself against the wind which is driving him too fast toward the rocky shore, even though that shore may be the very one for which he is bound.

The strong position indicated would not necessarily exclude from membership those who felt unable fully to assent to it. Dissenters, or at least persons feeling unable to assent, might state their mind to church courts, and yet agree to abstain from practical insubordination. In such a case they might be received, or, if already received, might remain as members in good standing. There are questions, such as that pertaining to the supreme divinity of Christ, respecting which the church should not evince such inclusiveness; but in relation to a point of less moment like that under consideration, such a mode as has been suggested of composing difficulties is allowable.

Harper II.30

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.

Harper II.29

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.

Harper II.28

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.

Harper II.27

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE PROHIBITORY THEORY DEFENDED—HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IN ITS BEHALF.

---

4. A general argument, which is our fourth, for the prohibitory theory is afforded by the history of the church from the close of the Apostolic age onward to modern times. For sake of clearness, it may be advisable to make three stages in this historical investigation, and inquire: first. What was the attitude of the early church toward instrumental music in worship? second, What were the circumstances in which such music acquired a place in the worship of the church? and, third, What lessons on the subject in hand does the history of the church, at and after the time of the Reformation, yield?

The first of these three branches of inquiry, which seems rather uninviting to those who favor the use of instruments in worship, I can afford to treat in a somewhat summary manner, both because several citations bearing upon it have already been made, and because I do not know that any reputable writer is bold enough to assert that instruments of music were used in worship by the early church. Learned writers of various schools, and favorable, moreover, to the practice which I am opposing, frankly admit that, in worshipping God, the primitive Christians used no instruments of music. For instance, Bingham, a minister of the Church of England, whose erudition in the department of Christian antiquities was profound, and whose approval of the use of instrumental music in praising God is undisguised, confesses, in his elaborate treatise, “Origines Ecclesiasticae,” that the reason why he gives no account of the instruments used in the early church, as some might have expected, is that no such appliances existed in the church of the early centuries of our era.

Bellarmine, the ablest of all Romish controversialists, though pleading for the use of instruments, says: “We confess, indeed, that musical instruments began at a late date to be admitted into the church.” An acknowledgment of the same tenor is made by Cajetan, Navarre, Molanus, and many other noted Romish writers.

Neander, whose thorough acquaintance with the history of the ancient church none will dispute, says: “From the French church proceeded the use of the

Page 87

organ, the first musical instrument employed in the church. A present of the Emperor Constantine Copronymus to King Pepin gave occasion to its use.” In connection with this extract, let it be noted that the transaction alluded to by Neander occurred about the year 756.

John Mason Neale, a minister of the Church of England, who died in 1866, and of whom Dr. Schaff says that “he was the most learned Anglican ritualist and liturgist, who studied the Eastern liturgies daily, and almost knew them by heart,” thus writes, in his Commentary on the Psalms: “Here,” that is in Ps. 33:2, “we have the first mention of musical instruments in the Psalms. It is to be observed that the early fathers, almost with one accord, protest against their use in churches, as they are forbidden in the Eastern Church to this day, where yet, by consent of all, the singing is infinitely superior to anything that can be heard in the West.”

Testimony to the same effect from the highest authorities of modern times, and from those among the number who are zealous for instrumental music, can be produced in abundance, and I am not aware that any scholar alleges aught to the contrary. In view of this posture of the case, I might assume, without any further attempt at proof, that for some centuries, probably not less than five or six, after the death of the Apostles, there was a total absence of instrumental music from the worship of the church. And even if it were conceded, as some claim, that there may have been, in a few places, a use made of instruments of music in worship, during the 4th and 5th centuries, no one, who has a right to give an opinion, will presume to say that instrumental music was much used in the Christian church in the centuries named, or for several centuries afterwards.

It may be proper, however, to present, out of a large stock of evidence, derivable from patristic sources, a few specimens additional to those already given in the course of our discussion.

Clemens Alexandrinus, in his “Paidagogos,” has a chapter headed thus, “How to conduct ourselves at feasts,” in which, as shown in a previous quotation, the following sentiments are expressed: “The Spirit, distinguishing from such revelry the divine service, sings, ‘Praise him with sound of trumpet,’ for with sound of trumpet he shall raise the dead; ‘Praise him on the psaltery,’ for the tongue is the psaltery of the Lord; and ‘Praise him on the lyre,’ By the lyre is meant the mouth, struck by the Spirit, as it were by a plectrum. ‘Praise him with the timbrel and the dance,’ refers to the church meditating on the resurrection of the dead in the resounding skin. ‘Praise him on the chords and organ,’ Our body he calls an organ, and its nerves are the strings by which it has received harmonious tension, and when struck by the Spirit, it gives forth human voices. ‘Praise him on the clashing cymbals.’ He calls the tongue cymbal of the mouth, which resounds with the pulsation of the lips.” * * * * “The one instrument of peace, the word alone by which we honor God, is that which we employ. We no longer use the ancient psaltery and trumpet and timbrel and flute.”*

It is true, Clemens, in the same chapter, says: “And even if you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no blame. Thou shalt imitate the righteous Hebrew king in his thanksgiving to God.” In so expressing himself, however, he plainly refers, not to the use of instruments in stated, formal worship, but to their use at feasts for mere Christian enjoyment and edification. Besides, if instrumental music had been then used in the church, there would have been no need for Clemens to say what has just been quoted. He does not say, “Thou shalt imitate the church in its services,” but “Thou shalt imitate the righteous

_____

* It will be observed that, between the translation given above and that of the same passage given in a previous chapter, there are some minute differences. The translation given above is taken from T. & T. Clark’s “Ante-Nicene Library.” The translation previously given was made independently by the writer. It may be added that the extract from Hippolytus, formerly presented, was also taken from the publication aforenamed.

Page 88

Hebrew king.” Calvin, whose opposition to instrumental music was avowed, and even in a passage in which he makes such an avowal, uses language, which may be quoted in the sequel, almost identical with that of Clemens.

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who was born A. D. 200, and who fell a martyr in A. D. 258, uses this language, “Such instruments were then permitted to them for this cause, even for the sake of their weakness, to excite their minds to perform their external worship with some delight.”

Isidore of Pelusium, born in the latter part of the fourth century, says (Book I, Ep. 176), “When God tolerated victims and blood-shedding, on account of the puerility of the sacred rites which then marked them, why do you wonder that he also tolerated that music which is produced by harp and psaltery?”

Augustine, commenting on Ps. 33:2, expresses himself thus:—“Nemo convertat cor ad organa theatrica. Quod ei jubetur in se habeat, sicut alibi dicitur, ‘in me sunt, Deus, vota tua, quae reddam laudationes tibi,’” that is, Let no one think of theatrical instruments of music. What is enjoined upon him, each one has in himself, as it is said in another place, In me, O God! are thy vows, which I will render as praises to thee. Then he proceeds to show the symbolical import of the instruments mentioned in the Psalm.

In his exposition of Ps. 150, Augustine uses these words:—“Ne quis autem cymbala intelligeret quae sine anima sonant, ideo puto additum ‘in cymbalis jubilationis.’ Jubilatio namque, id est ineffabilis laus, non nisi ab anima proficiscitur,” which is to say, But lest any one should understand lifeless cymbals, it is, I think therefore added, “On cymbals of joy.” For joy, that is unutterable praise, proceeds only from a soul.

Chrysostom, the eloquent bishop of Constantinople, discoursing near the close of the fourth century, says in reference to instrumental music:—“Like sacrifice, it was permitted to the Jews for the heaviness and grossness of their hearts. God condescended to their weakness because they were lately drawn off from idols; but now we may employ our bodies, instead of instruments, to praise him.”

The witnesses now summoned are all that we need, not all that can be produced, and let us now see how the case stands.

In the first place, we have a stream of testimony extending from the second century onward to the beginning of the fifth (and we might trace it still farther down if time allowed), the drift of which is that in the services of the church, in the time specified, there was no instrumental music.

In the second place, this testimony comes from men in prominent positions, some of them, as, for instance, Chrysostom, in the very centres of wealth and fashion, where, if anywhere, the pomp of instrumental music must have found a place in worship.

In the third place, these men deal with the subject of instrumental music, not as if combating a practice which had found a footing in the church. On the contrary, they invariably speak of it as something entirely external and foreign to the Christian church.

In the fourth place, they give us (and they were, in their days, the great lights of the church) their views as to the symbolical meaning of the instruments of music used in the Old Testament worship. On this point there is a remarkable unanimity among them.

In the fifth place, there is not, so far as I know, a single sentence of conflicting testimony, from any writer of the first five centuries, or even much later, that is to say, there is not a single statement from those early times, to the effect that instrumental music was then used in worship. What Clement of Alexandria says, which some have taken to be evidence to the contrary, has already been considered.

In the sixth place, the ancient writers frequently refer to the exercise of singing the praises of God, without the least allusion to the use of instruments, and that,

Page 89

too, in circumstances in which, had instruments been employed, there would have been an inducement to speak of them. A notable instance of this kind occurs in Jerome’s Commentary on Ephesians, where, in his exposition of chap. v. verse 19, he censures very sharply the theatrical mode of singing which had begun to be exhibited in churches, but says not a word about instrumental music.

In the seventh place, in the accounts transmitted to us of the persecutions sustained by the Christians of the early ages, while we read of the destruction of their places of worship, of their psalm-books, and of their copies of the scriptures, we never read of the destruction of their instruments of music.

In the eighth place, the first definite hints which come down to us, as to the introduction of instruments of music into the churches, indicate that this did not take place until the seventh or, more probably, the eighth century.

In the ninth place, it was not till several centuries later still that the practice of using instrumental music in praising God acquired any prominence in the church. Thomas Aquinas, one of the great lights of the Romish church, writing about A. D. 1250, uses the following language: “In the old law, God was praised both with musical instruments and human voices. But the church does not use musical instruments, lest she should seem to Judaize. Nor ought a pipe, nor any other artificial instruments, such as organ or harp, or the like, be brought into use in the Christian church, but only those things which shall make the hearers better men. Under the Old Testament, such instruments were used, partly because the people were harder and more carnal, and partly because these bodily instruments were typical of something.” There is some ground to think that, at the time when Thomas wrote thus, there were instruments used in worship in some places. But had the practice been common, he could not have thus written. Moreover, he indicates that the church, as such, had not sanctioned such a practice. The first instance of the use of an organ in Scotland, for purposes of worship, occurred about, I believe, the year 1460.

In the tenth place, the Eastern, or Greek Church, now numbering about seventy-five or eighty millions of members and adherents, has never, to this day, permitted the use of instruments in her worship. It is a fact, also, that, in some of the most ancient Romish cathedrals, as, for instance, that of Lyons, in France, no instrumental music has ever been heard; while from the Pope’s chapel, at Rome, it is utterly excluded, at least when he is present. Some Roman Catholic writers, themselves, such as Molanus and Bouvier, note these facts, and understand them, justly, I think, to be lingering echoes of the remote past, when in none of the churches was the music of instruments tolerated.

Harper II.26

CHAPTER XXVI.

THE PROHIBITORY THEORY—NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE IN ITS FAVOR.

---

A third argument for the prohibitory theory is, that, in addition to its silence which in such a matter is significant, the New Testament contains sundry indications, that in the devotional services of the New Testament church, no place should be given to instrumental music. Among those indications may be mentioned:—

(1.) The contrast suggested in the New Testament, and not dimly predicted in the Old, between the worship of the New dispensation and that of its predecessor. The worship of the Old Testament times, at least during the Mosaic period, was outward, sensuous and encumbered with minute regulations and restrictions; whereas the worship of the New Testament times, it is broadly hinted, would be comparatively inward, direct and simple. Such a contrast seems to be dimly intimated by the words of our Lord to the woman of Samaria, John 4:23, 24, “But the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit, and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth.” It is obvious that our Lord in these words contrasts what was about to be with what had been in the matter of worship, and the point of contrast suggested is, that the worship, in the age then at hand, would be rendered in spirit and in truth, implying that such had not been the character of the worship in the age then closing. In addition, he hints that the Father was in quest of worship of this character, and proceeds to show the consonance of such worship with the nature of him who is a spirit. Now, what does our Lord mean when he speaks of worshipping in spirit and in truth? Surely he does not mean simply, purity of purpose and fervor of soul in worship; for who will assert, that in Old Testament times there were none who so rendered homage to God? To worship God in holiness was as much a requirement of the Old Testament as of the New, and is as clearly set forth as such in the former as in the latter. See Lev. 19:2; 1 Kings 8:38, 39; 2 Chron. 30:18, 19; Ps. 15 and 26, 51:17. Every true worshipper since the world began has worshipped God in sincerity and holiness. In this respect, all dispensations are alike, and no contrast exists between them. Yet a contrast our Lord surely speaks of, as distinguishing the age which was at the door when he spoke, from the age which was then coming to an end. By “spirit and truth,” must he not have meant comparative independence on outward sensuous rites, and on the shadows of the typical economy? This interpretation receives countenance from the previous words of Christ to the Samaritan woman (verse 21), “Woman believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem

Page 85

worship the Father,” that is, when the sanctity of particular spots on the face of the globe shall no more be acknowledged, and when men, untrammelled by ceremonial restrictions, shall with equal acceptance worship God anywhere. Afterwards he declares the general principle, that in all genuine worship, under whatever dispensation, the worshipper must have penetrated through all external rites and held real fellowship of soul with the Father of spirits. Now, such teaching from the lips of the great Prophet, prepares us to expect a simplicity in the forms of worship, and a directness in our religious services, in contrast with the arrangements of the Mosaic economy; and hence, we may not be disconcerted if we discover that the pomp and sensuousness of instrumental music are to be excluded from the worship in the present dispensation.

It is needless to occupy time in showing that in the Epistles, particularly in the Epistle to the Galatians, and that to the Hebrews, the same strain of sentiment abounds, to which our Lord, in the conversation with the Samaritan woman, gave utterance. Judging from all these representations we might expect a reduction in the rites and forms of the Old Testament ritual, when the transition was made to the New Testament order. The elimination of musical instruments might, in the circumstances, be rather a matter of anticipation than of surprise.

(2.) Another indication of the exclusion of instrumental music from the worship of the New Testament church, is, that in the New Testament no instrument is named as being used by the apostles, or in the church under their care. This is a fact which may well stagger those who tenaciously maintain that the verb, psallo, involves the idea of instrumental music. Had that, or some kindred word been connected expressly with some instrument, be it harp, or psaltery, or any other, and had we been told to do, what psallo in such a connection would suggest, the matter would have been altogether different; but there is no such mention made of an instrument. What is said about musical instruments, in the symbolic book of Revelation, has already been considered.

