CHAPTER XV.
Testimony of Leading Scholars Connected with the Religious Restoration of the Nineteenth Century.

In all the literature produced by the inaugurators and propagators of the religious Restoration of the nineteenth century, which originated with Barton W. Stone and the two Campbells--Thomas and Alexander, no fact, perhaps, stands out with greater prominence or clearness than the distinction definitely drawn by them between faith and opinion. They drew the line broad and deep, and then insisted, with great earnestness and emphasis, that this line must be constantly and strictly observed by all who would restore the ancient order in doctrine and in life. Moreover, they insisted, with equal earnestness and emphasis, that all matters on the side of opinion, except such as are "indispensably necessary to the observance of Divine ordinances," must be held as "private property" without ever "publishing or practicing" them "so as to give offense" to others.

Now, if it be possible to settle any fact by clear, explicit, and positive statement repeated over and over again, then these two facts are clearly and [199] incontrovertibly settled. Furthermore, so far as the first of these facts is concerned, viz., that the reformers referred to divided matters pertaining to religion into these two classes--matters of opinion and matters of faith--there is practically universal agreement to-day; but with reference to the second fact, viz., that opinions must be held as "private property" to the full extent of never "publishing or practicing" them "so as to give offense" to others, or in any way cause trouble in the church, there has been a growing tendency for a long time, and it is still spreading and strengthening itself, to ignore this fundamental point in the plea of the reformers, and to represent them as occupying a position in regard to this matter which they never occupied. Touching the matters belonging on the opinion side of the line, we are told that the "fathers" of this Restoration contended for the "largest liberty;" that in matters of faith they were unyielding, but in matters of opinion they allowed the largest liberty. Thus far, we here freely admit, the representation of the "fathers" is correct. They did allow the largest liberty in the mere matter of holding opinions; but just here is the point at which the mistake and the misrepresentation begin. While the "fathers" allowed the largest liberty in holding opinions, they not only did not teach that the mere liberty to hold an opinion carried with it the liberty to teach or practice it, but they taught, in the clearest and strongest terms, the very opposite of this, [200] and insisted that in all cases, opinions, with the one exception before noted, must be held in "private" without ever "publishing or practicing" them "so as to give offense" to others or cause strife and division in the church.

Hence, with all due respect to those who have given, and are still giving, impetus to this tendency, we here unhesitatingly affirm that whoever urges, or in any way countenances, the practice of an opinion in a church in a case in which, like the use of instrumental music in the worship, a part of the membership are opposed to the practice and have to refrain from it in order to preserve a pure conscience, violates the plea of the "fathers" by making the identical use of opinion which they prohibited in the strongest possible terms.

In order that we may set this matter in its true light, we now appeal directly to the "fathers" of this Restoration themselves, that the reader may see, from their own words, both their theory and their practice on matters of opinion in religion.

I. Theory of the "Fathers" on Opinions.

1. Barton Warren Stone. We place this amiable and illustrious man at the head of the list because, both in priority of time and in the formidable and embarrassing opposition which he encountered and overcame, if not in intellectuality and breadth of learning, he is indeed, if not the first (primus inter pares) at least among the first reformers of the [201] nineteenth century. He was sixteen years the senior of Alexander Campbell, and the great plea for the union of Christians upon the Bible alone was in full blast in parts of Kentucky under the leadership of Barton W. Stone when Alexander Campbell was a youth of seventeen years assisting his father in the work of teaching in the academy at Rich Hill, Ireland. In an Address "To the Church Scattered throughout America," in an admirable passage on union in which he shows how opinions must be kept in private and never made the occasion of contention and division among brethren, this pious reformer said:

We may be so captivated by the doctrines, forms, popularity, and respectability of the sects around us that we may try to accommodate the truth of God to their prejudices, in order to gain their favor, and eventually to enlist them on our side, and join in our mighty union. Such union is no better than, if as good as, that of the Romanists, who are exceedingly jealous for union. A union of ten pious, uncompromising persons in the truth, is better than ten thousand of the contrary character. Truth must never be sacrificed for the union of numbers. Truth preached and lived in the spirit will cut its way through all opposition. But what is truth? The Bible, and the Bible alone--not opinions which men have formed of the Bible, whether comprised in a confession of faith, a Christian system, or in thirty-nine articles, or in a discipline. Our union first commenced on this ground, and sectarianism first received its deadly wound from this weapon, and by [202] no other will it die the death, if its death is to be effected by moral means. If we begin to magnify our opinions, and make them tests of fellowship, we depart from the foundation laid in Zion, and shall be under the necessity of becoming a sect by forming a book of opinions as our creed and demanding a subscription to it as the basis of union.--Pioneer Sermons and Addresses, pp. 150, 151.

Of this pious reformer and his plea for Christian union, his gifted biographer, John Rogers, says:

Of all the subjects relating to the interests of the church of God, that of the union of Christians on Heaven's own terms, was dearest and nearest to the heart of the pious Stone. Most sincerely, most industriously, most consistently, and most successfully did he advocate this doctrine for forty years.--Biography of B. W. Stone, p. 317.

2. Thomas and Alexander Campbell. That the reader may see the position held and advocated by these two great reformers, we here introduce some passages from the famous "Declaration and Address:"

(1) Our differences, at most, are about the things in which the Kingdom of God does not consist, that is, about matters of private opinion or human invention. What a pity that the Kingdom of God should be divided about such things! Who, then, would not be the first among us to give up human inventions in the worship of God, and to cease from imposing his private opinions upon his brethren, that our breaches might thus be healed?

(2) Nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith, nor required of them as terms of communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the word of God.

(3) If any circumstantials indisputably necessary to the observance of Divine ordinances be not found upon the page of express revelation, such, and such only, as are absolutely necessary for this purpose should be adopted under the title of human expedients,... so that any subsequent alteration or difference in the observance of these things might produce no contention nor division in the church.

