CHAPTER XII.
The Claim Concerning Clement and Ambrose.

Among the various resorts of modern apologists for instrumental music in the worship, is the claim that it was so used in the fourth century by the celebrated Ambrose of Milan, and even as early as the close of the second century by Clement of Alexandria. This claim is put forth in the effort to break, or at least modify, the force of the position that instrumental music was never used in Christian worship till about the sixth or the seventh century, and that there was no general use of it till several hundred years after that time.

Be it remembered, first of all, that even were this claim established by clear and indisputable facts, it would prove nothing at all, so far as divine authority is concerned, which is the point at issue. It would only prove that this innovation was introduced at an earlier date than is usually assigned to it; only this, and nothing more. In fact, so far as the real issue is concerned, whether it was introduced by Ambrose in the fourth century or by Clement in the second century; or, indeed, whether it was introduced in the first century or the twentieth century, makes no difference whatever in principle, so long [119] as it remains a fact that it was introduced after the days of Inspiration. If the practice is shown to be without divine authority, then the only point which its opponents are under logical obligation to prove is fully established, no matter when nor by whom it was introduced.

But, the use which has been made of this claim both in books and in periodical literature in recent years has led the present author to make a careful examination of the subject of music as treated in the literature of the early centuries; and he has been unable to find anything whatever which can be relied on as proof that either Ambrose or Clement ever said or did anything that justifies the claim in question. In fact, there is ground for serious doubt, as we shall see, whether Clement ever used the language which has been attributed to him, and the writers who have made the claim concerning Ambrose have failed, as far as we have been able to see, to produce any proof of their claim.

It is the purpose in the present chapter, to present the facts in the case, and then submit the question to the candid decision of the reader.

1. The Claim as to Ambrose.

This celebrated church "father" and Bishop of the cathedral church of Milan, who was born A.D. 340, and died A.D. 397, was a great musician, the so-called "Ambrosian chant" being named in his honor. Now, it is not only claimed that he used instrumental [120] music in the worship, but the claim is sometimes accompanied with the assumption that its use, even at that early period, was looked upon as a mere matter of course and met with no opposition. While, of course, the mere fact that a given fact is not mentioned by reliable historians in connection with Ambrose is not proof that he did not teach it, still it creates a presumption in favor of the position that he did not, and the burden of proof rests upon those who set up the claim that he did. Now, in the present case, we merely contend that the evidence that he did so teach is not conclusive.

We now invite attention to the facts in the case. Sir John Hawkins, an author whom we have quoted elsewhere in this work, and who lived no farther back than the eighteenth century, is the authority that is relied on as proof of the aforesaid claim. We already have his admission (See Chap. XIV., page 151 of this work) that in the primitive church, when the worship was under the supervision and guidance of inspired men, only vocal music was used in the praise of God. Remember, too, as just stated, that Sir John Hawkins lived no farther back than the eighteenth century. To be exact, he was born in London, England, and lived from 1719 to 1789 after the use of instrumental music in the worship, with many other perversions of the ancient order, had become general. Moreover, he threw himself, with all the strength he could command, on the side of those favoring the practice, and he would not likely [121] omit, from his general history of music, any available proof that would, in his judgment, sustain that side of the question; yet the following is the sum of his testimony on this point:

Though it is uncontroverted that Vitalianus introduced the organ into the service of the Romish church, yet the use of instruments in churches was much earlier; for we are told that St. Ambrose joined instruments of music with the public service in the cathedral church of Milan, which example of his was so approved of, that by degrees it became the general practice of other churches, and has since obtained in almost all the Christian world besides. Nay, the antiquity of instrumental church music is still higher, if we may credit the testimony of Justin Martyr and Eusebius, the latter of whom lived fifty, and the former two hundred years before the time of St. Ambrose.--General History of Music, Vol. I., p. 147.

But, "we are told" by whom? Not a word of proof is adduced. So far as the author has been able to ascertain, not a single quotation is made. We simply have the mere and unsupported statement of Sir John Hawkins who, though he no doubt made the statement honestly, nevertheless had no record, it seems, to which he could appeal as proof of his assertion. Moreover, when he adds that "the antiquity of" this practice "is still higher, if we may credit the testimony of Justin Martyr and Eusebius," why did he not quote their "testimony" to that effect, if they left any such testimony on record?