(3.) A third New Testament indication, unfavorable to the view that musical instruments must or may be used in worship under the present dispensation, is found in the account given of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. As we learn from Matth. 26:30, and Mark 14:26, our Lord and his disciples sung a hymn, or more literally “hymned,” on that occasion; the hymn or hymns used being, beyond much doubt, selected from the inspired Psalter, in which our Lord took such delight. It is not mentioned that a musical instrument was used on the occasion, and besides, the word rendered “sung a hymn,” is not any part or cognate of psallo; but a word which means, without any reasonable doubt, simply to sing praise.

(4.) Now be it observed that our Lord was, at the time alluded to, instituting an ordinance which was to show his death till he should come, an ordinance the most solemn of any belonging to the prescribed service of the New Testament church. He doubtless intended that his disciples, in all future time, should closely copy the form of observance then exemplified. But he coupled no instrumental music with the service, though he did link singing with it. Is it wise or safe for us to deviate in this particular from the example set us by the Master? If instrumental music may be to advantage dispensed with at the observance of the Lord’s Supper (and who, with the example of the Saviour before him, can deny that it may), is it needed in any other part of our worship? The objection has been raised that this occurred before the close of the Old Testament dispensation, and therefore is not an example to us now. But is it necessary to show that our Lord instituted the Supper with reference to New Testament times and gave the direction that what he had done should be imitated by his disciples in after days? The cause which needs to resort to such paltry evasions is not a good one. Besides, as the Supper was instituted within the limits of Old Testament times, when instrumental music was employed in worship, the omission of such music from the institution

Page 86

of the Supper is the more noticeable and significant. If, moreover, it should be said that the omission may be accounted for on the ground that there were no instruments of music at hand, the answer is obvious that our Lord had deliberately provided beforehand all the appliances deemed necessary or proper for the occasion. He had secured “a large upper room, furnished,” and had he desired instruments of music, he could have provided them, too. I cannot help thinking that our Lord, by using vocal, not instrumental, music on this memorable occasion, intended to indicate that in the worship of the New Testament church the music of the voice, not that of lifeless instruments, should be heard. We are sure that we are right in omitting instruments, as did he. Have those who use them equal ground for confidence that they have his approbation?

(5.) In Heb. 13:15, there is another hint adverse to the use of instrumental music in the New Testament church. “By him, therefore,” says the inspired writer, “let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is the fruit of your lips, giving thanks to his name.” These words seem to intimate that, in contrast with the temple service, the only instruments needed or proper for rendering to God the sacrifice of praise are our lips. If any one should be so fond of petty and pitiable evasions as to say that the writer does not exclude a flute and such instruments as are played upon by the lips, I would answer the “fool according to his folly,” by saying that, at least, such instruments as an organ, melodeon and harp are excluded.

Harper II.25

CHAPTER XXV.

THE PROHIBITORY THEORY—THE ARGUMENT IN ITS FAVOR DRAWN FROM THE SILENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AS TO INSTRUMENTS—THE CAVIL DRAWN FROM INFANT BAPTISM ANSWERED.

---

At this point we encounter an objection which is supposed to be fatal to our line of argument. The objection is this, that in contending that instrumental music is inadmissible in New Testament times unless it be supported by a New Testament sanction, we virtually accede to the principle of the Baptists, who, to our argument for infant baptism from the Old Testament, reply that infant baptism is not sanctioned in the New Testament, and, therefore, cannot be admitted. Quotations are made also from treatises written by eminent advocates of infant baptism, in which they maintain that he who would lawfully refuse to recognize the infants of church members as entitled to the initial sign of membership, must be able to produce from the New Testament some prohibition of such recognition.

Touching this objection, which again is a sample of the “argumentum ad hominem,” these remarks are offered:—

(1.) It is quite possible that the defenders of infant baptism have sometimes been betrayed into the use of unguarded language. It is one of the benefits arising from a complete survey of the field of theology, and a wide acquaintance with the controversies of the ages, that we thereby learn to correct extravagances and rectify mistakes, into which, from a partial survey, we may be led, and are compelled to test our principles and rules of interpretation by an extended range of application. And if any one, in his zeal for infant baptism, should adopt the principle, that a positive prohibition of it in the New Testament would be necessary to neutralize the Old Testament evidence in its favor, I would be disposed to demur to his position.

(2.) In arguing for infant baptism, no judicious controversialist will depend solely on the fact that, in Old Testament times, the male infants of the Israelites were circumcised, and so recognized as a part of the church as then constituted; but he will seek to show, moreover, the essential unity of the church in all ages, the probability that in the new dispensation the privileges of parents and children

Page 83

would be enlarged rather than diminished, and various hints in the New Testament, which seem to imply the right of the children of professing Christians to the seal of baptism. Now, where do we look for the strongest proofs of the substantial identity of the church of the past with that of the present dispensation? Is it not to the New Testament, particularly to the Epistle to the Romans, and that to the Galatians? Where do we find the clearest evidence that the covenant made with Abraham was evangelical in its character, and that circumcision was not a mere national badge, but a seal of the righteousness which is by faith? Is it not in the Epistle to the Romans? Thus we are in a large degree dependent on the New Testament for the most fundamental argument we can produce in favor of infant baptism, while, besides, from the same source we have a very considerable amount of collateral or coincident evidence on the same question. Will any one be bold enough to say that we have in the New Testament similar countenance given to the view that the instrumental music of the previous dispensation is to be perpetuated in this dispensation?

(3.) In one respect, we who oppose instrumental music occupy a position more akin to that of the advocates of infant baptism, than do those who contend for instruments. While the Paedobaptist strenuously insists that the church, especially since her more formal organization in the time of Abraham, is essentially one great society, he, at the same time, admits that the Old Testament mode of recognizing infant church membership, has been changed, so that baptism now supplants circumcision. The great fact of infant membership remains, but the form of recognition is altered. In like manner, the opponent of instrumental music holds that the ordinance of praise, and of praise rendered to God in musical form, survives, while he also maintains, that in the transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament dispensation, a change in the form of praise has been made by the elimination of instrumental music. The fixed feature is music. The variable and transitory feature is instrumental music. The essence, that is, vocal music, is retained. The accidental or accessory form is dropped. An analogous change is discernible in the transition from the Passover to the Lord’s Supper. In both, there is an act of eating, but in the Passover, the substance eaten was flesh, while in the Lord’s Supper, what is eaten is bread.

(4.) Infant baptism was practised in the church from at least near the time of the apostles, as can be shown by credible, though uninspired writings; whereas instrumental music found no place in the church for centuries after the apostolic age. If we found that for some centuries after the first century of the Christian era there was no trace of the practice of infant baptism in the church, and much positive evidence that there was no such practice, as we do in relation to the use of instrumental music in worship, we should begin to feel rather uneasy as to our interpretation of the bible on the question of baptism.

(5.) Most of those who use the objection under notice wish simply to prove that instrumental music in New Testament worship is allowable, not imperative; but are they prepared to say that infant baptism is only allowable, not imperative? If, however, the plea for it and that for instruments are essentially the same, how is it that the conclusion in the one case is “a must be,” and in the other “a may be?” This argument may apply at least to those who employ as part of the plea for instruments the commands of scripture on that point. Besides, it may be urged that the Baptists themselves, at least most of them, do not feel compelled by regard to consistency to exclude from their religious services instrumental music. Hence, it may be inferred, that our line of argument against instrumental music, which the objector says is substantially one with that which the Baptists use against infant baptism, does not seem to be so accepted by them, which, we might presume, it would be, if of the character attributed to it in the objection which we have been considering. It may be added, without much attempt to expand the thought, that those who dispute our method of reasoning in relation to instru-

Page 84

mental music, will experience some difficulty in consistently maintaining against the Seventh Day Baptist, the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week.

The seventh day, it will be admitted, was once appointed by God to be kept as the Sabbath. It was so observed by the Saviour, and certainly for a time by the apostles. The appointment of it has never been expressly repealed, and no clear disapproval of the observance of the seventh day has been expressed in the New Testament. Ought it not, therefore, according to the reasoning of the opponents, to be still observed? And if it should be replied that the fourth commandment gives us six days for our own employments, while we know that on the first day of the week, Christians of apostolic times held their religious meetings; and that it therefore must have been to them the Sabbath, it might be replied, that the seventh day may still have been held as the Sabbath, and that the first day was, in addition, kept as a day for meetings, though not as the Sabbath strictly so called.

Harper II.24

The Prohibitionary Theory.

CHAPTER XXIV.

THE PROHIBITORY THEORY VINDICATED—RECAPITULATION OF SOME ARGUMENTS ALREADY ADVANCED—ARGUMENT FROM THE ABSENCE OF NEW TESTAMENT SANCTION OF INSTRUMENTS IN WORSHIP.

---

The substance of the prohibitory theory is, that so far as the present dispensation is concerned, the use of musical instruments in worship is unlawful. It is of course obvious from the drift of the previous discussion, that this is the view which seems to the writer warranted and demanded by all the evidence available in the case. It is not here asserted that nothing plausible can be presented in

Page 80

favor of the rival theories. Neither is it affirmed, that there are no difficulties attaching to the view now propounded and about to be further advocated; but it is maintained, and that with a confidence which increases with reflection, that the evidence which can be adduced in behalf of the use of instrumental music in New Testament worship is weak, as compared with that which can be marshalled on the opposite side. In combating the other views, it has been necessary to anticipate most of the arguments by which the prohibitory theory may be substantiated, and hence, while deeming it best to furnish a direct line of argument in its support, I shall feel at liberty to assume some points as already proved, and to adopt a somewhat summary method of treatment. The following line of argument is submitted:—

1. The considerations already presented in disproof of the competing theories. A bare enumeration of these will suffice. It has been urged that on aesthetical grounds, no warrant for the use of instrumental music in worship now can be obtained, but rather indications to the contrary; that the sensuousness, characteristic of the instrumental arrangement, forms presumptive evidence that it pertained to the ceremonial system; that the intimate relation which instrumental music actually sustained to the ceremonial temple services, is suggestive of its temporary design; that there are strong indications that instrumental music in worship was confined among the Israelites to the tabernacle and temple ritual; that specific instruments were appointed to be used, and that these have been lost; and no description given adequate to guide us in reproducing them; that the New Testament yields no support to the view that the instrumental service in worship was to be continued lawfully in the New Testament church; and that if the precepts of scripture, enjoining the use of instruments in worship, apply to the present dispensation, we are guilty of a sin of omission, so long as we attempt to praise God in song, unaccompanied by instrumental music, a position from which most advocates of the use of that music in worship recoil. If this line of argument is valid against the imperative and permissive theories, it is valid in favor of the only alternative theory, that of prohibition; for if God neither commands nor permits the use of instruments in his worship now, he certainly forbids such use.

2. The lack of New Testament sanction for the use of musical instruments in the worship of the New Testament church.

This, it will be seen at once, is nearly identical with an argument already produced in proof of the ceremonial nature of the instrumental music of the temple. The special point, however, to be insisted on now, is that the absence from the pages of the New Testament of any hint that in the ritual of the New Testament church instrumental music should, or might be, included, is damaging, if not fatal, to the view that such music is admissible in the service of song now. Formerly the silence of the New Testament was used to prove that the instrumental element in the service of the temple was, simply ceremonial. Now this silence is used to show more directly that instrumental music is not a part of the order of the New Testament church.

There are two questions which present themselves here, and need to be deter-

Page 81

mined in order to the just appreciation of this argument, namely:—First, Does the New Testament give any hint that instruments of music must, or lawfully might, be used by the New Testament church in worship? Second, Does the absence of any such hint, supposing the absence to be a fact, indicate that instrumental music is not among the features or forms of New Testament worship?

To the first of these questions our answer has already been given, which is to the effect that, although the New Testament plainly contains directions to use vocal music in praising God, it yields no evidence that instrumental music may be so employed, no instrument being ever named as in use in worship under apostolic direction, and no other hint being given in the New Testament sufficient to show that it is the preceptive will of God that in this dispensation he should be worshipped with musical instruments.

To the second of the questions just stated I would give an affirmative answer, meaning thereby that the absence from the New Testament of any evidence in favor of the continued use of instrumental music in worship, is an indication that such music is not authorized in the devotional services of the New Testament church.

Let it be marked here that, in taking this ground, there is no intention to slight the Old Testament scriptures, as if nothing revealed in them were authoritative or lawful in doctrine or practice unless endorsed in the New Testament. What is alleged is simply this: that, as a matter of fact, God has seen fit to furnish New Testament support and sanction to every ordinance of worship which he meant to have place in the New Testament church, unless, indeed, instrumental music is an exception. It seems peculiarly appropriate that those parts of the bible which were prepared under divine inspiration, at the time when the church assumed its New Testament form, should exhibit the various rites and forms which were intended by God to mark the church in its New Testament development. Before his ascension, our Lord talked much with his disciples, instructing them in respect to matters pertaining to his kingdom (Acts 1:3), and the Holy Spirit, it had been promised, would, at a later day, bring these instructions to their remembrance. It is but natural to look, therefore, to the writings of those men, trained by the Saviour himself, and qualified by the gift of inspiration, for information touching the form which the church was, under their direction, to assume, and the worship it should render.

The more ancient sacred writings, it is freely granted, might furnish foreshadowings and strong intimations of the coming order and worship; but we should anticipate that the New Testament pre-eminently should afford guidance as to New Testament ordinances. But, as we cannot always trust our own judgment as to the fitness of things, we would hesitate to assert the principle now contended for, did we not find, on actual inspection, that, aside from instrumental music, which is now in debate, every ordinance of New Testament worship and government does obtain sanction in the New Testament writings.

What are the commonly acknowledged ordinances of the New Testament church? The sacred observance of the Lord’s day; the reading of the scriptures;

Page 82

preaching; the benediction; prayer; the singing of psalms; the giving of our substance for the cause of God; fasting in certain circumstances; vowing to God; the observance of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; the form of church government; and the administration of discipline. Now, some of these, doubtless, have a more explicit and definite appointment in the New Testament than others of the number have; but every one of them finds, if not original appointment in the New Testament, at least sanction and endorsement therein, a fact which leads us to suspect the claim of any rite to be accepted as belonging to the worship of the present dispensation, if the claimant has not the countenance and support of the New Testament. The survey of the facts seems to justify this position, that the whole ritual of the Old Testament church is abrogated, except so much of it as has received the sanction of the New Testament, as a part of the worship and order designed for New Testament times. The counter-rule, that everything in the Old Testament ritual remains, except so much as is expressly, or clearly exempted in the New Testament, is not safe; for under it there might be a difficulty in excluding the use of incense, of lighted lamps as symbols, of priestly vestments to be worn by all believers who are priests unto God. To say the very least, the evidence in favor of the perpetuation of instrumental music as a part of worship, would need to be greatly stronger than it is to countervail the presumption which lies against it in the fact, as I take it to be, that, while all the other parts of the order and worship of the New Testament church have New Testament sanction, instrumental music has none.