(4) We dare not, therefore, patronize the rejection of God's dear children because they may not be able to see alike in matters of human inference--of private opinion; and such we esteem all things not expressly revealed and enjoined in the word of God.

(5) According to the principle adopted, we can neither take offense at our brother for his private opinions, if he be content to hold them as such, nor yet offend him with ours, if he do not usurp the place of lawgiver; and even suppose he should, in this case we judge him, not for his opinions, but for his presumption.

(6) No man can relinquish his opinions or practices till once convinced that they are wrong; and this he may not be immediately, even supposing they were so. One thing, however, he may do: when not bound by an express command, he need not impose them upon others, by anywise requiring their approbation; and when this is done, the things, to them, are as good as dead, yea, as good as buried, too, being thus removed out of the way.

(7) And here let it be noted, that it is not the renunciation of an opinion or practice as sinful that [204] is proposed or intended, but merely a cessation from the publishing or practicing it, so as to give offense; a thing men are in the habit of doing every day for their private comfort or secular emolument, where the advantage is of infinitely less importance. Neither is there here any clashing of duties, as if to forbear was a sin and also to practice was sin; the thing to be forborne being a matter of private opinion, which, though not expressly forbidden, yet are we by no means expressly commanded to practice; whereas we are expressly commanded to endeavor to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.--Memoirs of Thomas Campbell, pp. 39, 48, 49, 52, 64, 66, 68, 69, 70.

3. J. T. Johnson. In a letter to Alexander Campbell concerning the union of the so-called Reformers and Christians led, respectively, by Campbell and Stone, this eminent evangelist makes the following observation on opinions:

The union was based upon the Bible and the terms therein contained--a union of brethren who were contending for the facts, truths, commands, and promises as set forth in the divinely inspired record, the Bible alone; with the express understanding that opinions and speculations were private property--no part of the faith delivered to the saints, and that such matters should never be debated to the annoyance and to the disturbance of the peace and harmony of the brotherhood.--Biography of B. W. Stone, p. 346.

4. John Smith. In an "Address" concerning this same union, which had been effected between [205] the Christians and the Reformers, written mainly because of certain misapprehensions entertained by the latter, this venerable preacher who blazed much of the way for Reformation in his day, makes this pointed and interesting statement on our theme:

It may be asked, if the people called Christians, who have ceased to speculate upon the character of Christ, have given up their Unitarian opinions? And may it not as well be asked, have they who speculate upon the character of Christ before they become Reformers, given up their Trinitarian opinions? To both these questions I would answer, I do not know, neither do I care. We should always allow to others that which we claim for ourselves--the right of private judgment. If either Christians or Reformers have erroneous opinions, they never can injure any person, provided we all have prudence enough to keep them to ourselves. Neither will they injure us if we continue to believe the Gospel facts and obey the law of the King. If all who profess to be teachers of the Christian religion would keep their opinions to themselves; teach the Gospel facts, and urge the people to obey them, the world would soon be delivered from the wretched, distracting, and destructive influences of mystical preaching.--Life of Elder John Smith, p. 468.

5. President James Shannon. This distinguished and scholarly man, who was President of the College of Louisiana in 1838, testifies as follows:

I have never yet found a single advocate of human creeds (not even the most talented) who did not [206] confound faith with opinion, although the two ideas are as perfectly distinct from each other as horse and house.... Faith consists in receiving testimony as true, and is but one degree removed from the certainty of knowledge.... Opinion, on the other hand, is merely an inference which the mind draws from premises that are at best but probable. In our opinions, therefore, there is room for every possible degree of uncertainty and liability to error.... To have made agreement in opinions a bond of Union among Christians would have rendered that Union impossible, and would inevitably have rent the body of Christ into as many factions and sects as are the diversified opinions to which minds equally honest and independent may be led by the investigation of the same subjects.... But, says one, it is unreasonable to expect that men would give up their opinions; and consequently they cannot unite in one body. This is a genuine sophism. It takes it for granted that Christians cannot unite without abandoning their opinions; whereas nothing more is necessary than that they should not impose them on others as a condition of membership.--The Christian Preacher, July, 1838.

6. Tolbert Fanning. This intellectual giant among those pleading for reformation and union, says:

Our great and distinguished men, long since, lost all hope of unity in opinion, and hence, they abandoned religious opinions and soon reached the conclusion that all "who believe, through the words of the Spirit, are one in faith." Never, till we can [207] satisfy the world that there is but one faith, and that it comes through the hearing of the word of God, can we make ourselves very successful in turning men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God. All men, however, who look up to God through the same medium can but see eye to eye and speak the same things. If we differ, then, it is because of ignorance of the truth. This rule is universal in its application. Let us endeavor to adhere to it in all our investigations.--Gospel Advocate, November 19, 1868, p. 2012.

The list of witnesses on this particular phase of the subject might be extended, but these are sufficient for our present purpose. Summing up the testimony of these distinguished men, we find that the "fathers" accepted the following items as settled facts:

1. That, in order to stop strife and division in the church, every Christian ought to be willing "to give up ... his private opinions" to the extent of ceasing "from imposing" them upon others.

2. That, in observing divine ordinances, no "human expedient" should be adopted except such as will "produce no contention nor division in the church."

3. The right to have different opinions is clearly guaranteed to Christians in the word of God, and we must, therefore, not reject any of God's children merely because they do not "see alike in matters of ... private opinion. "

4. If our brother "be content to hold" his opinions [208] in "private" on any subject, we cannot take offense at him, nor can we offend him with ours.

5. "One thing, however," we must guard, namely, "when not bound by an express command," we must not impose our opinions "upon others," and then such opinions, so far as other persons are concerned, are as good as dead and buried, "being thus removed out of the way."

6. "It is not the renunciation of an opinion or practice as sinful that is proposed, but merely a cessation from publishing or practicing it so as to give offense."