Since reading this assertion from Sir John Hawkins [122] in his General History of Music, and examining every place in that large work in which, as it appears to us, he would likely quote such testimony from these authors, and failing to find a single quotation from them in support of his assertion, the author, simply to test its correctness and get at the facts, has taken the pains to read carefully every line of the undisputed works of Justin Martyr, his "First Apology," his "Second Apology," and his "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew," and there is not a solitary word of such "testimony" anywhere in these works. Moreover, during the same time and for the same purpose, the author has read every line of the ten Books of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, the work in which he would most likely record such "testimony," if he recorded it anywhere at all, and not a line of such "testimony" does this famous work contain. We simply add that, if these men left on record a single word favoring the use of instrumental music in Christian worship, we have so far been unable to find it. But this is not all. If they left on record any such "testimony" as Sir John Hawkins intimates, then not only has the present author, but the world's historians, encyclopedists, and annotators of every class have failed to discover it. With all due respect, therefore, to his learning in the musical lore of the ages, we believe Sir John Hawkins' statement is founded in a misconception of facts.

But how shall we account for such a statement from a reputable writer? On the ground of tradition [123] and rumor. On the hypothesis that there was such a tradition and rumor current at the time, it is easy to see how even a reputable writer, as eager to uphold instrumental music in the worship as Sir John Hawkins is known to have been, would seize the opportunity to bolster the practice by saying "we are told that St. Ambrose joined instruments of music with the public service," and in so saying he would tell the truth. Moreover, as already conceded, we cannot know, so far as the present author has seen anything to the contrary is concerned, that Ambrose did not do what is alleged of him. There were other equally gross departures from the primitive order that are known to have been adopted even before that time, such as infant baptism, and pouring and sprinkling for baptism. The McClintock and Strong Cyclopedia not only speaks, in general terms, of "heresy largely pervading the church and making rapid headway" at that very time, but it specifies "the appointment of singers as a distinct class of officers in the church" with "the consequent introduction of profane music;" and why should not instrumental music have been introduced if the carnal wishes of the people called for it? In view of such facts and tendencies at the time, it would certainly not be a matter of surprise if it were discovered that instrumental music had also been introduced. We only make the point here that the evidence thus far adduced in support of the claim is not only not conclusive, but points decidedly to the conclusion [124] that Ambrose, at any rate, never introduced it. In fact, the McClintock and Strong Cyclopedia says:

Neither Ambrose, nor Basil, nor Chrysostom in the noble encomiums which they severally pronounced upon music, make any mention of instrumental music.--Vol. VI., p. 759, Art. Music.

2. The Claim as to Clement.

Before presenting the body of the text from Clement containing the famous passage in dispute, we here quote the opening sentence of the passage separately for examination upon its own merits. The following is the original of this sentence: Καν προς κιθαραν εθελησης η λυραν αδειν τε και ψαλλειν, μωμος ουκ εστιν. It may be rendered as follows: And if you wish to sing and make melody to the harp and the lyre, there is no blame.

Now, with no other light on the case except that thrown on it by these bare words themselves, we submit that it would be utterly impossible to tell whether the author of the passage meant that these instruments might be used by Christians in the worship of God, or as a mere entertainment outside of that worship. The passage itself does not specify either, while the context is decidedly in favor of the latter view. In fact, there is much in the context that is wholly out of harmony with the view that he meant the worship of God; and this position is so well sustained by the entire drift of thought in Clement that [125] Joseph Bingham, the eminent author of "Antiquities of the Christian Church," unhesitatingly says:

He speaks not of what was then in use in Christian churches, but of what might lawfully be used by any private Christians, if they were disposed to use it; which rather argues that instrumental music, the lute and the harp, of which he speaks, was not in use in the public churches.--Antiq. of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, p. 485.

But this is not all. The utterances of Clement both in the context and elsewhere are so clear, outspoken, and strong against the use of such instruments in any kind of temperate feast or assembly, that some eminent scholars are pronounced in the conviction that the passage now under review is, beyond all doubt, an interpolation. Johann Caspar Suicer, a noted Latin writer of the seventeenth century, who is the author of a Theological Thesaurus in two large quarto volumes, is very positive in his advocacy of this position. After calling attention to the place in Clement up to which the language, in his judgment, is genuine, he describes what follows as unquestionably an interpolation, using the strong and significant word, "assumentum," which means one thing sewed on to another, and may be well rendered by the word "patch." He says it is "diametrically opposed to the foregoing." "Neither," he adds, "do I see with what reason they are joined to the preceding by καν." Then, after pointing out, in the alleged spurious passage, "a most irrelevant [126] question and one worthy only of a Cabalist," he says: "It is foreign also to the piety of Clement that the σκολιον instituted for drinking companies, to be sung in the convivial feasts of the Gentiles, is said to have been made 'Εβραικων κατα εικονα ψαλμων. As if he [Clement] did not know that Psalms, not 'wine songs,' i. e. convivial songs, as the σκολια are, although they [i. e. Psalms] were recited at the close of the Supper, Matt. 26: 30,--I say that so great a profanation of the Psalms is most severely condemned by God in the third [commandment] of the Decalogue and Amos 5: 23; 6: 5, 6." Continuing his argument further on, he adds: "In order, then, that we may expedite the matter at last: That whole chapter of Clement seems to be ended with Ουτος 'ημων 'ο κωμος 'ο ευχαριστος." Then, after citing certain incongruous and hence evidently spurious expressions, he asks: "By what reason would he, from the example of the Greeks, teach that the singing is to be done to the lyre? For in other parts everywhere he rejects [disapproves] that kind of voluptuous music, and the psaltery of David he adapts [accommodates] to us allegorically." In confirmation of this statement, he makes certain quotations from Clement, among which is the following from Book VI. of his "Stromata:" "Superfluous music is to be rejected, because it breaks and variously affects the mind, so that sometimes it is indeed mournful, sometimes unchaste and inciting to licentiousness, sometimes frenzied and insane." Then, from Book II. of his "Paedagogos:" [127] "These instruments are to be banished from sober [temperate] feasts, which are suitable rather for beasts than for men, and for those men who are estranged from reason." After submitting a number of such statements from Clement, all of which are incongruous with the idea that he favored instrumental music in Christian worship, Suicer draws this pointed conclusion: "Nothing therefore has Clement written which would favor organs and their present-day use even the least, yea directly the contrary."--Suicer's Thesaurus, Vol. 2, p. 502.