Harper II.23

CHAPTER XXIII.

THE OPTIONAL THEORY EXAMINED—THE “TUNING FORK” PLEA CONSIDERED.

---

A fourth argument, known in logic as an “argumentum ad hominem,” is sometimes advanced in support of the optional theory, and is briefly this:—“You do not object to the use of a tuning fork or note book in connection with the praise of God, but if not, you have no right to object to the use of musical instruments in that exercise.” So strong is this appeal to consistency counted by some, that a distinguished lecturer, in addressing the students of Yale Theological Seminary, as previously mentioned, expressed the opinion, that this whole controversy might be condensed into a nut shell, thus, “Those 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.”

In relation to this antiquated quibble, a few remarks will suffice.

In the case of the tuning fork, its use ends the instant the service of song begins; while in the case of the organ, its sound continues as long as the singing and commingles with it.

Moreover, the sound of the tuning fork is intended for the ear of him alone who uses it. Not so with the organ. It may, and often does, produce the most perceptible element of the sound made in praise of God. The sound of the tuning fork is no more a part of the service of worship, than is the preliminary use of a

Page 78

lozenge or the clearing of the throat. If musical instruments, as used in worship, are simply on a par with a tuning fork, they must not be viewed as yielding any distinct element of the enjoyment found in the service, or any enhancement directly of the song; for no one will say that the sound of a tuning fork, however useful it may be for “starting the tune,” acts independently and directly as a source of elevation and enjoyment. It serves simply as a guide in striking the first note of the song, and if musical instruments occupy precisely the same footing, in so much that we may reason from the use of the one to that of the other, they must merely aid in raising the tune, or at the utmost help the voice to do its work well. The moment they are regarded as contributing an additional element of enjoyment to that which the voice affords, they are distinguished from a tuning fork, which partakes of the nature merely of a preliminary expedient for the production of proper vocal music. A tuning fork and a note book contribute no element directly of the enjoyment derivable from singing. There is not an ingredient of pleasure and enhancement, directly yielded by the tuning fork or pitch pipe. Neither is there by the note book, for in fact the note book is silent, and neither it nor the fork is heard, or intended to be heard by the audience. But is this all that is meant by the use of musical instruments? Is it not understood and intended that these not only guide the voice, but supplement it, or yield to it a new element, which, blending with the human voice, adds to the impression it produces? The instruments are prized, not merely because they may help to produce finer singing, but also and, I think, chiefly because they supplement the voice, contributing what may be lacking in it, as to volume and variety, and drowning all discordant tones. In this point of view, they are presented in the scriptures. “Praise him,” it is said, “with the sound of a trumpet,” not, “Seek by aid of a trumpet to guide the voice in praising him.” Besides, if guidance was all that God meant in prescribing instrumental music, why did he prescribe so many instruments and such a variety? A cornet, or at least two or three cornets might have served the purpose.

The tuning fork and the organ are not parallel, and therefore to allege that he who tolerates a tuning fork cannot consistently object to an organ, is illogical. Principal Candlish, who was at least as vigorous of intellect as our Yale lecturer, did not hesitate to write this language, “I will not condescend to recognize intelligence in any man, who, at this time of day, would quibble about pitch pipes and tuning forks, or who could make game of the whole affair by some abstract and recondite disquisition on the identity of wind instruments, whether living or dead.” To this, it may be added, that a shrewd lawyer, Mr. Reddie, the town clerk of Glasgow, made bold to use these words, “The argument which would identify an organ with a pitch pipe does not merit a serious answer.”

As to the note book, I must confess that I have no wish to see attention largely taken up with it during the service of praise. The attention should rather be given beforehand to the notes, so that in actual worship, there might be no distraction of the mind from the worship proper, by close inspection of notes. But the note book certainly makes no sound, and, in that respect, forms no factor

Page 79

as the sound of an organ does, of the audible service. Besides, if we sing at all in melody and unison, the mind must, in some degree, refer to the musical cadences which notes indicate, and it is quite possible that there is less distraction of thought caused by the discreet use of a note book, than by the effort of memory to recall the proper notes. There is nothing sacred in the mere letters of a printed bible, yet we may read the bible in worship without perceptible distraction, and why might not also musical notes be read in time of worship without undue distraction? We may sing a psalm from the pages of the Psalter. In doing this, we must give some heed to mere letters and words; yet we do not count such a direction of attention incompatible with the proper spirit of worship, and why may not some heed be given to musical notes without marring the spirituality of the service of song?

Furthermore, if note books are on a par with instruments, how happens it that when God prescribed the latter, particularly, he said nothing about the former? Does he not seem to have regarded the use of notes as an incidental circumstance for which no specific appointment was needed, while not so regarding the use of instruments? The mass of men do not feel that a tuning fork, and a note book, and instruments of music are on a par, and equally circumstances of worship which need no express appointment. Most men, if asked on the subject, and not prompted by some special pleader, would say that instruments occupy a different place from the other appliances named. The Greek church has magnificent singing, and I presume, also tuning forks and note books, but it admits no instruments of music as aids in its worship. John Calvin is commonly supposed to have been possessed of some acuteness, yet, while he strongly disapproved of the use of musical instruments in worship, he had no objection to a note book in connection with the song of praise. The argument we have been considering looks too much like a subterfuge and makeshift, reminding one of the subtleties to which Romanists resort in defending or commending their erroneous tenets and corrupt practices.

The Optional Theory as well as the Preceptive, having now been discussed and rejected, we turn to the theory of prohibition, the only alternative.

Harper II.22

CHAPTER XXII.

THE OPTIONAL THEORY EXAMINED—THE “CIRCUMSTANCE” PLEA CONSIDERED.

---

A third plea put forward to sustain the optional theory is what may be styled the “Involution or circumstance plea,” the tenor of which is that the command to sing in the praise of God carries with it, as an incident or circumstance, the right if not the obligation, to use instruments of music as aids to the voice in that exercise. “The command to sing,” it is said, “involves the obligation to sing in a becoming manner, according to the apostolic rule, ‘Let all things be done decently and in order,’ but instruments are serviceable, if not indispensable for the attainment of such a result; therefore, it is proper and may be a duty to employ them in rendering formal praise to God.” According to this plea, instrumental music is one of those circumstances about the worship of God, which do not require a divine appointment, but are implied in the direction to praise God in song. A few comments on this argument are here subjoined:—

1. It is granted that there are certain circumstances about the worship of God, for which no express appointment is needed, but the warrant for which is included in the general direction to worship God. For instance, if we are to have meetings on the Sabbath, as we are required to have, we must have some agreement as to the places and times for meeting. These are matters, as has been elsewhere shown, that are to be ordered by human discretion, in accordance with the general directions and spirit of the word of God. Again, we have no specific instructions touching the tunes or chants to be used in praising God. What, and how many these shall be, and when one shall be used, and when another, are matters not fixed by statute, but to be ordered on the general grounds of prudence and edification as indicated in the scripture. If instrumental music belonged to the category of these circumstances about worship, we should be constrained to admit that it is warranted, under the general appointment, to sing the praises of God.

2. There are sufficient reasons, however, for rejecting the assumption that instrumental music is in such a sense an incident or circumstance of song, as that

Page 74

the prescription of the latter implies the right to have the former. Among these reasons, are the following:—

(1.) The unaided vocal organs of men are adapted to render, in an appropriate manner, the praises of God in song. There is no instrument of music fit to be compared to the human voice, for flexibility, richness of tone, and above all, expressiveness. Some of the greatest masters, in the department of music, have declared their preference for unaided vocal music, at least in worship; and it is a current remark of travellers, that the singing in some of the churches of St. Petersburg, where no instruments are tolerated, is not excelled, if ever equaled elsewhere in the world. The human voice, it may be affirmed, has in itself all the resources requisite for the most appropriate expression of the praise of God in song.

It needs, however, to be noted that, in praising God, it is neither necessary, nor in ordinary circumstances, desirable that the singing should be elaborate. It should be artistic, but true art is always in harmony with the ends to be attained. Hence, the simplest style of music may be really the most artistic, the end and laws of the service being taken into account. The artistic is not to be confounded with the artificial.

There is no countenance given in the bible to the notion, that the music in the praise of God is to be intricate and complex. It may be admitted that the Davidic arrangements, in virtue of which, many persons were set apart for the performance of the service of song, indicate that this part of worship was to be skillfully rendered, 1 Chron. 15:22. Yet how very little is there even in the Old Testament, to inculcate the idea that the singing of the praise of God should be complex or florid, or to use a modern epithet, “operatic!” There is one text often quoted, and it is the best, I think, that can be quoted, that our singing in worship should be elaborate, namely, Ps. 33:3, “Play skillfully with a loud noise,” but not to say that this refers to instrumental performance, not vocal, at least if “zamar” is to be understood as our opponents understand it, it is very doubtful whether it means to play in good time and execute delicate and difficult musical combinations. It most probably means no more than to do with energy and zeal whatever is denoted; for the literal rendering of the original is “Make good to play (or sing) with a loud noise.” Besides, what is very simple in music admits of a skillful, or on the contrary, of a careless rendering.

Moreover, in the entire New Testament, there is not a word of command or exhortation, to offer an artificial and elaborate service of song to God. There is a general direction given, 1 Cor. 14:40, “Let all things be done decently and in order,” but the word “decently,” which very fitly represents the original, is equivalent to “suitably” or “decorously,” and the question arises what is becoming or suitable in the matter of song in the praise of God? Nowhere does the bible tell us that the music in worship, must for brilliancy and complexity rival that of the opera, or of the secular concert. This itself is significant, and is in striking contrast with the tone of the church in our day; for the musical element in public worship is now exalted in many quarters to a level with the exposition of

Page 75

the scriptures, and by not a few is deemed even more essential than preaching to the success of the church. If this modern and growing “rage” for fine music in churches is just and wise, it seems rather unaccountable that the apostles failed to give directions as to the style of music which all the churches, but especially those in seats of refinement and wealth, should strive to acquire. In giving instructions to Timothy how to behave himself in the house of God, why did Paul omit to urge upon him the great importance of forming a well-trained choir that strangers might be attracted to the place of Christian worship, and that the children of the church might be retained? Paul laid stress incomparably more on soundness in the faith and earnestness in the proclamation of the gospel, than on the sound of singers and players. And this is obvious from the fact that, while he has much to say about preaching the word, he never drops a hint to the effect that an effort should be made to improve the singing of the converts to Christianity, so that the church music might equal, if not excel, that of the Pagan temples. Even when he touches on the subject of singing, although he enjoins it as a duty to sing to the Lord, he does not give a hint as to the importance of elevating the standard of church music, so as to produce a favorable impression on all who should hear, and especially help to keep the young people from seeking the gratification of their musical tastes in heathen festivals and rites.

Is the church to-day of the same mind with Paul in this matter? I am persuaded it is not, and that, on the contrary it lays a stress on the mere music in the service of song, vastly disproportioned to the stress which the New Testament, or even the Old Testament, lays upon it.

Moreover, I do not hesitate to maintain that the most truly artistic sacred music is the most simple, and the freest from flourishes and intricacies. Singing, when practised as a mere musical entertainment, may be complicated and difficult of execution and yet be in good taste; but the singing of praise to God, especially in New Testament times, should be simple and comparatively artless. The music of the sanctuary should be influenced and regulated by the fact that it is the will of God, that the poor and illiterate who may be found in the church should sing, no less than the rich and refined. The singing of public worship is to be congregational singing, as distinguished from solo singing and mere choir singing; and as it is the will of God that the poor and ignorant as well as the rich and educated should compose the church and its public assemblies, so the singing should be adapted to the company by whom it is to be executed. The Apostles Paul and James tell us indeed to sing, but they do not tell us to sing tunes of a difficult and ornate style; and there is reason to believe that for at least two centuries after the apostolic age, the singing in the church was in general of the most unartificial kind.

Even, therefore, if it could be proved that for the best vocal execution of difficult music, instruments are necessary as aids, it would not follow that for the best music in worship, such aids are either requisite, or desirable. The really artistic is the fit and becoming, and the really artistic music of the sanctuary is the simple and sober, or, if not always what might be called “sober” or grave, at least simple.

Page 76

Besides, if even it were proved that instrumental help is essential to the attainment of the highest grade of vocal culture, it would not follow that instruments of music should be introduced into the actual worship of God. The singer may train himself in whatever way deemed best, yet not have the right to employ those subsidiary or preparatory arts when he appears before God to praise him.

(2.) By some high authorities in musical matters, the use of musical instruments, and of none more than of the organ, is deemed detrimental, rather than helpful, to vocal execution. The instrumental current may fill up and cover the discords and defects in the singing, thus leaving them unnoticed and unimproved. This has been touched upon already, but is mentioned here in refutation of the view that instrumental music is virtually sanctioned in the appointment of singing in the worship of God.

(3.) The fact that God expressly commanded the use of musical instruments, as well as of the voice, in his worship, militates against the notion that the instrumental element is a mere incident or circumstance of the vocal element in the exercise of praise. If the direction to sing necessarily included in itself a direction, or even permission, to use instruments, why did God give such special commands to use them, and to use certain specified ones? If, as a matter, of course, the appointment of singing authorized the use of instrumental music, why was there so much prominence given to the latter, especially if it is assumed, as it is by some of our opponents, that instrumental music in worship had been used since patriarchal times? How is it that the mere incident or adjunct is as precisely prescribed as the main element of the service? Why is the subordinate element, that of instrumental music, seemingly made co-ordinate with the vocal music, the chief element? Indeed, there is, perhaps, more prominence given, in the account of the arrangements of the temple, to the instrumental department than to the vocal. This does not prove that the instrumental is as important as the vocal music, for, being less directly natural, the former, if meant to be used, needed to be more distinctly specified than the latter; but it does seem to indicate that the command to sing in the worship of God does not carry in it either a command or a license to employ instrumental music. God never says that he prescribed the instruments just to improve the singing, or to keep it correct. Even many who advance the doctrine that the right to use instruments is implied in the right to sing are fain, in arguing for instrumental music in worship, to avail themselves of the commands, contained in the Old Testament, to use instruments, whereas every such command strengthens our position that, according to the tenor of scripture, instrumental music is not a circumstance or implied accompaniment of singing. Singing in worship can be performed as well as is necessary, or as is desirable, without the use of an instrument of music, for our Lord, all of whose service was perfect, sung, together with his disciples, on a memorable occasion, without instrumental aid; and that operation which may be lacking in a perfect performance is not a circumstance implied in that performance, or in the command enjoining it.