7. Finally, all opinions, the advocacy or practice of which is attended with strife and division among brethren, must be held in private, not on the ground that they are "expressly forbidden," but on the ground that we are not only not "commanded to practice" them, but "we are expressly commanded to endeavor to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

Now, in the light of these seven facts, who cannot see that the "fathers," although freely and explicitly allowing to Christians the right to hold opinions on any subject, and even different and conflicting opinions on the same subject, yet they taught, in the clearest and most explicit terms, that all opinions, whose practice brings strife and division, must be held in private? The case is too clear to admit of doubt, and we are content to leave it to the decision of candid and unbiased readers.

II. Practice of the "Fathers" on Opinions.

We are now prepared to see whether the "fathers" carried out in practice what we have seen they so clearly taught in theory. To reduce our investigation to something tangible, did their practice on the mooted question of instrumental music in the worship harmonize with their general theory about opinions in religion? It is universally conceded--at least the concession is so nearly universal as to make it unnecessary to mention exceptions--that this practice rests exclusively on human opinion, and not on any "Thus saith the Lord" making it obligatory upon the churches. Now, in view of this concession, and in view of the fact that the practice has been attended with strife and division from its very first introduction by the Romish hierarchy down to this hour, did the "fathers" of this Restoration movement refrain from this practice in order that they might stand on common ground and thus preserve peace and harmony in the church? We now propose to show that they did, and that the leading scholars among their successors, both the dead and the living, have taught the same thing.

The reader should remember that in the early days of the Restoration, the brethren everywhere were so thoroughly united against this and all other divisive opinions in religion, that it scarcely ever came up for debate, or even for reference; and hence, although their uniform practice everywhere, without [210] exception, was against it, yet they seldom had occasion to express themselves on the subject, which accounts for the fact that, from some of them, we have no expression at all. However, those who did express themselves leave no room for doubt that they all stood as a solid unit against the practice. We now call upon this distinguished roll of reformers with their associates and successors to speak for themselves:

1. Alexander Campbell. This great scholar and reformer, who justly stands at the head of this list, says:

To those who have no real devotion or spirituality in them, and whose animal nature flags under the oppression of church service, I think that instrumental music would be not only a desideratum, but an essential prerequisite to fire up their souls to even animal devotion. But I presume to all spiritually-minded Christians, such aids would be as a cow bell in a concert.--Memoirs of A. Campbell, p. 366.

2. Samuel Rogers. This great servant of God, who was only one year the junior of Alexander Campbell, describing the pioneer times, says:

It must be remembered that almost every convert we made in those days was required to pray, not only at home, but in the church also; and all who had voices to sing, sung with the spirit; whether with the understanding or not, I will not venture to say. We [211] had no choirs then to do the singing for the congregation, and we certainly had no organs--not even a tuning fork.--Autobiography, p. 71.

9. Thomas M. Allen. That the reader may know something of the high character of this eminent man of God, we add here, before submitting his testimony, the following estimate of his talents and standing as found in the Autobiography of Samuel Rogers:

T. M. Allen was Missouri's model evangelist and pioneer preacher. Having talents of a high order, a liberal education, refined manners, and a commanding appearance, with the Gospel at his tongue's end, it is not strange that he became at once the model and teacher of so many young men of that region. I have heard it said that he could put more Bible truth into a single sermon than any man west of the Mississippi.--P. 187.

This gifted gospel preacher, writing after the spirit of innovation had already entered the Reformation and begun, on a small scale, its deadly work, says:

Since I have been writing these numbers I have been thrown back to the early days of my ministerial career. It has given me great pleasure to mingle in memory with the noble sisters and brethren who then bore such a noble part in this glorious movement. They who live now know but little of the difficulties we had to meet and overcome. They now have their fine meetinghouses. We had the courthouse, [212] private residences, and groves to worship in and under. We had but few friends, and were opposed by all religionists. We are now strong, and the unprejudiced mind has decreed in our favor. We succeeded by the truth, the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ, and after having triumphed by its power, what a burning shame it is that some of our congregations have made shipwreck of faith and apostatized by aping the sects, and going into the embrace of the mother of harlots by substituting organ-grinding for the worship of God, which must be in spirit and truth. * * * I thank the Lord that none of the congregations that I was instrumental in organizing have become organ-grinders.--Apostolic Times, March 10, 1870, p. 377.

4. Robert Milligan. This truly great and learned man, who was not only a man of profound and varied scholarship, but who was probably one of the most distinguished examples of personal piety and goodness that ever lived, has already been quoted at length in this work in Chapter XIV. The reader is referred to the list of commentators quoted in that Chapter where, with other good things on the subject from this pious and learned man, will be found his declaration that the use of instrumental music in Christian worship "is wholly unwarranted by anything that is either said or taught in the New Testament."

5. Philip S. Fall. From this veteran pioneer preacher and teacher, we have the following strong testimony. Writing on the significant subject, "An [213] Organ in Every Congregation of Our Lord Jesus Christ," he says:

"No man cometh unto the Father but by--that is through, me." A mediator, then, is a sine qua non to any approach to God; and he that comes must have made that mediator his mediator by accepting him as Lord and Christ, and putting him on. "Through him let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is the fruit of our lips, which make confession to his name." * * * "I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the congregation will I sing praises unto thee." Psa. 22: 22; Heb. 2: 12. Here is a prophecy, uttered a thousand years before the Pentecost of A.D. 30, in which the Christ, by the mouth of David, represents himself as really taking part in the worship of his brethren; that is, of such as wear the name of their elder brother. Another remarkable passage teaches this also: "I will not drink, henceforth, of this fruit of the vine, until the day when I drink it new with you in mv Father's kingdom." * * * That there is divine authority for congregational singing as an act of worship, is, in certain quarters, denied. In others, public prayer is said to be forbidden. Soon, it is to be feared, nothing will be demanded of us by our king: all will be "just as you like it." The body might as well be headless. Singing the praises of the God of love is called "a freewill offering," as though all worship did not flow from hearts enjoying the liberty wherewith the Son of God has made his brethren free; thankful that he has taught them how to pray acceptably and on what manner they may otherwise join him in glorifying his Father. If our Lord thought proper, at the request [214] of the disciples, to dictate the "manner" of their prayers, and to make a special revelation to Paul that he might regulate the manner and the spirit of the commemorative feast, is it unreasonable that, in regard to all acts of worship, he should express his will? To some, this may be "legalistic," not, however, to those who, constrained by the love of Christ, rejoice that they are under law to him, and are free from themselves. * * * May I ask especial attention to the following "laws" for the government of congregational intercourse with God, and with each other? Col. 3: 16. 1. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly." 2. "In all wisdom teach and admonish one another." 3. "In Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, sing with grace (gratitude) in your hearts to God." * * * Here, then, we are taught congregational singing. The being to whom it is addressed, the matter of which it is composed, and the state of heart in which this spiritual sacrifice is to be offered. We have also found in Psa. 22: 22, and Heb. 2: 12, that our Lord, the head of the body, the church, is in its midst, and actually unites with it in singing praises to his Father! That, as before said, all worship must, as it were, pass through him to the Father to be accepted! Is there not, then, an ORGAN, a medium through whom acceptable worship is conveyed to God in every assembly of the saints? The eye is the indispensable organ that conveys to the brain the impressions made on it by visible objects; and no man cometh to God as a sinner or as a worshiper but by his Son. In saying that there is actually in every church of Christ an organ already, I do not mean one of those windy things that make "the mother of abominations" laugh at our vulgar and [215] imbecile attempts at imitation; but a divine organ of communication between such as worship the Father in spirit and in truth, and the Father himself, in all those actions and spiritual states that are as sacrifices acceptable in and through his Son.--Gospel Advocate, December 29, 1886, p. 824.

6. Jacob Creath. From this stalwart defender of the faith, we have this pointed testimony:

We must speak where the Bible speaks, and we must respect the silence of the Bible, as well as what it says, says Thomas Campbell. You have only to do this one thing, and this war of words closes forever on my part. Here I rest the controversy until you produce the apostolic example or precept for your conventions. Your conventions stand upon precisely the same footing that the one now in session in Rome does--that sects, creeds, infant-sprinkling, organ-grinding in churches, "Pastor" over "Elders" and churches stand upon, that is, as you candidly acknowledge, on the "Infer." As another advocate for all these innovations says, "They are not specially forbidden nor commanded." Neither is Romanism nor Mohammedanism. * * * Our periodicals are filled with discussions of untaught questions about organs, Missionary Societies, of which the Scriptures say no more than they do of infant rantism.--Gospel Advocate, 1870, pp. 566, 824.

7. Benjamin Franklin. We will now hear the testimony of one of the greatest and most successful preachers of the nineteenth century. After spending [216] about a half century in proclaiming the Gospel and turning thousands to the Lord, he wrote:

If any one had told us, forty years ago, that we would live to see the day when those professing to be Christians; who claim the Holy Scriptures as their only rule of faith and practice; those under the command, and who profess to appreciate the meaning of the command, to "observe all things whatever I have commanded you," would bring any instrument of music into a worshiping assembly, and use it there in worship, we should have repelled the idea as an idle dream. But this only shows how little we knew of what men would do; or how little we saw of the power of the adversary to subvert the purest principles, to deceive the hearts of the simple, to undermine the very foundation of all piety, and turn the very worship of God itself into an attraction for the people of the world, an entertainment, or amusement. * * * There would have been no conflict in the establishment of the kingdom of God, with Jews or Pagans, in bringing instrumental music in and utilizing it. The way was open, and it would have been one popular element. But did our Lord utilize it? No; he established his religion in a country where all worshipers, of all kinds, used instruments in worship, but left the instruments all out! He did not leave them out because there were not plenty of them, nor because he could not get them, nor because they were not popular; but because he did not want them. This is a divine prohibition. Neither he, nor any one of his apostles, ever used any instruments to enable them to sing; nor any one even professing to follow him, till the man of sin was fully developed, and there was a full-grown [217] pope. He is the gentleman to whom we are indebted for the use of the organ in worship. His fruitful mind caught the idea of utilizing the organ, and he took it from its more congenial place, in the theater, and consecrated it to divine service. * * * If it was death under the law given by the ministrations of angels, to offer strange fire on God's altar, what may we expect for him who shall tamper with the prescribed worship in the law given by the Son of God? If death was inflicted on Uzzah for violating the law, in touching the ark of God, what shall we expect to befall the man who shall tamper with the law prescribing the worship of God? * * * We have nothing but the common interest at stake in this matter. We cannot see an earthly interest to influence us in the course we are going. We know we are going against the current, against wind and tide; and it has been said that "he who spits against the wind spits in his own face." We are not blind to this; we know it. We know that it is not popular. We are perfectly aware that it is calling down on us the disfavor of many of the rich, the influential and popular; and that, on account of it, we are cut off from many amiable people, and cannot meet and worship with them. We are perfectly aware that it is against our temporal interests. We have not been, and are not, blind to all this, but have it before us, and have considered it carefully, and made up our mind to take all the consequences, and bear with meekness and patience whatever shall come. We do not court these consequences, nor desire them, but we see no way to avoid them, and maintain what we solemnly believe to be right. We, then, cheerfully accept the situation, and take the consequences, rather than give up the fullest, strongest [218] and most settled conviction of our inmost soul. We cannot worship, and maintain a good conscience, with the organ. We are certain that we can worship acceptably without the organ. The friends of the organ do not doubt this.--Gospel Preacher, Vol. II. pp. 411, 419-423.