In confirmation of the reasonableness of the view advocated in the foregoing,--at any rate, to show that Clement did not teach the use of instrumental music in Christian worship, we now reproduce the entire chapter in which the disputed passage or alleged interpolation occurs. It is Chapter IV. of Book II. in the work of Clement entitled "Paedagogos," or "The Instructor." We submit the English translation given in Volume II. of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers," under the editorship of Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson and styled the "American Reprint of the Edinburgh Edition." On pages 248 and 249 of this work, under the heading, "How to Conduct Ourselves at Feasts," the chapter in question appears in full, and is as follows:

Let revelry keep away from our rational entertainments, and foolish vigils, too, that revel in intemperance. For revelry is an inebriate pipe, the chain of an amatory bridge, that is, of sorrow. And [128] let love, and intoxication, and senseless passions, be removed from our choir. Burlesque singing is the boon companion of drunkenness. A night spent over drink invites drunkenness, rouses lust, and is audacious in deeds of shame. For if people occupy their time with pipes, and psalteries, and choirs, and dances, and Egyptian clapping of hands, and such disorderly frivolities, they become quite immodest and intractable, beat on cymbals and drums, and make a noise on instruments of delusion; for plainly such a banquet, as seems to me, is a theater of drunkenness. For the apostle decrees that, "putting off the works of darkness, we should put on the armor of light, walking honestly as in the day, not spending our time in rioting and drunkenness, in chambering and wantonness." Let the pipe be resigned to the shepherds, and the flute to the superstitious who are engrossed in idolatry. For, in truth, such instruments are to be banished from the temperate banquet being more suitable to beasts than men, and the more irrational portion of mankind. For we have heard of stags being charmed by the pipe, and seduced by music into the toils when hunted by huntsmen. And when mares are being covered, a tune is played on the flute--a nuptial song, as it were. And every improper sight and sound, to speak in a word, and every shameful sensation of licentiousness--which, in truth, is privation of the sensation--must by all means be excluded; and we must be on our guard against whatever pleasure titillates eye and ear, and effeminates. For the various spells of the broken strains and plaintive numbers of the Carian muse corrupt men's morals, drawing to perturbation of mind by the licentious and mischievous art of music.

The Spirit, distinguishing from such revelry the divine service, sings, "Praise Him with the 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 the cymbal of the mouth, which resounds with the pulsation of the lips. Therefore He cried to humanity, "Let every breath praise the Lord," because He cares for every breathing thing which He hath made. For man is truly a pacific instrument; while other instruments, if you investigate, you will find to be warlike, inflaming to lust, or kindling up amours, or rousing wrath. In their wars, therefore, the Etruscans use the trumpet, the Arcadians the pipe, the Sicilians the pectides, the Cretans the lyre, the Lacedaemonians the flute, the Thracians the horn, the Egyptians the drum, and the Arabians the cymbal. The one instrument of peace, the word alone by which we honor God, is what we employ. We no longer employ the ancient psaltery and trumpet, and timbrel, and flute, which those expert in war and contemners of the fear of God were wont to make use of also in the choruses at their festive assemblies; that by such strains they might raise their dejected minds.

But let our genial feeling in drinking be twofold, [130] in accordance with the law. For, "if thou shalt love the Lord thy God" and then "thy neighbor," let its first manifestation be toward God in thanksgiving and psalmody, and the second toward our neighbor in decorous fellowship. For says the apostle, "Let the word of the Lord dwell in you richly." And this word suits and conforms himself to seasons, to persons, to places. In the present instance He is a guest with us. For the apostle adds, "Teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your heart to God." And again, "Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and His Father." This is our thankful revelry. And even if you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no blame.^[11] Thou shalt imitate the righteous Hebrew king in his thanksgiving to God. "Rejoice in the Lord, ye righteous; praise is comely to the upright," says the prophecy. "Confess to the Lord on the harp; play to Him on the psaltery of ten strings. Sing to Him a new song." And does not the ten-stringed psaltery indicate the word Jesus who is manifested by the element of the decad?^[12] And as it is befitting, before partaking of food, that we should bless the Creator of all; so also in drinking it is suitable to praise Him on partaking of His creatures. For the psalm is a melodious and sober blessing. The apostle calls the psalm "a spiritual song."