Still further, should any one who holds that instrumental music is a circum-

Page 77

stance necessarily implied in the command to sing, seek to account for the distinct prescription of instruments, by saying, that they were so specified because of their importance as aids to song; then I would ask, ought there not, on the same ground, to be as much zeal shown for them by the church, as God manifested in the commands which he issued? Let us, for sake of argument, admit that instrumental music is an incident of vocal music, and that there was nothing ceremonial in the instrumental music of the ancient Israelitish worship. Ought we not then, in view of God’s obvious urgency in relation to the use of instrumental aids, to be vehemently urgent to have all worshippers use musical instruments in rendering praise to him? Yet, what branch of the church has ever issued a pastoral letter urging that every congregation embraced in it, should take immediate measures for acquiring instrumental help in the service of song? The heart of the church has never really throbbed in sympathy with the conclusion toward which tends the view which I am now combating.

On the whole, the position seems a correct one, that if the right to use instrumental music is involved in the right to sing in the worship of God, there needed not to have been such an explicit appointment of the use of instruments, as is met with, in the legislation touching the services of the temple. Thus the positive commands of the Old Testament to use instruments in praising God discountenance the view, that instrumental music is so far a circumstance or incident of vocal music, that the right to use the latter implies the right to use the former, and so the circumstance plea in favor of the optional theory fails.

Harper II.21

CHAPTER XXI.

THE OPTIONAL THEORY EXAMINED—THE ARGUMENT IN ITS FAVOR DRAWN FROM INSTANCES SUPPOSED TO BE PARALLEL CASES CONSIDERED.

---

It may be said that the New Testament dispensation is characterized by a degree of liberty which did not pertain to the previous dispensation, and that, therefore, what was imperative in the one is permissive or mildly advisory in the other. But this would be to misinterpret New Testament liberty, which does not consist in the right to disregard divine injunctions applying to us, but in ex-

Page 71

emption from numerous and minute ceremonies, such as were imposed upon the Israelites. We have no more right then they had to dispense with the Sabbath or the duty of prayer; nor have we any more right to omit the observance of the Lord’s Supper than they had to omit the observance of the Passover. The sum of these remarks, then, is that if the directions to use musical instruments in worship is still in force, as some of our opponents plainly say, and all of them constructively say, it is no more discretionary with us whether or not we shall use them, than it was with the Jews of old.

Ingenious attempts have been made to mystify this subject and to draw us into general discussions wide of the mark; but the attempts are far from being as subtle as those which Romish controversialists make to befog simple minds in relation to the use of pictures and images in worship. For instance, the writer referred to in a previous note, in laboring to show that the use of instrumental music in worship is optional, not obligatory, cites the fact that although none but male Israelites were commanded to attend the three great feasts of the Levitical economy, women in many cases also, and apparently with divine approval, attended them. The inference which he would have us draw, is that some things connected with the worship of God may be warranted, though not enjoined. But were we even to concede this, it would not follow that a rite or form of worship is warrantable, unless it has been prescribed by God as a rite or form of worship. Nor would the supposed concession avail the advocate of the optional theory, unless he could moreover show that the use of instrumental music is only permitted, but not enjoined. So long as he quotes in support of his view, as even the writer particularly alluded to, is forced to do, such a text as Eph. 5:19, and maintains that those originally addressed by the apostle must have understood him to refer in part to instrumental music he cannot avail himself of the concession, if made, unless besides he can show that the text in question embodies only a permission, not a direction. After the male Israelites had been directed to attend the feasts, had they a right to attend or not, according to their whim? Assuredly not, and just as little right have we to neglect the use of musical instruments in worship, if we have been directed to use them, and directed we have been, if Eph. 5:19, contains a reference to musical instruments.*

_____

* It may be noted that the maxim “Whatsoever is not commanded (or appointed) by God is forbidden,” has reference to modes of worship merely. Due regard to this restriction would silence many cavils against the principle. God has not expressly commanded us in his word to make a steamboat or a microscope, or a thousand other things which are in use among us; but to make these things is no sin of presumption. It is different however in the matter of worship, to which, and to which alone, the Second commandment relates. The commandment to use bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, limits us to the use of these in that ordinance, even although there is no prohibition expressly of other things. In the case of free-will offerings under the ceremonial law, the worshipper was not at liberty to present to God something which he had not prescribed or appointed for such a purpose. Nor might the appointed way of presenting a legitimate offering be neglected with impunity. For a lamb, for instance, a lion or a horse might not be substituted, nobler victims though these seemingly might have been. Nor might they be offered even in addition to the lamb, or to whatever victim God had himself, as, for example, in the alternative in offerings must be an alternative specified by God himself, as, for example, in the

Page 72

case of the passover, a kid might be substituted for a lamb; but God specified the permissible substitute, Ex. 12:5. The law of worship is substantially the same in all ages.

The same writer, with the same intent, mentions the fact that God prescribed the public reading of the law at the Feast of Tabernacles once in every seven years, and adds that the command to read the law on those set occasions did not preclude or discountenance the private reading of it at other times. If this illustration be to the point, it must be the view of the writer that it was optional with the Israelites whether or not they should read the law privately, if they possessed a copy of it. I think, however, on the contrary, that it was their duty to seek the knowledge of God’s law at all times, whether by reading it or hearing it read. But, aside from this, it may be said, as in the case previously commented on, that the appointment to read the law every seventh year admitted of no optional treatment, and so the direction contained in Eph. 5:19, admits of no optional treatment.

Again, the same advocate of the optional theory thinks he can find countenance for the principle involved in it in our Lord’s supposed sanction of the Feast of Dedication, of the divine origin of which we have no intimation. See John 10:22, 23. Prelatists were wont, in the days of George Gillespie to cite the fact mentioned in those verses as a proof that the church may decree stated festivals, and bind men in conscience to observe them, as any one may see who consults his powerful treatise against “English-Popish Ceremonies,” in which treatise also it may be seen how Gillespie demolishes the plea. At present, I will only say that the feast in question may have been appointed by God, although no record of the original institution of it has been transmitted to us; that there is no evidence that Christ sanctioned the feast; that, if he did sanction it by observing it, the Jews were, at least thenceforward, under obligation to keep it till the time of repeal came; and that, if he did sanction it, this would not prove that we may play fast and loose with such directions as are embraced in Eph. 5:19, not to speak of numerous other passages which most advocates of instrumental music are accustomed to interpret as favoring their view.

It is further urged by the same author that, as, in the Levitical law, provision was made for the presentation of voluntary or free-will offerings, as well as for that of fixed or imperative offerings, so there may now be services of worship which God simply authorizes and does not enjoin. All this is brought forward with the view of proving that some such arrangement as that pertaining to the free-will offerings may exist in relation to the use of instrumental music in worship, so that the use of instruments may be lawful, but not imperative. Without stopping to show in detail that even the free-will offerings were positively provided for by God in his legislation, the legitimate kinds of these offerings and the proper occasions for bringing them being specified, I remark that, had our author only shown us that God placed instrumental music on a level with free-will offerings, leaving it to us to use it or not, at our pleasure, in his worship, his object would have been somewhat served. But, instead of producing proof that instruments of music were merely permitted, he unavoidably presents, in several parts of his

Page 73

dissertation, evidence which, if it proves anything in favor of instrumental music, proves that the use of it has been enjoined. Beyond any reasonable doubt, the references to instrumental music in the Old Testament present such music in worship under the aspect of a fixed and imperative offering, not of a free-will offering. Besides, were this music even on a level with the free-will offerings, would it not be egregious offense to omit it from the service of the church, just as it would have been a flagrant sin, in the case of the Israelites, to have ignored the ordinance of free-will offerings? It was the duty of the Old Testament church to maintain, honor and enforce the law of free-will offerings, and if instrumental music now is on the plane with free-will offerings, it is no less the duty of the church now to maintain, honor and enforce the law as it relates to instrumental music.

Harper II.20

The Optional, or Permissive Theory.

CHAPTER XX.

THE OPTIONAL THEORY EXAMINED—THE PLEAS IN ITS BEHALF FOUNDED ON ALLEGED CHURCH AUTHORITY, AND ON THE FACT OF DIVINE APPOINTMENT AND ALLEGED NON-REPEAL CONSIDERED—NOTICE OF THE POSITION THAT INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC, AS A PART OF WORSHIP, ANTEDATED THE MOSAIC ECONOMY AND SURVIVED IT—CERTAIN QUIBBLES DEALT WITH.

---

The tenor of the Optional theory, which has been stated more than once, is that it is lawful, and, in certain circumstances, may be a duty, at least an advantage, to combine instrumental with vocal music in the praise of God. The

Page 67

arguments wont to be adduced, at least most of them, in support of this position have also been already briefly stated, and my object will now be to refute them.

The first of these which may be noticed is, that the church is invested with authority to decree rites and ceremonies not positively forbidden in scripture, and may, when it deems it for edification, employ musical instruments, and even enjoin the use of them, in worship.

This argument rests on the assumption that the authority claimed is vested in the church; an unwarrantable assumption, as I have already tried to prove. To the discussion of the law of worship some pages have been devoted, and to them I refer for a virtual, if not formal, refutation of the claim in question. The church has no right to use, much less enjoin, forms of worship additional to, or different from those appointed by God in his word.

A second argument used to sustain the Optional theory, is that God having once appointed the use of musical instruments in his worship and never having repealed that appointment, it must be lawful to use them now in worship.

This, it will be observed, is an argument, and probably the most formidable argument for the Preceptive theory, and as such has already been extensively handled in these pages. When used in behalf of the Optional doctrine, this argument entirely overshoots the mark. For, if the old law touching the use of instruments, is still in force, ought it not to be obeyed now just as literally and exactly as when it was first issued? The argument brought forward, would prove too much for those who bring it; for it would prove that instruments of music must be used in worship, whereas all that is meant to be proved is that they may be so used. The point to be proved is that instrumental music in worship is lawful, but not imperative. The argument advanced, if good, proves, indeed, that it is lawful, but it inconveniently goes beyond that point and proves that it is imperative. Such an argument is like a gun which bears as disastrously on the gunner, as on those against whom it is levelled.*

_____

* A writer, whose pamphlet on Instrumental music I had not read till after the plan of this discussion had been sketched, not, indeed, till a day or two ago, is so alive to the difficulty just suggested, that he abandons to a large extent the customary and, I am convinced, the more successful way of advocating the use of instrumental music in worship, and contends for it chiefly on the ground that the use of such music in worship was a patriarchal institution, if not explicitly appointed, at least sanctioned, by God, which was taken up and connected closely with the temple worship, but, not pertaining originally to the ceremonial system, did not pass away, any more than did the Sabbath, with the abrogation of the Mosaic economy. It is, moreover, assumed in this mode of arguing that, apart from the temple service, instrumental music might, or might not be used at the option of the worshipper, and so the matter, it is contended, stands now.

I can, hardly, call this line of argument ingenious. It might rather, did courtesy not restrain, be characterized as reckless. It owes its paternity, if I be not much mistaken, to Professor Wallace, an Irish champion of the organ, whose ability is readily conceded, but who has betrayed, on deeper questions than that of music, a tendency to rash speculation, for which he has been justly chastised by more than one of his fellow-countrymen.

Our American pamphleteer is constrained by stress of weather to put into the friendly port, so familiar to the pro-instrumental party, namely, the direction of the Apostle (Eph. 5:19) “to do whatever is meant by ‘psallo,’ which, it is maintained, denotes to sing and play, together with the use of the Hebrew word ‘mizmor,’ and its Greek equivalent, ‘psalmos,’ as descriptive of the songs of the authorized Jewish and Christian Psalter.

Page 68

In this embarrassment, the pleaders for instruments have recourse to certain quibbles.

Thus, they allege that some things have been authorized by God without being enjoined; a certain discretionary liberty being left to us to observe or not observe them. In this category, they think instrumental music in worship is to be placed. Although this position has been already combated substantially in our discussion of the law of worship, it may be wise to scrutinize it somewhat more closely, and offer some strictures in detail upon it.

1. It is granted that there are certain things connected with the church of Christ, and divine worship, which God has left to be regulated by human prudence subject to the general rules of his word. For instance, God has not determined precisely for us, as in respect to the tabernacle and temple he did for the Jews, what must be the fashion and dimensions of the houses in which we shall assemble for public worship; at what hour or hours we shall meet on the Sabbath; how long the services shall continue; how many shall be the prayers offered at each meeting; how many and what particular psalms shall be sung on each occasion; how much scripture and what parts of it shall be read at any meeting; and how long the sermon shall be. These are matters in which we must use our judgment under the general guidance of the word.

2. Be it observed that matters thus left discretionary belong rather to the head of “circa sacra,” than to that of “sacra” that is they are circumstances closely connected with the worship of God, but not properly rites or forms of worship. Even among the Israelites, rigorous and minute as were the regulations about their worship, there must have been many things of this discretionary sort. So in

_____

[continued from page 67] The objections to this view, it may be briefly stated here, are numerous, most of which will be apparent from our previous or subsequent discussion. Particularly it may be urged against it: (1.) That the writer can adduce no clear instance of worship with musical instruments before the time of Moses, nay not before the time of David; (2.) That even if instrumental music in worship had flourished as a practice in patriarchal times, this fact would not prove that it was not symbolic and ceremonial, for the very essence of the ceremonial law was recognized in the worship of the patriarchal age. Bloody sacrifices and the correlated distinction of animals into clean and unclean were not unknown in pre-Mosaic times; (3.) That only an enthusiast, I feel tempted to say, a fanatic, for instrumental music can regard it and the Sabbath as having an equal right to be reckoned as permanent moral institutions. The one is, and the other is not, incorporated expressly and enthroned in the moral law. The Sabbath, moreover, was as definitely associated with the Levitical ceremonial in the legislation of Moses as it ever afterwards came to be; but no provision for the use of music in worship was made by Moses, unless in the later form of the silver trumpets; (4.) That the argument, so far as it rests on Eph. 5:19, and the alleged reference to instrumental music involved in the very word psalm, labors under the difficulty of the sly substitution of a “may be” for the rigorous “must be” to which the premises point, for, where the Apostle gives a direction, our author recognizes only a permission, hardly an advice; and (5.) That this line of argument is exposed to most of the objections drawn from the references in the Psalms to instrumental music, objections urged so pertinaciously against us. Nay these objections may be urged with greater plausibility against the position of this writer than against ours; for he holds that instruments may lawfully be used in worship, yet he calmly ignores the commands in the Psalms to use them or treats them as mere advices, whereas we maintain that it is wrong to use them now, and try to show that the commands in question neither require nor countenance the use of musical instruments in this age, any more than certain other passages in the Psalms sanction the observance of the rite of sacrifice in our time.