8. David King. We now introduce a witness from the other side of the ocean. David King was one of the strongest advocates of the restoration of the ancient order ever produced in England, and it has been said of him, by the well informed in such matters, that he "was, for many years, to England what David Lipscomb has been to this country." This certainly identifies him with the defenders of New Testament order. The following is his testimony:

"The body," or substance, is of Christ, and when he came and filled to the full the types and shadows of the law, they passed away in their entirety, giving place to higher institutions, by means of which the worshipers could be made perfect, and not only so, but just in proportion as these abandoned shadows are intruded into the church and worship of God they become injurious and more or less substitutes for the realities of which, in their day and place, they were the proper types and symbols. Consequently, in setting in order, by the apostles, of the church of Christ, the temple and its worship were in no degree taken as models, and this is highly reasonable, inasmuch as the existence together of the type and the antitype would be completely inadmissible. Nothing could have been easier than for the apostles to have adopted priestly, or modified [219] priestly, vestments. There could have been no manner of difficulty in burning incense as an act of praise or worship. It cannot be supposed but that, long before the close of the apostolic ministry, they could have used and enjoined the use of instrumental music. But, no! Nothing of this sort; no trace even of a leaning, or of a desire, in that direction. The things of the shadows were done with, and those of the substance took their place.--The Ecclesiastical Observer, January 15, 1882, p. 16.

9. Moses E. Lard. This intellectual giant and eloquent preacher made such an impression soon after his graduation at Bethany that he was subsequently mentioned in the "Memoirs of A. Campbell" as at that early day "rapidly becoming one of the most distinguished writers and speakers in the cause" of reformation. He testifies as follows:

The question of instrumental music in the churches of Christ involves a great and sacred principle. But for this the subject is not worthy of one thought at the hands of the child of God. That principle is the right of men to introduce innovations into the prescribed worship of God. This right we utterly deny. The advocates of instrumental music affirm it. This makes the issue. As sure as the Bible is a divine book, we are right and they are wrong. Time and facts will prove the truth of this. The churches of Christ will be wrecked the day the adverse side triumphs; and I live in fear that it will do it. Our brethren are now freely introducing melodeons into their Sunday schools. This is but the first step to the act, I fear. As soon as the children [220] of these schools go into the church, in goes the instrument with them. Mark this.--Lard's Quarterly, October, 1867, p. 368.

10. Dr. H. Christopher. This cultured and scholarly man, in a vigorous and outspoken presentation of the subject, deposes as follows:

Did the Holy Spirit, then, ordain instrumental music in the church of Christ? Or did he leave it to human wisdom and prudence to determine what shall be the mode of worship so far as regards the singing? The last of these questions can never be answered in the affirmative. In the absence of certain facts, it might be inferred; in their light it may be safely denied. These facts will appear as we proceed.

The first question can be answered in the negative. Instrumental music was not used in the Jewish synagogue; and as the Christian church was modeled after it, it could not have been used in the apostolic church, unless specially ordained. The history of the church develops the fact that it was not used in any Christian assembly for several centuries after the death of the inspired men; consequently it was not ordained by the Holy Spirit in the apostolic church. * * * If, then, he did not ordain it in the church, what could have been the reason? If it were not an oversight, it must have been intentionally discarded. But it matters not with us what was the reason. We have the fact, and this, with Christians, should be all-sufficient. The fact, then, that the Holy Spirit did not, ordain instrumental music in the apostolic church is an argument conclusive that he did not design that it should be used. This [221] fact should be with us an end of all thought and desire on the subject. * * * As a people, therefore, pretending before the world to be laboring for the apostolic purity of the church; claiming to have condemned all the corruptions and innovations which now disfigure and defile the church, and who esteem it their honor and glory, as it is, that they have proposed a greater work than that of Luther; that they will be content with nothing less than the faith and practice of the apostolic church, such a people, I take it, cannot adopt such an innovation, condemned even by themselves up to the present day, and such an instrument of corrupting and secularizing the church, without blushing at their inconsistency--without being conscious that they have abandoned their original ground and trampled under foot the great principle on which they are proceeding. * * * We are compelled to discard this innovation on primitive practice, or give up all pretension and purpose of prosecuting any further the grand design of our reformatory movement. And if we have been right up to this time, to abandon this ground and principle would be nothing less than apostasy. To this dilemma are we driven by the most remorseless logic and by the highest considerations for honesty and consistency. * * * If this opposition came from ignorant and unreasonable men, the friends of the measure might be excused for any little restiveness or impatience they might manifest under this opposition. But I submit that the opposition is neither ignorant nor unreasonable. They have always been ready to give, and have repeatedly given, the reasons which compel them to resist the introduction of this innovation. * * * I cannot, therefore, see in all my horizon [222] one fact, argument, reason, or plea, that can justify us in using musical instruments in the worship of the church. It is an innovation on apostolic practice. This cannot be controverted. It is such an innovation, too, that prepares the way for other and equally destructive innovations. * * * Let us learn from the experience of others and be content with what God has ordained, and suffer instrumental music and all its concomitants to remain where they were born, amid the corruptions of an apostate church.--Lard's Quarterly, October, 1867, pp. 359, 360, 365-368.

11. W. K. Pendleton. This distinguished educator, at one time President of Bethany College, bears significant testimony on our theme:

With respect to instrumental music, I presume that no one at all acquainted with ecclesiastical history will pretend to claim for its introduction in the church any pretense of primitive authority or warrant. * * * I am satisfied that the tendency of instrumental music is to silence congregational singing;--to usurp the place of the melody of the heart, which we are commanded "to make,"--to prevent the "edification of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs," which is one of the social duties and privileges of the congregation, and to deliver over this part of the worship of the disciples into the artistic and often godless hands of mere amateur or hireling performers. This is the result of a careful and candid observation, for I have no prejudices against music. I love it with a love that passes expression. The grand tones of the organ lift my soul up with [223] a power ineffably sublime. But this is not the question. We have to inquire, what is the effect of these instruments upon congregational singing? The question is a broad and practical one, and I have no difficulty in deciding it.--Gospel Advocate, 1889, p. 67, and Millen. Har., 1868, pp. 555, 556.