Finally, before partaking of sleep, it is a sacred duty to give thanks to God, having enjoyed His grace [131] and love, and so go straight to sleep. "And confess to Him in songs of the lips," he says, "because in His command all His good pleasure is done, and there is no deficiency in His salvation." Further among the ancient Greeks, in their banquets over the brimming cups, a song was sung called a skolion, after the manner of the Hebrew psalms, all together raising the pean with the voice, and sometimes also taking turns in the song while they drank healths round; while those that were more musical than the rest sang to the lyre. But let amatory songs be banished far away, and let our songs be hymns to God. "Let them praise," it is said, "His name in the dance, and let them play to Him on the timbrel and psaltery." And what is the choir which plays? The Spirit will show thee: "Let His praise be in the congregation (church) of the saints; let them be joyful in their King." And again He adds, "The Lord will take pleasure in His people." For temperate harmonies are to be admitted; but we are to banish as far as possible from our robust mind those liquid harmonies, which, through pernicious arts in the modulation of tones, train to effeminacy and scurrility. But grave and modest strains say farewell to the turbulence of drunkenness. Chromatic harmonies are therefore to be abandoned to immodest revels, and to florid and meretricious music.

Now, without entering into the merits of Suicer's arguments in proof that the passage is spurious, or those of Bingham in proof that it does not refer to worship, I here submit a collation of facts from that part of the chapter which is unquestionably genuine and which show, beyond all cavil, that Clement [132] either did not intend, by the passage in dispute or by any other statement, to countenance the use of instrumental music in Christian worship, or he positively contradicts himself one or the other. That he did oppose, in strong and unmistakable terms, such use of instrumental music, may be clearly seen from the following facts, which my readers can verify for themselves by looking carefully over the chapter quoted:

1. Such instruments as the pipe and flute are "more suitable to beasts than men," are incompatible with "the temperate banquet," and are, therefore, "to be banished from" such assemblies.

2. He refers to such music as "licentious and mischievous" and advocates its exclusion from temperate feasts on the ground that Christians should guard against whatever pleasure titillates eye and ear."

3. Although he quotes David's command to praise the Lord with the trumpet, the psaltery, the lyre, the timbrel and dance, chords and organ, and clashing cymbals, yet he immediately follows it with a symbolic explanation of the whole thing by saying that, with Christians, "the tongue is the psaltery of the Lord," "the mouth" is "the lyre," praising on "the timbrel and dance refers to the church meditating on the resurrection of the dead," and the human "body" is the "organ" and its "nerves are the strings."

4. After saying that "man is truly a pacific instrument," [133] he says "other instruments, if you investigate, you will find to be warlike, inflaming to lust," and he then mentions the different kinds of instruments employed by the warlike nations among the ancients.

5. Then, in contrast with this variety of carnal instruments used by different belligerent nations, he not only says that "the word alone" is "the one instrument of peace" by which Christians "honor God," but he specifically declares that they "no longer employ the ancient psaltery, and trumpet, and timbrel, and flute" which "contemners of the fear of God were wont to make use of."

Now, in view of such an array of incontrovertible facts, let us ask, in all sincerity, would any rational and pious mind utter such statements as the foregoing, and then teach, in the same breath, that men may, with propriety, use instrumental music in the worship of God? All right reason refuses to believe it. Moreover, even if it be admitted that the alleged spurious passage was written by Clement, it is still a fact that, while, in it, he is represented as saying "play to Him on the psaltery of ten strings," yet, in the very same connection, he is represented as giving it all a symbolic turn by asking: "Does not the ten-stringed psaltery indicate the word Jesus?" In the language of A. Cleveland Coxe, author of Notes on Clement of Alexandria, who, commenting on the opening sentence of the passage in dispute, says: "Here instrumental music is allowed, though he [134] turns everything into a type." But, in view of all his utterances, both figurative and unfigurative, it is simply impossible to interpret Clement in support of instrumental music in Christian worship without involving him in unaccountable self-contradiction. No man, with the intelligence, learning and piety for which the eminent Alexandrian was noted, and at whose feet the learned and renowned Origen once sat as a pupil, would be guilty of such gross inconsistency and absurdity.

We conclude, therefore, and with good reason, that those who resort to Ambrose and Clement for support of the practice in question are leaning on a broken stick.