Page 69

our case, God may have accorded to us liberty in this direction, while allowing us no right to modify or disregard any forms of worship which he has enjoined.

3. Even if it could be proved that we are at liberty to add somewhat to the ordinances of worship prescribed by God, this would not prove that we have a right to disobey or neglect any positive injunction laid on us by him. Those with whom we are now reasoning do not claim that the church has authority to introduce a form of worship not sanctioned by God. They do not maintain that it would be right, without divine warrant or authorization to use instrumental music. But how do they prove that God has warranted the use of it? By citing the commands issued by him to the Old Testament church to employ it, and affirming that these commands have never been revoked, but are even repeated in the New Testament. That is to say, they argue that we may use instruments in worship, because God once commanded that they be so used, and has never withdrawn the command. Nor this only, but they also repudiate the principle, that instrumental music is imperative, alleging on the contrary, that it is optional, a discretionary power in relation to it being allowed us. But how preposterous is such reasoning! When God appointed through David, and other prophets, the use of musical instruments in the central seat of Israelitish worship, was the matter of using them as indicated, left optional with the Israelites? Even granting that, under extraordinary circumstances, the omission to use such instruments might have occurred without blame, would that have warranted the Israelites in neglecting to praise God with the instruments which he had appointed to be used for that end? It is palpably evident that the use of instruments in the temple, was not a matter left to the discretion of the priests, or of the priests and people combined, but was obligatory. Under that appointment, together with numerous calls in the Psalms to use instruments, as well as alleged exhortations and injunctions in the New Testament to the same effect, or under part of these pleas, our opponents claim the right to use instruments now in worship. They ought, however, to notice that the very passages of scripture which give, as they think, the right, impose also the obligation to use instruments of music in the worship of God. If they will appropriate the commands as their plea and authority for using instruments now, they must accept those commands as authoritative directions to employ them. If the law as to music is still in force, and if that law in Old Testament times obliged to the use of instruments, does it not still do the same? If the law has been relaxed so far as to leave the use of instruments to human option, will those who say so point to the passage or passages of sacred writ which tell us that such a modification has been made by him who gave us the law? We hold that the law touching instruments was ceremonial and has passed away; but our opponents hold the reverse. Holding this, will they be so good as to show us their authority for believing that the law has been changed, and is no longer imperative but permissive, or, at most, advisory? Even though the law should be understood to be advisory, surely advice or exhortation from such a quarter bears in it the force almost of command, and, if so, it is difficult to see how those who count the law advisory, can claim the liberty of neglecting it, or can say so serenely to their

Page 70

brethren, “You can use instruments or not, as you choose.” The advocates of instrumental music believe that God appointed the use of vocal music in his worship. Are they prepared to say that this too is now optional, and that the church may without fault resolve to drop out practically from its ritual, the singing of the praise of God. The Quakers object to singing as well as to instrumental music in worship, but they do not limp in their logic as do those with whom we now deal, for the former maintain that singing and instrumental music were alike ceremonial, and are now neither obligatory nor allowable.*

_____

* Some of the considerations advanced above will not apply to those, who, on the assumption that instrumental music was optionally used in worship before the giving of the law, plead that it may be so used now. But they who take this ground need to show that instrumental music was used in worship with divine approval before the giving of the law at Sinai; that the use of it was then optional; and that because it preceded the Levitical law it cannot have partaken of a ceremonial character.

Now, the only evidence presented to prove that it was used acceptably in worship before the giving of the law is the record of the action of Miriam and the other women at the Red Sea. On this I have already commented, and have sought to show that there is not adequate ground for the belief that the procedure of Miriam and the other women was an act of formal worship at all. But were we to admit that this was an instance of worship proper, what proof can be given that the instrumental music was a mere optional element? Might not this have been as imperative as singing?

Furthermore, what right has any one to claim that this music was not ceremonial because it was used before the giving of the law? Its precedence of the establishment of the full ceremonial system does not prove it to be non-ceremonial. Sacrifice existed as a religious rite from the Fall onward. The distinction into clean and unclean existed at least as early as the time of Noah. The Passover was appointed before the passage of the Red Sea.

Moreover, if the arrangements of the great occasion on which Miriam is presented to us as an instrumental performer still survive in force, even as optional arrangements, may not the singing without accompaniment in our worshipping assemblies be confined to one company consisting of men, and the instrumental performance be limited to another company consisting exclusively of women?

What also is to become of the exercise of dancing? Miriam and her attendants appear to have danced. The word “Mecholah” occurring in the plural in Ex. 15:20, is properly translated “dances.” In every instance in which it occurs in the Old Testament it may fitly be so rendered, and in some places, for example Judges 21:21, and Jer. 31:4, it seems most reasonably to demand this translation. May not then a strong plea on the ground taken by our opponents be made out for dancing as at least an optional exercise in worship? David certainly danced on one solemn occasion before the Lord, while in Ps. 149:3, some countenance is given to it, unless the translation of that verse must be changed.

Harper II.19

CHAPTER XIX.

THE PRECEPTIVE THEORY EXAMINED—THE ARGUMENT IN ITS FAVOR, FOUNDED ON CERTAIN OLD TESTAMENT PREDICTIONS, CONSIDERED.

---

Fourth. An argument closely akin to that which has just been considered, in support of the pro-instrumental preceptive theory, is drawn from certain passages in the Old Testament, which are supposed to foretell, with apparent approval, the use of instruments in the worship of God during New Testament times.

The following are the passages alluded to: Ps. 68:25, “The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the damsels

Page 65

playing with timbrels;” Ps. 87:7, “As well the singers as the players on instruments shall be there;” Ps. 66:4, “All the earth shall worship thee, and shall sing unto thee; they shall sing to thy name;” Isaiah 12:4, “And in that day shall ye say, Praise the Lord, call upon his name, declare his doings among the people, make mention that his name is exalted.”

Even granting what is claimed, that the texts now cited relate chiefly to New Testament times, they do not yield any aid to the cause in behalf of which they are marshalled. In general, it may be said that they express, in language saturated with allusions to Old Testament rites and customs, the joy and exultation which the appearance of the Son of God in the flesh should and would produce.

In the first of the texts just quoted, the scene depicted is that of a triumphal procession, such as it would have been among the Israelites. Thus, in vivid imagery, is conveyed to us an idea of the joy and ecstasy with which the friends of Christ would celebrate the victories achieved by the great Captain of their salvation. If any one should demur to this view, and claim that a literal fulfilment of the scene delineated must be expected, then I would say that the use of an organ, or of several other instruments, in the church would not meet this demand. If literality be insisted on, we must have in our churches processions composed of singers and instrumental performers, the singers taking the lead, and the rear being composed of players on instruments, among whom girls, furnished with timbrels, must form a conspicuous quota. Among the denominations professing Christianity, the one which seems to approach nearest to the literal realization of this ideal sketch is the Roman Catholic, which delights in processions and spectacular displays. The priests of Rome can hardly walk in like ordinary mortals, when about to officiate in the presence of the congregation, but must lend to their entry the pomp of a procession. And how frequently, in connection with certain festivals, are the people of that communion entertained with the pageantry of ecclesiastical processions! In passing, it may be remarked that, in some denominations, whose very names are suggestive of protest against Rome, feeble imitations of their old foe are becoming common, the entrance of the officiating minister being the signal in many congregations for an outburst of song called a “voluntary.” All this looks pretty, and by some may be deemed edifying; but the student of human nature and of history will discern in it the buddings of sacerdotalism.

The second of the aforementioned texts, namely, Ps. 87:7, does not warrant the inference that in New Testament worship there must, or may, be instrumental music; but merely this inference, that the joy and strong emotion of the worshippers shall be such as were expressed in the temple when vocal and instrumental music, blending together, filled its courts and precincts with a flood of song. It is noticeable that the Psalmist does not say, “as well the players on instruments as the singers shall be there,” which might have been deemed the natural statement, inasmuch as the singing was the principal element in the service of song; but he says, “as well the singers as the players on instruments shall be there;” the design perhaps being to intimate that the worship of the church would not be a mere out-

Page 66

ward mechanical service, such as might be signified by the use of instruments, but that it would be vital and hearty, such as vocal music might suggest. If any one should still insist that the prediction of this clause demands the use of instruments in worship now, we might reply, that by the same rule of interpretation, the New Testament worshippers must have literal vessels for drawing water, when they engage in worship, for the Psalmist adds to the words we have been noticing, the clause, “All my springs are in thee.” In the whole psalm, the church of Christ, under the symbol of Zion, is described, and just as music of various sorts marked the worship with which Zion was associated, so the Psalmist describes the church as fully supplied with musical performers, both vocal and instrumental, nothing necessary for Christian enjoyment, edification, and expression being absent.

The applicability of the texts, Ps. 66:4, and Isa. 12:4, so far as the point before us is concerned, turns on the meaning of the word “zimmēr,” which occurs in them; but as that word has been separately discussed, I do not deem it needful to dwell further on the texts in question.

The arguments usually employed to support the preceptive theory, that is the view that instrumental music ought to have place in the worship of the church during the New Testament age, have now been stated and scrutinized. Longer time has been devoted to the review of them, than may seem advisable, but I have been induced to pursue this course from the conviction, that when once it is shown, that instrumental music is not an imperative or indispensable part of New Testament worship, the victory is virtually won for the opponents of instruments. Assuredly, none who admit that divine appointment is necessary to legalize any form of worship, can deny that we have gained the victory, if we have proved that instrumental music has not been appointed by God, as an observance in the New Testament church, unless they hold, as indeed some of them do, that this music is of the nature of a mere incident or circumstance of worship, which does not need any distinctive appointment, but is involved in the command to praise God in song. There are those however who hold, that although God has not enjoined musical instruments in the New Testament church, he has not forbidden them, and has even sanctioned the use of them; the use being not imperative but optional. To this theory, attention must now be turned.

Harper II.18

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE PRECEPTIVE THEORY EXAMINED—ARGUMENT FOR IT, DRAWN FROM DIRECTIONS IN THE PSALMS TO USE INSTRUMENTS, CONSIDERED.

---

Two of the arguments drawn from scripture in favor of the preceptive theory as to the use of instrumental music in worship have now been disposed of. These are that such music, having been once prescribed by God, cannot be, in itself, sinful; and that it must still be obligatory in worship, because there is no indication of the repeal of the appointment.

Third. A third point urged from scripture on the same side, is that in the book of Psalms, there are numerous commands addressed, apparently to men without restriction, to praise God by using musical instruments in worship. The 150th Psalm, with which the Psalter closes, is a rousing summons to the performance of the duty of praising God, and that with various instruments of music. Now, it is contended, that if these psalms were meant to be used in the worship of God in the New Testament age as well as in the Old, nay, even if they are worthy to be read as a part of scripture, it must be lawful and even obligatory to use instruments of music now in the praise of God. This argument is supposed to bear with double force on those who hold with the writer, that the songs of the inspired Psalter, and only they, should be sung in the formal worship of God.

In reply a few remarks are submitted.

I. It is a significant fact that the great mass of Christians, since apostolic times, have never felt it obligatory in praising God, to use instruments of music either personally or by proxy, while many of them have felt it to be their duty to oppose the use of them.

II. It is an awkward fact for those who advance this argument that those bodies of Christians, who have been most zealous for the use of the Psalms in the

Page 62

service of song, have been the most averse to the use of instruments of music in that service. In the early Church, when the Psalms were in universal and almost exclusive use in the exercise of formal praise, no instruments of music were employed in that exercise, and in the Reformation period, those churches that used the inspired Psalter alone, as the matter of praise, opposed the use of instrumental music in worship. We may challenge our opponents to name a church, since the days of the apostles, which has assigned to the scripture Psalter the place of honor due to it, as the only divinely authorized hymn book of the church, and yet has favored the use of instrumental music in the celebration of the praise of God. This is a phenomenon which the world has not yet seen I believe, although strenuous efforts are now being made to afford mankind such a novel spectacle. The Church of Holland, which for a long time, adhered to the exclusive, or nearly exclusive, use of the scripture psalms in worship, did retain to some extent the use of organs; but the retention was much against the judgment and wishes of the best men in that church, and was due rather to the influence of the State, which became the patron and, in some measure, the tyrant of the church. In the year 1554, the Synod of Holland and Zealand, resolved to urge the magistrates to expel organs and all instruments of music from the churches. In 1574, the Synod of Zealand took similar action, and even the great Synod of Dort (1618), in its 50th canon, decreed that the magistrates “be asked to abolish the playing of organs in churches, even outside the stated worship, whether before or after meetings.” Somewhat later, Voetius, one of the most learned theologians of whom Holland can boast, devoted an extended section of his famous work on “Ecclesiastical Polity,” to a refutation of the pleas advanced in behalf of instrumental music in worship. I do not now stop to account for the fact that, in proportion as the psalms are honored, instruments of music as helps in worship, are deprecated and despised; but I note it, as constituting presumptive evidence that the plea under consideration is not weighty. Those who desert the psalms are those who take most kindly to the organ.

III. In the Psalms, we find embodied numerous calls to offer sacrifices; to enter the courts of the temple, and to walk about Zion, or promises on the part of the writer to do such things. Are these utterances to be understood as either binding or warranting us to do the very things indicated? If not, why should kindred utterances, in regard to the use of musical instruments, be counted a valid plea for using them in worship now?

For instance, in Ps. 5:7, the Psalmist says, “But as for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy; and in thy fear, I will worship toward thy holy temple.” In singing this, do we promise to visit Jerusalem, and worship toward the literal temple or tabernacle?

We read thus, in Ps. 26:6, “I will wash mine hands in innocency, so will I compass thy altar, O Lord!” Must we then have in our churches, a literal laver, and a material altar? We shall be in close fellowship with Rome, when we shall have procured those improvements.

“Therefore, I will offer in his tabernacle sacrifices of joy,” says David, in Ps.