12. Lanceford B. Wilkes. This amiable and unostentatious man, whose reputation as a finished scholar and logician was fixed by his great debate with Jacob Ditzler in Louisville, Ky., was a man of strong conviction and great force of character. Writing on our theme, he says:

I fix my eyes upon the organ at its introduction into the church by, not the Lord God Almighty, but by "the Lord God the Pope," and trace its history and effects as I see them affecting churches and members of churches down to the present time, and I am constrained to pronounce the tree bad. I speak of it not out of the church, but in it. * * * The testimony of leading men of all parties is against the instrument. Even the Catholic Church, in which the god of this world is embosomed and finds his utmost quiet, furnishes occasionally a man who, rising above the spirit of his party, condemns in severe terms the instrument in the church.--Apostolic Times, February 3, 1870, p. 342.

13. John F. Rowe. This veteran editor, though near the close of his life he indorsed the use of "a small organ" in the worship, had nevertheless previously borne this strong testimony:

There is just the same scriptural authority for the use of the organ in Christian worship as there is for the use of the mass, image worship, invocation of saints, purgatory, auricular confession, etc., in Christian worship. * * * A fearful responsibility rests upon those persons who have introduced the organ or other instruments into the spiritual worship of God. Some weak-minded people, vain and thoughtless, might be excused on the ground of ignorance; but what a terrible burden of responsibility must rest upon editors and pastors and preachers, who, knowing that the use of the organ and select choirs in the public worship is wholly unscriptural, and an invention borrowed from the carnal world, nevertheless encourage these innovations by their silent approbation, and never lift as much as the little finger of rebuke. Once we were a unit; now we are divided; who is responsible--good men or bad men, God or the devil?--History of Reformatory Movements, pp. 318, 322.

14. Isaac Errett. Although this distinguished editor and founder of the Christian Standard did not regard the use of instrumental music in Christian worship as wrong in itself, yet he cheerfully bore the following testimony concerning the practice:

The Standard regards it as an expedient, proposed to aid the church to perform, in an edifying way, the duty of singing; and advises against it as not necessary to that end, and as tending to create strife in many of our churches.--Life and Times of John F. Rowe, p. 107.

15. Leonard F. Bittle. This quiet and unassuming man was no less remarkable for his breadth and depth of learning than for his profound humility. By accurate scholarship and wide reading, he was well prepared to speak on the subject. He says:

The brethren whom the apostles addressed in their epistles were familiar with the Greek language, else Paul would not have written to them in this tongue. If we can find out how they understood his directions about singing, we shall know the current use of psallo in the primitive churches. Did the disciples of Ephesus, for instance, understand that the apostle commanded them to sing and play with the harp? or did they think be wanted them to sing without any instrumental accompaniment, and make melody with their hearts? Their uniform practice shows that they took his words in the latter sense. All reputable scholars agree that for the first three or four centuries if not for a much longer time no musical instruments were used in the churches, and that all the singing done in the worship was with the human voice alone. The use of instruments is an innovation of the Latin or Roman church, and it has been resisted by the Greek church until the present day.--Octographic Review.

16. Thomas Munnell. This is another one of the graduates of Bethany who subsequently distinguished himself as a close student and a man of eminent ability. He left on record the following wise words on our theme:

My hope and great desire is that brethren will not insist on organs in the churches, but consider the things which make for peace and edification. We can do well without the organ, but can do nothing without harmony and love among ourselves.--Life and Times of John F. Rowe, p. 112.

17. John Tomline Walsh. This prominent preacher of the "Old North State," writing on Humanisms in the Worship of God," says:

I designed saying something of worshiping God by instrumental music, but find my time and space will allow me only a word or two. If Christ has commanded us to worship in this way, or if the apostles and primitive Christians have set us the example of worshiping in this way, then it is right to do so; but if otherwise, we must not go beyond the word of the Lord. "Whatever you do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him." The Lord's day worship legitimately consists in--1. Reading the Scriptures. 2. Praise. 3. Prayer. 4. Partaking of the Lord's Supper, or breaking the loaf. 5. The Contribution or Fellowship. 6. The teaching. All these are parts of that spiritual worship which God requires at the hands of all His saints; and to omit any part is not to worship Him according to His word, or "in spirit and in truth."--Book of Sermons by J. T. Walsh, p. 254.

18. Dr. Robert Richardson. The distinguished author of the "Memoirs of A. Campbell" was made a member of the first Faculty of Bethany College [227] in 1841 and was a man of superior scholarship and ability. On the matter of maintaining the purity of the primitive faith and worship he was outspoken as will be seen from the following extract from his writings:

As it regards the use of musical instruments in church worship, the case is wholly different. This can never be a question of expediency, for the simple reason that there is no law prescribing or authorizing it. If it were anywhere said in the New Testament that Christians should use instruments, then it would become a question of expediency what kind of instrument was to be used, whether an organ or a melodeon, the "loud-sounding cymbals" or the "light guitar;" whether it should cost $50., or $500., or $1,000.; and what circumstances should regulate the performance. It happens, however, that this is nowhere said; and, consequently, no such questions of expediency can ever arise in a church that is truly and really governed by the law of the Lord.--Life and Times of John F. Rowe, p. 117.

