Instrumental Music in the Worship.

CHAPTER I.
Preliminary Considerations.

Before entering directly into an examination of the main question claiming attention on this occasion,^[1] I wish to present, first of all, a brief historic outline which, it is hoped, will prepare us for a better appreciation of all the facts, pro and con, which are involved in the discussion. It would not be practical, nor is it necessary here, to elaborate, in detail, all the statements in such an outline, but it is deemed sufficient, for all essential purposes, merely to note, such preliminaries as will properly present and enable [2] us to see, in a clearer light, the real merits of the question before us. Hence, while the following pages are occupied, in a large measure, with facts and principles relating to the history and meaning of a single word, yet we deem it proper, before entering directly upon the main line of argument, to invite attention to the following facts:

I. There is not a solitary mention of instrumental music in the worship of any New Testament Church, nor in any instance of Christian worship throughout the Apostolic age.

Now, if there were no other proof in connection with the whole controversy, this fact of itself, so far as the wish to occupy infallibly safe ground is concerned, would be entirely sufficient for all thoughtful and unbiased minds.

II. Its first appearance in history in Christian worship was about the sixth century, A.D., the exact date of its introduction varying in different localities and according to different authorities, but there, was no general attempt to introduce it till after the eighth century.

It should be noted here that the claim has been set up by some authorities in modern times that it was used in the worship, though with opposition, as early as the close of the second century; but if this claim should ever become authenticated, the opposition which it is alleged to have encountered would be a strong point against the lawfulness of the practice. The authority sometimes claimed in support of its [3] early use is Clement of Alexandria, whose case the reader will find carefully examined in Chapter XII. of this work.

III. Infant baptism, the substitution of pouring and sprinkling for immersion, the burning of incense, and auricular confession, were all introduced before instrumental music, and by the same authority.

None of these innovations upon the divine order was ever introduced until the church set out upon the reckless career of adopting practices in religion at the mere dictate of human wisdom. The great danger at this point was anticipated by divine wisdom, and many solemn warnings were placed on record against it.^[2]

IV. From the very earliest introduction of this practice, it excited strenuous and prolonged opposition.

This fact is abundantly set forth in Bingham's Antiquities, in many of the Church Histories, and in the standard encyclopedias. Their testimony, as it bears upon different phases of the subject, will be cited in its proper place.

V. The New Testament terms which describe and enjoin the element of music in Christian worship.

Confining our statement to the terms which specifically indicate music, these are the verbs ado (αδω), [4] humneo ('υμνεω), and psallo (ψαλλω) and their cognate nouns ode (ωδη), hymnos ('υμνος), and psalmos (ψαλμος). There has never been any controversy over the kind of music, in general, indicated by the first two of these verbs and their nouns, nor, indeed, has there been any, until recent years, over the meaning of psallo (ψαλλω) and its noun; but, all other efforts failing to discover a basis of divine authority for instrumental music in Christian worship, some of its advocates in modern times have alleged, as a dernier ressort, that the term psallo (ψαλλω), as used in the New Testament, involves the use of an instrumental accompaniment, and that, therefore, the practice rests upon divine authority. The argument based upon this allegation is not only sometimes made with apparent fairness and with some degree of force, but it often appears plausible and in some instances conclusive. It is, therefore, worthy of careful examination and consideration. Moreover, the bare fact that the classical meaning of psallo (ψαλλω), at some periods of its history, involves instrumental music, together with the widespread tendency to a confusion of the classical with the New Testament meaning, furnishes an additional reason for meeting such apologists on their own chosen ground.

On this account, it is now proposed to subject this claim and the reasoning based on it, to a fair and legitimate, but rigid and crucial test by a direct appeal to the facts of philology and of history. It is the purpose to present a careful induction of all the [5] facts in the case which modern scholarship has brought to light, and to weigh impartially the evidence on both sides of the question. In the whole field of argumentation covered by the various and multifarious discussions of this question for more than a quarter of a century, nothing has appeared which, in the present writer's judgment, contains a more deceptive and misleading fallacy than that which lurks in the argument based on this modern claim concerning the term psallo (ψαλλω), and it is now proposed to present, from different fields of evidence, an array of facts which, it is devoutly believed, will thoroughly and successfully expose the fallacy to all unprejudiced minds competent to judge of such matters. While it is the aim to conduct the investigation, in the main, in the form of an inquiry into the history and meaning of psallo (ψαλλω), other features of the controversy will be duly considered, and it is confidently believed that the induction of testimony presented in this volume, from numerous and various sources, is sufficiently ample and strong to satisfy the most rigid demands of all candid, thoughtful, and unbiased minds. In the meantime, my readers are respectfully invited to examine the evidence for themselves, and to render their own verdict in the case.