Page 63

27:6. In singing this language, do we pledge ourselves to offer such thank offerings as were no doubt primarily meant by the writer of the psalm?

In Ps. 43:4, the Psalmist indeed says, “Yea, upon the harp I will praise thee, O, God, my God;” but he also says in the context, “O, send out thy light and thy truth and let them lead me; let them bring me unto thy holy hill, and to thy tabernacles. Then will I go unto the altar of God.” If we cannot consistently sing this, and at the same time refuse to use the harp, how can we consistently sing it, and refuse to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in quest of the sanctuary and of the sacred altar? If we can and should dispense with the literal, material altar, why not with the literal harp?

In Ps. 47:1, the summons is issued, “O, clap your hands, all ye people.” Must we then literally engage in the exercise of hand clapping, in order to sing these words consistently, and in order to obey them whether we sing them or not?

We are called upon in Ps. 48:12, “to walk about Zion,” and “go round about her,” and “tell the towers thereof.” Can we duly honor this call without making a visit to Palestine and searching for the towers of Zion? If we can, may we not duly honor the call to use musical instruments, without using them in a literal sense?

In Ps. 51:19, David says, “Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: thus shall they offer bullocks upon thy altar.” Are we then in this dispensation to perform in a literal sense what is here predicted or promised?

We read these words in Ps. 66:13–15, “I will go into thy house with burnt offerings: I will pay thee my vows, which my lips uttered, my mouth hath spoken when I was in trouble. I will offer unto thee burnt sacrifices of fatlings, with the incense of rams; I will offer bullocks with goats.”

In Ps. 81:2, we are told to “take a psalm and bring hither the timbrel and the pleasant harp;” but in verse 3, we are also told to, “blow up the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day.”

“Bring an offering and come into his courts,” it is said in Ps. 96:8. Undoubtedly this meant in the first instance to inculcate the duty of visiting the tabernacle or temple, and of bringing a gift according to the Levitical law. Do we feel that we are now bound to do these things?

Ps. 100, contains the address, “Enter into his gates with thanksgiving and into his courts with praise,” which primarily is a call to repair to the central seat of Jewish worship; yet we do not feel under obligation, or at liberty, though we read and sing thus, to go in quest of that place of resort.

In Ps. 107:22, it is said, with reference to men at large, “And let them sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving;” yet do we hold ourselves even at liberty to offer now the literal sacrifices primarily meant?

The Psalmist in Ps. 116:17, expresses the following purpose or vow, “I will offer to thee, the sacrifice of thanksgiving,” yet we sing this language without deeming ourselves delinquent, because we render no Levitical thank offering to God.

Page 64

In Ps. 118:27, near the close of a passage which clearly relates to the New Testament age, the command is expressed, “Bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar;” yet we do not comply literally with this mandate.

When we sing the 122d Ps., we use these words, “Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O, Jerusalem.” When we sing these words, do we expect the issue, in a literal respect, which they express?

In Ps. 149:3, the direction is given, “Let them praise his name in the dance.” The Shakers comply with this literally. It is to be feared that too many comply literally with the call to dance. Not many, however, propose to praise God thereby. In passing, it may be mentioned that the word, “machol,” rendered dance here, is supposed by some to mean an instrument of music. The matter is hardly important enough for the object now in view to merit any special discussion, and I will content myself with saying that the very highest authorities, ancient and modern, in Hebrew literature, sustain the rendering in our version.

In verse 6 of the same psalm, it is said by way of indirect command to the saints, “Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand.” Must we then brandish a literal sword when engaged in singing the praises of God?

Is it not apparent, from these specimens of the phraseology of the Psalms, that no stress can be laid on the references which they contain to musical instruments, as an argument for the use of instruments now? By the same line of argument, the entire Levitical ritual might be proved worthy of imitation in our worship. This, indeed, is a consideration which lends a great degree of practical importance to the discussion in which we are now engaged. For it is hard to tell to what extremes ritualism may go, if once the principles of interpretation used to procure the admission of musical instruments into the church service be adopted.

4. In the offering of praise to God by lip and life, we carry into due effect the exhortations, commands and professions contained in the Psalms concerning the use of instruments. This is substantially the view taken of this matter by the entire ancient church. In the call made upon all men to praise God with instruments, there may be an intimation intended that the time was coming when all the people of God would be Levites, and the mode of worship by the mediation of human priests, or agents, should come to an end.

Harper II.17

CHAPTER XVII.

THE PRECEPTIVE THEORY EXAMINED—NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE—CONSIDERATION OF PSALLO CONCLUDED.

---

It may be said that the evidence adduced from the writings of the Fathers, as to the meaning of the word psallo, represents the state of the language at a date, 200 or 300 years later than the days of the apostles, and therefore does not avail

Page 59

for the interpretation of psallo in the New Testament. But on the other hand, let these considerations be allowed due weight:

First, This word is one which confessedly changed in meaning, going through several modifications, and appearing in a state of flux even within the limits of classical usage.

Second, Employed in the Septuagint to represent “zimmēr,” psallo must, nearly three centuries before our era, have been understood as possessing considerable latitude of meaning, for “zimmēr” seems to have been so used by the sacred writers. The Seventy may the more readily have accepted psallo, as the standing equivalent of “zimmēr,” because the former had been already associated, even in classical usage, with rites of worship. Those who were familiar with Hebrew would, in reading the Septuagint, be led to regard psallo, as meaning to praise or celebrate, and that with the voice alone, unless an instrument were named or manifestly implied in connection with it. The influence of the circulation of the Septuagint would be to accelerate and confirm the change of meaning in the case of psallo.

Third, With thorough knowledge of the classical meaning of psallo, and with the fact fully before them, that in the New Testament Christians are exhorted and directed to do what is implied in that word, the Fathers, whether Greek or Latin, never understood that instruments of music must be used in worship in order to compliance with those exhortations and directions. In connection with this let it be borne in mind, that the Eastern or Greek church, which might be presumed to know and feel the force of psallo, is, and always has been, utterly opposed to the use of musical instruments in worship.

Fourth, Those early Christian writers must have understood psallo, as used in the Epistles, to mean either simply to sing, or else to retain its later classical meaning, of singing with an instrumental accompaniment, but only in a figurative sense, just as the word sacrifice is often used in such a sense. Practically, however, the result is the same on either supposition.

Fifth, Had the view that psallo, as used in the apostolic precepts, does not require the use of musical instruments in worship, been an aftergrowth posterior to the apostolic age, we should have expected to find some tokens that it had taken shape, and gained acceptance only gradually; whereas the earlier Fathers, who touch upon the subject, are as definite and settled in this view as the later.

Sixth, If we assume that musical instruments were in use in the service of the early church, it will be difficult, if not impossible to account for the view taken by the Fathers of the directions given by Paul and James, in which the word psallo occurs, and if we suppose that they were not in use in those services, we cannot understand how this could be, unless the church regarded the directions in question as neither commanding, nor countenancing, the employment of instrumental music in worship.

The word psallo having been dwelt upon so long, the New Testament texts, in which it occurs, may be dismissed in a somewhat summary manner. One of these, as already mentioned, is 1 Cor. 14:15, where the apostle says, “What is it

Page 60

then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.” If the verb psallo means to sing and play, then in using it, as he does here, the apostle pledges himself to sing and play on an instrument to God. Must he not then have been an instrumental performer, seeing that he intimates his resolution to do whatever is meant by psallo, which is, according to the view we combat, to sing and play, not merely to sing while others play? I cannot help thinking with Dr. Hodge, that the apostle binds himself to no such performance, but to singing simply in the praise of God.

In Eph. 5:19, the Apostle directs us to do whatever is meant by “adontes kai psallontes.” In our version these words are rendered, “singing and making melody.” The Revised version leaves this unchanged. Even the Rheims version, produced by Romanists, translates the words under consideration thus: “Chanting and singing.” Against these renderings it is urged by the patrons of instrumental music that they are tautological, and that, if “adontes” be translated singing, “psallontes” must mean something different. But to this it may be replied that, even on the supposition of our opponents, there must be a measure of repetition; for they hold that psallo means to sing and play, nay, that singing is the principal element in the complex meaning of the word. Besides, in scripture, the use of various words in the same clause, to express and emphasize one idea, is not uncommon, as any one may see, who reads with care the 119th Psalm. Moreover, as the Apostle had just adverted to the Book of Psalms, as there is good reason to think, under the several name of psalms, hymns and songs, he here uses a variety of musical terms to enforce the one duty of using, in the way of song, the compositions named; the two participles which he employs being but echoes of two of the terms he had used to designate the psalms. In addition to all the considerations presented, let this be noted: that if the Apostle refers to instrumental music at all, he enjoins the use of it just as much as the use of singing, a conclusion from which most friends of instrumental music recoil.

As to Jas. 5:13, where the word rendered “let him sing psalms” is “psalleto,” it may be said that it contains not only a recommendation, but an injunction. If so, and if, moreover, psalleto means “sing with an instrument,” then it is the duty of every one who is merry or cheerful to play on an instrument of music, just as much as it is the duty of every one who is afflicted to pray. It is to be feared that but very few Christians, hitherto, have ever complied with the Apostolic injunction, so understood. The proper rendering of the word, I am persuaded, is that given in our authorized version. The feebler rendering in the Revised version, “Let him sing praise,” suits the purpose of our argument quite as well, although I prefer, in this case, the older version. It is a suggestive fact that, in all the New Testament, there is no express mention made of the use of any instrument in New Testament worship, unless it be in the symbolical book of Revelation. In one instance besides, Paul, by an incidental touch, suggests the vapidness of instrumental music, when he says, 1 Cor. 13:1,—“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.”

Page 61

The survey now taken of the passages in the New Testament, supposed by some to favor the use of instruments of music in the worship of the present age, warrants, as I judge, the conclusion that such passages have no such bearing, and therefore tends to prove that instrumental music was ceremonial.

Thus a series of considerations has been submitted, converging to the establishment of this proposition, that instrumental music in worship was ordained simply as a part of the ceremonial system; and as our discussion has been somewhat extended and intricate, I shall here recapitulate the considerations advanced. It has been urged that instrumental music is in keeping with the sensuousness and carnality of the ceremonial law; that it sustained a peculiarly close relation to the ritual of the Levitical worship; that it was not used in formal worship, unless at the tabernacle and temple; that, in consonance with the rigidity of the ceremonial law, particular instruments were specified, which, moreover, are lost, while no description of them has been given adequate to guide in reproducing them; and, finally, that in the New Testament the continuance of instrumental music in worship receives no countenance.

Harper II.16

Page 57

CHAPTER XVI.

THE PRECEPTIVE THEORY EXAMINED—NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE—MEANING OF THE WORD PSALLO.

---

What light is shed on the meaning of psallo by the preceding investigation of the meaning of “zimmēr?” This I think, that as “zimmēr” meant to praise or celebrate, without any necessary implication of instrumental music, so psallo, the Greek equivalent employed by the Seventy, must have been reckoned by them, as of like latitude of meaning, that is, as denoting to praise melodiously or rhythmically without involving necessarily the idea of instrumental music. When, moreover, this translation had been disseminated, it would aid in accelerating the transition already begun, in virtue of which, psallo drifted away from its earlier classical meaning.

Confirmation of the view that in the lapse of time, the instrumental suggestion involved in psallo faded away or receded to the back-ground, may be found in the writings of the Greek Fathers, who, though perfectly aware, as they often show, of the classical meaning of psallo, and aware too, that in the New Testament we are commanded to do whatever is meant by it, never used or favored the use of instruments in the worship of God.

Besides, in their writings, we meet with instances in which they use psallo to mean the act of singing simply. For example, Chrysostom, in a passage already quoted from his Commentary on Ps. 150, says, “For the eye praises, when it does not look unchastely, and the tongue when it sings.” (In Greek hotan psallē.) Here the tongue is represented as doing all that is meant by psallo.

Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus in Syria, who flourished about the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century, commenting on Eph. 5:19, says, “For he sings (psallei) with the heart, who not only moves the tongue, but also excites the mind to the understanding of those things which are uttered.” Here again, the only instrument named or apparently applied, is the tongue.

Similar language is used by Basil, the Great, in his Epistle to the clergy in Neo Cæsarea.

In the Fifteenth Canon of the Council of Laodicea, held probably about A. D. 364, psallo and its derivative psaltēs are used in the sense respectively of singing and singer.

In very many cases also, the Fathers, while distinctly recognizing the classical sense of psallo, yet undertake to show, in an allegorical way, that in praising God with the voice, or with the life, we perform fully what is meant by psallo. For example, Eusebius, commenting on Ps. 33:2, 3, where psallo occurs, uses this language, “He means instruments prescribed according to the first delivery of the law. Whoever preserves the inner as well as the outer senses pure and blameless, sings on a ten-stringed psaltery to God. ‘Sing ye to him a new song.’ An old song is sung with the ancient harp and psaltery, that is lifeless instruments, symbols and as it were images, in which the former people delighted. But a new song, grander and worthier of God, is uttered to him through the living harp and the devoted ten-stringed psaltery.” Again, expounding Ps. 66:2, he says, “Then

Page 58

secondly, he commands to sing (psallein) to his name, which is wont to be observed by us in all places.” Then he goes on to show that the command is obeyed by using the human body as an instrument by which to praise God. In their interpretations, Eusebius, and others of the Fathers, are often fanciful and self-contradictory. They appear thoroughly conscious of the classical meaning of the word psallo, yet labor to show that this might be adequately realized in the absence of all musical instruments. It is at least obvious that they would not have needed to resort, in their explanations of psallo, to far-fetched analogies, had instrumental music been used in the church in their day. If instruments had been employed, what need was there to resort in their interpretation of psallo to the analogies alluded to? If not employed, why not, seeing the word psallo, classically used, was so suggestive of musical instruments? It is worthy of notice also that the Eastern or Greek church, which might be presumed to know the force of psallo, is both theoretically and practically opposed to the use of instruments in worship.

The verb, psallo, was at an early date transferred to the Latin vocabulary. Andrews, in his “Latin Dictionary on the basis of Freund,” says that psallo means “in ecclesiastical Latin to sing the Psalms of David.” It is used by the leading Latin Fathers, in the sense of singing without any suggestion of instrumental music. Jerome, for instance, in his Commentary on Ephesians, remarks on Ch. 5, v. 19, “Et canere, igitur, et psallere, et laudare Dominum magis animo quam voce debemus; hoc est quippe quod dicitur, ‘Cantantes et psallentes in cordibus vestris Domino,’” that is, We ought to sing and make melody, and praise God rather with the mind than with the voice. This is of a truth what is said, Singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord. Mark that Jerome understood “mind and voice” as competent to do all that is denoted by psallo.