19. F. G. Allen. This faithful preacher of the Gospel and skillful logician, founder and Editor of the "Old Path-Guide" and subsequently the Editor-in-chief of the Apostolic Guide, was a giant in debate and a strong advocate of the primitive order of worship. His editorial career was marked by many heroic efforts to defend the truth against the encroachments of error, and those who knew him well had no fears but that the cause of truth, in any [228] fair contest, would triumph in his hands. He deposes as follows:

I regard the use of the organ in the worship a violation of one of the fundamental principles of our plea for restoration and unity. We have ever claimed that our plea is catholic--that is, we hold as common ground that, and that only, which is conceded by all to be right. In restoring just what we find in the beginning in faith and practice, and refusing all else, we stand on undisputed ground. All partisan, disputed ground we have left to others. For instance, we immerse. All churches concede that to be baptism. It is not in debate. The controversy is all about sprinkling and pouring. That is partisan; immersion is catholic. The debate is not about what we do, but about what others do. The same is true in regard to the baptism of a penitent believer. All concede that to be right. The debate is all about the baptizing of those not believers. So of our creed, our names, our church polity, etc. All can stand where we do, for we stand on conceded ground; all cannot stand on any sectarian ground, for all cannot accept any denominational position. The grandeur and strength of this position have been the chief causes of our unprecedented growth. The world has seen and felt the advantage and self-evident correctness of this catholic position; but the introduction of the organ, since all cannot worship with it, is a violation of this grand principle. All can worship without it; all cannot worship with it. Therefore we can be united and harmonious without it; we cannot be harmonious and united with it. To introduce the organ to the destruction of our peace and unity is a complete renunciation, therefore, [229] of this principle of catholicity characterizing our plea for the union of God's people on God's word.--What Shall We Do About the Organ? pp. 12, 13.

20. Dr. Winthrop H. Hopson. This eloquent pulpit orator and defender of the ancient order says:

We take the Bible, and the Bible alone, for our rule of faith; "when that speaks, we speak, and when that is silent, we are silent." Leaving all human names, all human leaders, and all human authority in religion, we follow him who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." When we do this we are walking in the light, and have fellowship with God, with Christ, and with one another, and the "blood of Jesus Christ will cleanse us from all sin." How very important it is that every one should ascertain for himself where the light is and walk in it!--Sermons of Dr. W. H. Hopson, p. 24.

21. Professor Charles Louis Loos. In harmony with the special purpose in this chapter, we continue the same line of testimony by appealing to the utterances of scholars still living; and it cannot be amiss to place at the head of this list the veteran Professor Emeritus of Greek in Transylvania University, Lexington, Ky. He has given utterance to much vital truth on our theme, and we quote liberally from his pen. Writing years ago on "Art-History in Churches; or, Church Aesthetics in Music," he says:

A very eminent secular paper has the following scrap of current church history, that ought not to be lost: "Church Choirs in Commotion.--The church choirs in Rochester, in this State, are in trouble. The Union of that city says: 'Just now there is a commotion among the choirs of some of the city churches, which extends to the congregations, growing out of high bidding for leading singers--one church bidding over another. It is said that one Presbyterian church has offered a lady who sings in an Episcopal choir the sum of eight hundred dollars per annum to change her position. In another Episcopal church the choir is being reconstructed on a basis of expending some twelve hundred per year for music. In other churches there is uneasiness in the choirs, and all are looking for something better. The church that has the most popular choir draws the largest miscellaneous audiences. One of the large churches of this city for a time had an excellent choir. Then it was overcrowded, and pew-holders could not reach their seats, much less obtain them, for reason of the crowd of "run abouts" who thronged the aisles eager to hear the voluntary operatic anthem at the opening of the service. Since that choir dissolved and the prima donna went elsewhere, there is no difficulty in finding seats in the church.'" * * * The introduction of pure and high art into church worship by means of artificial machinery and its usual artistic acompaniments of operatic choirs, &c., &c., is advocated and justified on the grounds of expediency. Very well!--but remember, ye friends of policy and expediency, that antecedent reasoning, (though we feel able to meet the case even there) is not sufficient to settle such questions with us. It is the very nature of policy [231] and expediency to be tested by experience, and actual experience in such things is worth more than all the finished apologetic arguments in their behalf. * * * This is really not a matter of discussion, it is a notorious fact, and breaks to pieces by its force all the finely woven arguments we have heard in behalf of art-worship. At one of our churches we heard this story.--By captivating arguments from policy, expediency, &c., the church was induced to introduce instrumental music. It proved finally a source of great annoyance. Often outsiders, not even always religious in any sense, had to be got to play the instruments, and others also of a similar class to sing with it. This was offensive to the religious feelings of the church. Besides, such a clique around the instrument exhibited not much reverence during preaching, prayer, and singing. Experience finally showed the argument for the introduction of such a help to worship to be fallacious, and the novelty that had proved an offense was put away. * * * Moreover, do we not know what an unspeakable and coveted delight to the heart of the child of God this joining in the singing of praise is? How often have we seen the humble, pious Christian man or woman strive with happy, joyful heart to unite in the hymns of the church; how often have we heard this delight expressed. Who, then, will rob these Christian hearts of this joy?--who dare rob them of this right? Yet, who does not know that the direct tendency, practically,--and, we regret to say, often the direct object designedly,--of art-worship, is to take away this privilege and joy from the congregation? We are not to be charged here with advocating what is bad and unedifying in the singing of congregations. If there is improvement [232] needed, seek for it in another way; work well to improve the singing; improve and direct the living voices of the church,--and do not adopt a remedy worse in the end than the evil complained of itself.--But, before God and man, in its real good and final effects, better by far the humbler music of praise swelling up from the warm, earnest hearts consecrated to God, than the bewildering, heartless, aesthetic art-performances of organ and choir. God hears and accepts the one, as he hears and accepts the humblest prayer;--but he rejects the other, for it is a carnal offering to men's ears, and not to God. Think of it!--change the worship of God to an attraction for men's ears!--"pray to be heard of men" and sing to be heard of men! Sing, then, and perform sweet music for men, and give up the false pretense of making God the object. Tell men honestly that these musical church performances are, like the music on the balconies of museums, shows and theaters, to attract men, to invite patrons, and men will understand you and appreciate the performance accordingly. * * * We may be charged with making much out of a little thing. This charge is cheap, and is easily made, and generally has a ready currency among men. But we are not disturbed by such reproaches. We say what we are convinced ought to be said, and let men,--among them brethren, say what they please. The tendency to make Christianity fashionable, and carnally respectable, must be met at the cost of sneer and ridicule from any quarter.--Millennial Har., 1868, pp. 280-285.