Isidore, of Seville, makes the following remark, “Primitiva, autem, ecclesia ita psallebat, ut modico flexu vocis faceret resonare psallentem, ita ut pronuntianti vicinior esset quam canenti,” which means, The primitive church so sung psalms as to cause the singer to sound with a slight modulation of voice, insomuch that he appeared more like one speaking than one singing.

It is not to be wondered at, whether we consider the usage of the Septuagint, or of the Greek Fathers and of the Latin Fathers as well, that Sophocles, in his “Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine period,” covering the state of the language from B. C. 146 to A. D. 1100, should have defined psallo as meaning “to chant or sing religious hymns.”

Harper II.15

Page 53

CHAPTER XV.

THE PRECEPTIVE THEORY EXAMINED—ARGUMENT AGAINST IT FROM THE SILENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT—MEANING OF PSALLO.

---

Two of the items of New Testament evidence, alleged to be favorable to the retention of instrumental music in worship, even after the abrogation of the Jewish ceremonies, having been examined, the third and last item must now be weighed. This, it will be remembered, turns on the meaning of the word psallo, which occurs in a few texts, having or supposed to have a bearing on the worship of the New Testament church. This verb occurs only five times in the Greek Testament, namely in Rom. 15:9; Eph. 5:19; Jas. 5:13, and twice in 1 Cor. 14:15. In the text named it is intimated that whatever is meant by this verb, might and should be done in worship during the New Testament times. But it is asserted that the word in question means to sing with an instrumental accompaniment, and hence it is contended that instrumental music should, or at least, may have a place in the worship of God now. It behooves us, therefore, to look carefully into a word supposed to be fraught with such a consequence. This verb is commonly supposed to be derived from “psao,” meaning to touch, and signified in successive stages of its history, to touch lightly and quickly, to twitch or twang, to play on a stringed instrument, to play on the harp as an accompaniment of singing, to sing, to sing to or in honor of any one, that is to praise in song. It would be easy to swell these pages by quoting definitions of the word from various authorities in lexicography, or interpretation; but I choose to forbear in this matter. This may be said, however, that while there is a general agreement that the word, at least in classical usage, involved the idea of playing on an instrument, particularly a stringed instrument, there are very many who maintain or admit that it came, in the lapse of time, to mean simply the act of singing. So strong is the evidence that the word at length lost the reference to instrumental music, and retained that of singing or praising, that Dr. Charles Hodge, though connected with a church which permits instrumental music in worship, frankly says, that in the New Testament psallo means, simply, to sing. See his commentary on 1st Cor. 14:15. It is worthy also of notice that in the English translations of the New Testament, which have been in use to any considerable extent, the word is always rendered to “sing,” not to “play and sing,” or “sing and play.” It is so in our authorized version. It is so in the recently issued Revised version. It was so in the earlier version, and even in the Rheims version, made by Roman Catholic scholars. In the version last named, the rendering in Eph. 5:19, is “chanting and singing,” instead of, “singing and making melody,” as given in our authorized version. There seems to have existed in the minds of the historic translators, the very idea for which we now argue, that in the apostolic age, psallo had lost its instrumental sense, and meant merely to sing or praise. If it had been the view of those men that an allusion to instrumental music is involved in the word, they could have found words in English to indicate that allusion. The fact that they resorted to

Page 54

no such means for exhibiting the alleged allusion shows that they did not believe it to exist. Even in Jas. 5:13, where the Revised version deviates from the authorized version, the change has not been made in favor of instrumental music, but rather the contrary, for instead of “let him sing psalms,” as it is in the old version, the New has, “let him sing praise.” How easy it would have been, when making a change at all, the propriety of which is very questionable, to have brought out the full force of the original, as some would have us understand it, by translating thus, “let him sing and play,” or, “let him sing praise with an instrumental accompaniment.”

There are reasons for thinking, that at the time when the New Testament was written, psallo had gradually lost its earlier reference to instruments and acquired the sense of singing simply, or of singing praise. Some reasons for so thinking are here subjoined.

(1.) Such a change is not at all antecedently improbable. Those, acquainted with the history of any language, can easily recall numerous instances of greater changes in the meaning of words, than we now suppose to have occurred in the case of psallo. For instance, our word, choir, which means a company of singers, comes from a Greek word, which denoted, first, a circle, then a circular dance or a circle of dancers, then a band of singers and dancers, and finally a band of singers without any reference to a dance. Out of a multitude of available illustrations of the mutability of words let the example now given, suffice.

(2.) It is admitted on all hands, that the word we are now considering, psallo, did manifest, in the course of its history, very considerable mutation. Meaning radically to touch gently, or twitch, it came to mean, to twang the bow-string in archery, to play on a stringed instrument with the fingers, with a plectrum or striking implement; then to sing and play. It is easy to see how a word, evincing such fluctuation in sense, could finally lose the signification of thrumming and playing altogether, and assume that of singing simply. The supposition we make, therefore, so far from being incredible, is not even improbable, nay, it might almost be said is rendered probable, by the variation confessedly traceable in the history of this word.

(3.) There is reason to think, that nearly three centuries before the birth of Christ, when the translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew into Greek, known as the Septuagint translation, was made, this word psallo was in a state of transition, the older sense of singing with an instrumental accompaniment not having entirely disappeared, though giving place rapidly to the sense of singing simply, or of praising in song. This assumption seems best of all to meet and explain all the facts in the use of psallo by the authors of that venerable translation, and by subsequent writers. Among the facts alluded to are these, that in the Septuagint, psallo is apt to be employed when instruments of music are named or suggested in the context; and that on the other hand, when no instrument is named or plainly suggested, it is used seemingly in the general sense of praising by song. One thing is obvious, that the Seventy considered psallo, as a proper equivalent of the Hebrew “zimmēr,” the Piel form of the verb “zamar.” Plainly,

Page 55

the authors of the Septuagint version, regarded psallo as the most exact rendering of “zimmēr,” although in one instance at least, they have used another verb, “hummed,” as the translation of “zimmēr.” Now some aid may be derived from “zimmēr” in determining the importance of psallo. If “zimmēr” can be proved to have had considerable latitude of meaning, the legitimate inference would be, that the Seventy used psallo with like latitude, its modal sense of singing with an instrument being little, if at all regarded.

Turning to zamar, which, in different modifications, occurs forty-eight times in the Hebrew scripture, forty-five of these being of the Piel form, we find much diversity of opinion as to the primary meaning of it. The older Hebraists recognized but one root of this form, and this they supposed primarily meant to cut. To this central meaning they were wont to trace the two uses or applications made of the word; one of these being to prune, in which it occurs thrice, namely, in Lev. 25:3, 4, where it is in the Kal species, and in Isa. 5:6, where it is in the Niphal species, and the other being to praise in song or in rhythmical language. But by what process of thought, could a word which originally meant to cut, come to bear significations so diverse as pruning and praising? Might it not have come thus:—To prune is to cut off, or remove redundancies, and to praise in song, especially in Hebrew, implies a process of cutting off, and the reduction of thought to certain measures and limits. Beza, Drusius, Leigh, Parkhurst and Lowth, are among the number of those who have expressly favored this view. In his “Preliminary Dissertations” to his Translation of Isaiah, Lowth, adverting to this point, says, “This peculiar conformation of sentences, short, concise, with frequent pauses and regular intervals, divided into pairs for the most part of corresponding lines, is the most evident characteristic now remaining of poetry among the Hebrews as distinguished from prose, and this, I suppose, is what is implied in the name ‘mizmor,’ which I understand to be the proper name for verse, that is for numerous, rhythmical, or metrical language.”

The opinion which now prevails among the best Hebrew scholars is that there are two distinct roots of the same form, zamar, one denoting to cut or prune, and the other to produce musical sounds. But it is a question still whether the sound primarily meant is that made by the human voice, or that produced on instrumental strings. Gesenius, a high authority, pronounces in favor of the latter view, and understands the Piel, zimmēr, to have meant primarily to play on a stringed instrument, and then to sing with an instrumental accompaniment.

Now, the judgment of Gesenius in such a question is entitled to great respect, but it is far from being final or conclusive. Hupfeld, hardly if at all inferior to Gesenius in Hebrew scholarship, regards humming or singing as the central and primary meaning of this word, while Fuerst, the peer at least of Gesenius in Oriental learning, and enjoying the advantage of that great scholar’s researches, holds that zamar meant originally to hum with the voice, to sing, and only from association of instrumental music with singing to have come by degrees to be suggestive of such music, but that in this last case it is attended by the name of the instrument with a connecting preposition.

Page 56

I believe that Fuerst’s view is substantially correct, and that zimmēr contains in itself no allusion to instrumental music; although being sometimes coupled with the name of an instrument, it may have become so far suggestive of an instrumental performance that the translators employed psallo nearly always as its equivalent.

As an acute writer, Rev. Robert Nevin, has observed, the word “play” in English does not suggest the production of instrumental music, unless an instrument is named, or is from the connection implied. “Will you play?” may mean “Will you play at billiards,” just as readily as, “Will you play on the piano?” the connection or circumstances determining in which of these senses, or in what other sense, the word, in any given case is to be taken. In like manner, the word zimmēr, while suggesting the idea of musical sounds or rhythmical modulations, does not of itself indicate that these are produced by, or in connection with an instrument. In order to present this idea the instrument must be named or plainly suggested in the context. There is no more reason for saying that zimmēr means to play on an instrument, because it is sometimes attended with the mention of instruments, then for saying that “halal” means this, for it, too, is often attended with similar mention. Yet who will say that “halal” means to make instrumental music, or to sing with such music? In Ps. 33:2, the Hebrew verb “yadhah,” is followed by a preposition which connects it with the name of an instrument, yet who will venture to affirm that “yadhah” means to produce instrumental music?

The generic meaning of zimmēr seems to be to celebrate or praise in a musical, or rhythmical way, without specifying whether with music, vocal or instrumental, or both combined, although vocal would be more readily understood, unless something external to the word indicated something else.

Guided by Fuerst’s Hebrew Concordance, I have examined every instance in which zimmēr occurs in the Old Testament, and have found that only in six instances, if I have computed aright, is an instrument named in connection with it; the connection being made by an intervening preposition. In eight instances it is connected directly with the name of God, the object of praise, and must mean to extol or celebrate. In these cases how grotesque would it sound were we to translate thus, “I will sing and play God!” Feeling this, the Septuagint translators have supplied a preposition equivalent to our word “to.” This, however, they have done unwarrantably, as the verb plainly means, to praise or laud. The verb is connected, by a preposition, with God, the object of praise, in twenty-two instances, an instrument being named in only five of those occurrences. In nearly all the other occurrences of the word, it either governs directly the word “name,” that is the name of God, or is connected with it by a preposition. Before passing from this point, it is but candid to state, that Delitzsch, an acknowledged authority in Hebrew learning, holds that zimmēr means to make music on stringed instruments, although, in his commentaries, he has not adhered to this rendering, which is one that would probably be as inconvenient to the advocates, as to the opponents of an organ in worship.

Harper II.14

CHAPTER XIV.

THE PRECEPTIVE THEORY EXAMINED—ARGUMENT AGAINST IT FROM THE SILENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

---

The ceremonial character of the instrumental music of the Jewish ritual is further indicated by the fact, as I take it to be, that the New Testament affords

Page 50

no countenance to the opinion that such music is to form a feature of New Testament worship. I do not press the point that for every part of lawful New Testament worship, there must be New Testament authority. That is a view of the question which will probably be presented before the close of this discussion. At present, it is proposed merely to show that the New Testament lends no support to the opinion that instrumental music belongs to the worship of the New Testament church, and to use this consideration as a proof in part that instrumental music as practised in the Old Testament worship belonged to the fleeting ceremonial system.

When we ask for any New Testament evidence that instrumental music belongs to the worship of the present dispensation, we are told in reply that for a time after the death of Christ, and even after the eventful day of Pentecost, the disciples attended the temple service which embraced instrumental music; that, moreover, in the Book of Revelation, John relates that in vision he saw the redeemed, or certain companies of them, equipped with harps while in the act of rendering praise to God; and, furthermore, that in certain texts describing or enjoining the service of formal praise a word, psallo, is used, which carries in it a suggestion of instrumental music.

These items of evidence must be noticed in detail.

In relation to the first of them, which alleges that, for a time, the professed friends of Christ, after his death, frequented the temple in which instrumental music in worship was practised, it is conceded to be correct; for we read in Acts 2:46, of their “continuing with one accord in the temple;” and are informed in Acts 3:1, 8, that Peter and John on a certain day “went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour,” and that in their company, the lame man whom Peter healed on that occasion, entered into the temple, “walking and leaping and praising God.” It would seem that at first the temple was resorted to for the purpose, chiefly perhaps, of rendering praise to God, but manifestly, also, with the view on the part of the christians, of meeting and conferring with each other in the spacious courts of that edifice; while soon the prominent aim in repairing to the temple seems to have been either to impart or to receive instruction in the gospel. That this last supposition is correct may be argued from Acts 5:12, 20, 21, 25, 42.

It is also to be borne in mind that for a season, many of the Jewish converts considered themselves even bound to observe circumcision and other rites of the Old Testament service, and felt strongly disposed to demand that all who should join them from the Gentile world must come under the same yoke, Acts. 21:20, 21, 26. For a time after the death of Christ, the separation between the temple and the church was not very complete, and even so long as the temple stood there may have been a measure of forbearance exercised toward those, who though followers of Christ, still fondly looked toward the long established services there maintained. The transition from the ancient service was made gradually in consideration of human weakness, so that the old saying is not an unapt description of the light in which the ceremonial law in its terminating stages may be viewed, “The law for a season was dying, then it was dead, and then deadly.”

Page 51

Hence, it would be unwise to argue that the temple service, which, for a time, may have had an attraction and been, in a measure, allowable for the members of the New Testament church was meant to be perpetuated in that church. If the argument under consideration would prove aught in favor of instrumental music, it would prove equally favorable to the retention of sacrifice and incense; that is to say, the argument would prove too much for those who advance it, and, therefore, it proves nothing to their purpose.

A question has been asked which may as well be answered at this point as at any other. It is this:—“Accustomed, as the Jews were, to instrumental music in the worship of the temple, how could they, on embracing Christ, have abandoned such music so quietly that no record comes to us of a struggle in its behalf?” The answer which this question, as put by the advocates of instruments, is deemed sufficient to elicit is, “Preposterous! Had they been required to surrender the music of instruments, they would have offered resistance so vigorous that a report of it would surely have reached us. Hence they, doubtless, retained the music when they relinquished the temple.”

Not to insist at present on the evidence which the history of the early church supplies in support of the view, that from apostolic days the worship of Christians was unmingled with music of instruments, it may be said that being accustomed to instrumental music as an element of worship in the temple only, the Jewish converts to Christ would no more expect its transfer to their meetings than they would expect the transfer of the practice of offering sacrifice and incense. And here it may be remarked that the entire silence of the New Testament and of the records which come down to us from the early church, as to any dispute about instrumental music, is a formidable fact in the way of those who desire to persuade us that in the time of the apostles, the christian church used in its services instruments of music. For if such music had been in the temple only, and not in the synagogue also, how could it have been brought into the New Testament Church without a struggle? And if it had been in both synagogue and temple, how could it have been excluded from the christian assemblies without our hearing of a struggle in the case? The only view which comports with the facts of history, is that instrumental music was regarded as an element of temple worship; no more to be transferred to the services of the New Testament church, than sacrifice itself. On this supposition all is plain. On any other all is mystery, or contradiction.

Turning to the second item of evidence put forward to prove that the New Testament sanctions the use of instruments in the worship of New Testament times, namely, that John in vision, as recorded in Rev. 5:8, 9; 14:1–3; 15:2, 3, saw certain companies of the redeemed having harps, while engaged in praising God, to this, I would say in general that it appears far from forcible. It is a matter of dispute whether those particular visions relate to the redeemed in heaven, or to the saints on earth. If to the former, the instances adduced are aside from the question, which pertains to the worship of the church on earth. If to the latter, the question arises, How far are the visions to be regarded as exhibiting New

Page 52

Testament worshippers in imagery drawn from the Old Testament? It is to be remembered that the book of Revelation is thoroughly pervaded by allusions to Old Testament institutions and customs. For we read in it of a temple, of censers, of incense, of a Lamb slain, of priestly robes, and of palms in the hands. Is it any wonder then that we should read in it of harps in connection with worship? If the representations of John touching the worship of the redeemed must be taken literally, we must suppose that worshippers now should be clad in white vestments, and have palms as well as harps in their hands. Nay, if exact conformity must be secured, each worshipper must have a harp, or, at least, an instrument of music; for in chapter 5:8, the four living creatures and the four and twenty elders, are expressly described as having each of them, a harp in his hand; while in chapter 15:2, those who stood on the sea of glass, victors over the beast, had harps of God, each of them seemingly being furnished with that instrument. Moreover, in the former of the two passages, just referred to, those spoken of as having harps, are described also as having golden vials, full of odors, which vials with their contents, we are distinctly informed, were, that is symbolized, “the prayers of saints.” Does it not seem entirely natural then to understand the harps as symbolizing the energetic praises of the saints? And to the cavil, that the singing of the new song must, on the same principle, be taken as symbolical, it may be answered that the whole scene, depicted in those visions, is symbolical in a general way of all the homage in thought, word, and deed accruing to God from his redeemed people, without being meant to set forth the precise forms in which this homage should be rendered. The apostle, familiar with the Old Testament order and stately service, has the future revealed to him under Old Testament forms.

It is, at the same time, not a little singular that in none of these apocalyptic passages is it stated, that any music was produced upon the harps, which John saw. The worshippers held harps in their hands, but are not said to have played on them, although they engaged in singing. Even in chapter 14:2, according to the most approved reading, it is not stated, that any instrumental music mingled with the song of the redeemed. The Revised version is here, I have no doubt, correct, in which the words, “And the voice which I heard was as the voice of harpers harping with their harps,” are substituted for these words of the authorized version, “And I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps.” Just as the sound which John heard is said to have been as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder, although not actually produced by a rush of waters, or a flash of lightning, so it might be as the voice of harps, without being actually the product of the harp. May not the harps which in two of the passages under consideration, John says he saw in the hands of worshippers, have been simply, though unused, symbols signifying that the singers were all like the priests, or the Levites of the former dispensation, permitted to come near to God, and abide in his courts giving him praise?

Harper II.13

CHAPTER XIII.

THE PRECEPTIVE THEORY EXAMINED—ARGUMENT AGAINST IT FROM THE SPECIFICATION OF PARTICULAR INSTRUMENTS.

---

(4.) Another indication converging in common with the three already presented, to the conclusion that the instrumental element in Jewish worship was ceremonial and temporary, is, that the specific instruments to be used were prescribed by God; that, moreover, these have been lost; and that no description of them has been given sufficient to enable us to construct exactly the like.

The musical instruments intended for use in the tabernacle and temple were prepared at least in part by David, and doubtless prescribed by him under divine guidance. We know that the pattern of the temple and of all the utensils connected with it was by David, under the immediate inspiration of the Spirit, furnished to Solomon, as an authoritative guide to him in the great work to which he was called, for we read thus in 1 Chron. 28:11–13: “Then David gave to Solomon, his son, the pattern of the porch, and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, and of the upper chambers thereof, and of the inner parlors thereof, and of the place of the mercy seat, and the pattern of all that he had by the Spirit, of the courts of the house of the Lord, and of all the chambers round about, of the treasuries of the house of God, and of the treasuries of the dedicated things: also for the courses of the priests and the Levites, and for all the work of the service of the house of the Lord, and for all the vessels of service in the house of the Lord.” It may, in passing be noticed that “kele,” the word rendered “vessels” in the last clause of the foregoing quotation, might be rendered “instru-

Page 46

ments,” and that it is so rendered in the next verse. After an enumeration of the various items provided for in the pattern, it is added (v. 19), “All this, said David, the Lord made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the work of this pattern.”

Whether the musical instruments had already been prepared and brought into use or not, it can hardly be questioned that no less than other vessels of service, they were embraced in the model or plan divinely given for the guidance of Solomon touching the house of God and all its appointments.

Let it be noted, also, that certain instruments for musical purposes were expressly prescribed by God through David, together with the prophets, Gad and Nathan, 2 Chron. 29:25. The instruments so appointed are called “the instruments of David,” in 2 Chron. 29:26, 27; Neh. 12:36, partly to indicate that he prepared, or at least prescribed them, and partly, perhaps, to distinguish them from the priestly trumpets which had been prepared and appointed by Moses. They are, however, also designated, “musical instruments of God” (1 Chron. 16:42), in token of the fact that they were, by his appointment, employed in his worship, and not used in that service simply because they were then in fashion.

Let it be further observed that the direction to use instrumental music in worship, was coupled with, or conveyed in, a direction to use certain specified instruments. The precept did not run on this wise, “Use musical instruments in praising God;” but on this wise, “Praise God with certain instruments named.”

In consonance with all this is the fact that in a time of revival, nearly 300 years after the rearing of the temple, Hezekiah, in restoring the service of song, was careful to provide that precisely the instruments ordained by David should be used in producing the instrumental part of that service. This we learn from 2 Chron. 29:25–27, “And he set the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps according to the command of David, and of Gad, the King’s seer, and Nathan, the prophet: for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets. And the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord began also with the trumpets, and with the instruments ordained by David, King of Israel.”

In the time of Ezra, also still later, at the laying of the foundation of the second temple, the ordinance of David in respect to instruments was observed, and probably was observed in full, although only the trumpets and cymbals are mentioned expressly; the latter being, probably, for brevity, named as a specimen merely of the instruments used by the ordinary Levites. Later still, even at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah, the very same ordinance, not only in respect to instrumental music, but also in respect to the very instruments used, seems to have been carefully observed; for, in Neh. 12:27, it is said, “And at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem, they sought the Levites out of all their places to bring them to Jerusalem, to keep the dedication with

Page 47

gladness, both with thanksgivings and with singing, with cymbals, psalteries and with harps,” and in v. 36, it is expressly stated that certain persons whose names are mentioned took part in the service of the day, “with the musical instruments of David, the man of God.”

Now, all this particularity as to the use of certain instruments savors of the rigor of ceremonialism, and forms an indication that the instrumental music appointed for the temple service belonged to that system of rites and ceremonies which was marked by rigidity and minuteness of regulations, and was meant to pass away at the completion of the sacrificial work of Christ. Besides, those who plead for the use of instruments in New Testament worship under cover of the command of God to use them in the temple, are bound to accept the command in its breadth, or in its narrowness, and that was a command not to use any instruments which the worshippers might prefer, or fashion might dictate, but to use certain instruments specified by divine authority. If others are used, they must be introduced on authority as valid as was the harp, the cymbal or the trumpet.

Are our musical enthusiasts prepared to accept the command as issued? If so, they must sedulously strive to have the very instruments which received divine sanction; not contenting themselves even with only one of the sorts prescribed, but seeking to keep in its integrity and fulness the precept under which they profess to act. To say the least, the fulness of the temple orchestra ought to be the goal toward which they should press, the model which they should closely copy. This should be deemed the ideal toward the realization of which the church should now strive. What right have we to interpret the command to use certain kinds of instruments as equivalent to a command to use any kind of instruments? To say the least, what right have we to omit the instruments expressly mentioned, even if it be granted that some others might be joined with them? It is under the plea of a command to use not one kind, but several kinds of instruments and these kinds, moreover, particularly named, that we are asked now to establish instrumental music in our churches. Those who advance the plea are bound in consistency to press on till they shall have brought the church to recognize the duty of conducting its worship with the music, not merely of one instrument, but of several instruments, at least as many and as nearly as possible the same in kind, as those appointed by the commandment of David, of Gad, and of Nathan. Nothing short of an orchestra, or a band of musicians, duly equipped with prescribed instruments, will satisfy the requirements of the plea, under which the patrons of instrumental music think they can march to victory.

But just at this point, we remember that the reproduction of the same kinds of instruments which were authorized by David, would demand greater antiquarian lore than the world at present possesses. Who can now tell precisely what the instruments were which David prescribed? We may guess what they were, but with respect to some of them at least we can do nothing more. God has not furnished us with a detailed description of them to guide us in any attempt to frame the like; nor has he preserved any of them to be a model for our imitation. And this very circumstance that the instruments have not been preserved, and more-

Page 48

over cannot be reproduced with any certainty, would seem to be an indication that God meant that those appliances should find no place in our worship.

If the pitiable evasion should be resorted to, as indeed it has been by some, that, according to the line of argument now adopted, we ought to use the very tunes or chants with which the songs of Zion were sung in the temple, I would answer, that it is not said in the Bible that God prescribed the very tunes or musical notes to be employed in the service of song. The style of music seems to have been left to be regulated by taste, subject, however, to the general directions given in the word, touching the sobriety and solemnity of feeling appropriate to worship; whereas the instruments to be employed were specifically named and provided. True indeed, there are certain inscriptions prefixed to particular psalms, which are supposed by some to indicate the tunes to which those psalms respectively were to be sung; but let it be duly noted that the divine origin of the inscriptions in question is by no means certain; that it is a very conjectural matter, moreover, whether certain terms that do occur in those inscriptions, are the names of tunes; that not all of the psalms have inscriptions; and that of all the inscriptions prefixed there are only a very few that can with any show of reason be regarded as indicating tunes. On the other hand, outside the book of Psalms, and in passages universally admitted by Christians to be canonical scripture, explicit directions are given as to the instruments to be used; while at long intervals of Old Testament history, the literally binding character of those directions is recognized and declared by the church, under the guidance of inspired men. Had God meant that the selection of instruments should be regulated by the same principles as that of the tunes, would he not have left the matter of instruments as indefinite as he did the matter of tunes? He prescribed the very instruments to be used. He did not prescribe the very tunes to be used, but left the selection of them to be made by the discretion of the church, subject to the general regulations laid down in scripture touching his worship. The fact that the tunes or system of chanting used in the temple cannot be now definitely ascertained, is no sign that God meant singing or chanting to cease in the church at the close of the Old Testament dispensation, for he never appointed any particular tunes or chants, though he did appoint singing or chanting; but the fact that the particular musical instruments appointed for use in the temple cannot now be determined is a sign that God meant the use of musical instruments to cease in the church at the close of the old dispensation, for he did prescribe not instrumental music in general to be used in the temple, but the use of specified instruments.

When thus pressed, those who clamor for instrumental music in worship have sometimes said, that we may deviate from fixed arrangements in worship, and, while observing the spirit of those arrangements, adapt ourselves to the varying tastes of different ages and countries, and the advances made in art and culture. We can understand this kind of reasoning, or rather of assertion in the mouth of one who believes that we may now devise our own modes of worshipping God. In his mouth it would have a measure of consistency and we would

Page 49

answer him, as we have done, by vindicating the true law of worship. But at least one writer, who professes firm adherence to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, puts forward the same sentiment and adduces the matter of foot-washing, performed and, in some sense, inculcated by the Saviour, as an instance in which, while we should follow the spirit, we may deviate from the external form of the observance. His reasoning virtually is this, that just as we may duly copy the example set us by Christ, and the instructions given by him in connection with the example, without literally engaging in the operation of washing the feet of the brethren; so we may adequately obey a command to use certain instruments by using some instrument, or instruments, not named in the specification. But is this writer prepared to maintain, that foot-washing was ordained by Christ to be observed as literally in the church as the use of certain instruments was ordained for the temple service? If I understood Christ to have ordained that the observance of foot-washing be maintained in the church, then I would literally observe it. But, for reasons which I cannot now pause to present, I do not believe, nor does the writer alluded to believe, that he ordained such an observance; his purpose being, to teach by his example, in an emblematic way, a great lesson. On the other hand, God of old enjoined the use of specific instruments in his worship, and for centuries, we know, he was understood by the Israelites to have done so. We have on the one side an emblematic lesson; on the other an ordinance of worship definitely prescribed. Because we may be said to obey the emblematic lesson, though we never literally wash the saints’ feet, it does not follow that we properly obey the command to use certain musical instruments, unless we do actually use them. The cases are not parallel; for the spirit is all that is required in the one, whereas in the other, the outward form, as well as the spirit, is obligatory. It may be added that if the example of Christ in the matter of foot-washing, may be duly honored by compliance with the spirit of his direction, then, if the cases are parallel, the precept to use instruments can be sufficiently obeyed by our exercising the spirit of that service without any instruments at all.

A quibble drawn from the primitive practice known as the kiss of charity, may be disposed of in substantially the same way as that drawn from the operation of foot-washing.

On the whole, the position taken seems valid, that the appointment of specific instruments of music for use in the temple, the loss of those instruments, and the lack of any definite instructions to guide in constructing them, are circumstances which point to the conclusion that the instrumental feature of the ancient worship was ceremonial and temporary in design.