22. Professor Isaiah Boone Grubbs. This lovable man is a power in the advocacy and defense of [233] the truth. For thirty years he has been Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Church History in the College of the Bible, Lexington, Ky., and is a strong and vigorous writer. In the discussion of our present theme, he has contributed much that is of great value, and we take the following extracts from his gifted pen:

It should be noted that the apostle . . . compliments the disciples at Corinth for being followers of him in one important particular. "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you." The ordinances of the Christian religion fall into two distinct classes: 1. Those to which a sinner must conform in order to become a Christian, as the confession and baptism. 2. Those by which a Christian can worship acceptably. Singing with the spirit and the understanding is an ordinance of worship; as much so as prayer and the communion. These must all be preserved as we have received them from the apostles, and nothing must be thought of as a substitute for them and nothing blended with them, that has the least tendency to neutralize their power, or formalize, secularize and carnalize our worship. Can any one with living facts staring him in the face, doubt for one moment that bleating machines in costly Christian temples are productive of this, their only effect? Why, how can it be otherwise? There sits the congregation, mute as in death. Here the godless choir and noisy fiddler fill the air with soulless strains, while the preacher, precious man, speaks his pretty piece of poetry as musically as possible by way of a solo, or as a sort of interlude. [234] The worship that God smiles upon is as far removed from this outward, mechanical counterfeit as his throne is from this sordid footstool. "God is spirit; therefore they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." The soul all alive to a love all divine, gives vent to its emotions in songs and petitions that gush forth in spiritual power from the internal fountains of life. With such offerings God is well pleased. We cannot, we will not tolerate anything that tends to destroy this spiritual life. * * * As all things in Christian worship, as in every other department of the Christian religion, are thus to be done "in the name of the Lord Jesus," or by his authority, it follows that "inflexibility extends to public worship"--that its elements are fixed and determined by divine law, and that what is here done must be done by divine direction. In other words, we must adhere as rigidly to the apostolic "traditions" or "ordinances" delivered to us in this, as in every other department of the Christian religion. We then claim, as pertinent and applicable to the issue before us, the following Scriptures: "Stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." Again: "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (traditions) as I delivered them to you." To these may be added, with the utmost logical propriety, the exhortation of Jude: "Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." Grant that "Jude did not have organs or melodeons in his mind" when he said this, does the passage fail to rule them out on this account? Then if he did not also have "the mourner's bench" in his mind, it fails to rule it out! 'What havoc would this logic [235] make of the word of God! And would not the Bible be a strange book if it had anticipated and specifically condemned in detail all the thousand and one innovations, in the three great departments of faith, that man in his folly might invent.--Millennial Har., 1868, pp. 318, 319, 630.

23. President John W. McGarvey. This distinguished preacher and educator, who has been engaged in the systematic teaching of the Bible for more than half a century, and who is now President of the College of the Bible, Lexington, Ky., has taken a prominent and important part in the discussion of the question, and we select from his writings the following passages:

It is manifest that we cannot adopt the practice without abandoning the obvious and only ground on which a restoration of Primitive Christianity can be accomplished, or on which the plea for it can be maintained. Such is my profound conviction, and consequently the question with me is not one concerning the choice or rejection of an expedient, but the maintenance or abandonment of a fundamental and necessary principle. * * * I hold that the use of the instrument is sinful, and I must not be requested to keep my mouth shut in the presence of sin, whether committed by a church or an individual. * * * The party which forces an organ into the church against the conscientious protest of a minority is disorderly and schismatical, not only because it stirs up strife, but because it is for the sake of a sinful innovation upon the divinely authorized worship of the church; and, inasmuch as the persons [236] thus acting are disorderly and schismatic, it is the duty of all good people to withdraw from them until they repent.--It is universally admitted by those competent to judge that there is not the slightest indication in the New Testament of divine authority for the use of instrumental music in Christian worship. * * * As to the introduction of an unscriptural test of fellowship, it is enough to say that we do not refuse fellowship with those who use the organ; we only refuse to partake with them in that practice and choose to worship when we can where it is not in our way. To deny us this privilege would be an attempt to force us into fellowship, with a practice confessedly unauthorized in the Scriptures, than which there could be nothing more unscriptural or more intolerant.--In Apostolic Times, 1881, and "What Shall We Do About the Organ?" pp. 4, 10.

24. David Lipscomb. As Editor of the Gospel Advocate for nearly half a century, this eminent servant of God and teacher of the Bible has taken a leading part in all the discussions pertaining to the restoration of the primitive order of work and worship and the general peace and prosperity of the church. He says:

Paul was faithful to observe the requirements of God--would do it at all hazards and under all difficulties. Nothing could deter him. Neither he nor any other apostle, nor the Lord Jesus, nor any of the disciples for five hundred years, used instruments. This, too, in the face of the fact that the Jews had used instruments in the days of their prosperity and that the Greeks and heathen nations all [237] used them in their worship. They were dropped out with such emphasis that they were not taken up till the middle of the Dark Ages, and came in as part of the order of the Roman Catholic Church. * * * It seems there cannot be a doubt but that the use of instrumental music in connection with the worship of God, whether used as a part of the worship or as an attractive accompaniment, is unauthorized by God and violates the oft-repeated prohibition to add nothing to, take nothing from, the commandments of the Lord. It destroys the difference between the clean and the unclean, the holy and the unholy, counts the blood of the Son of God unclean, and tramples under foot the authority of the Son of God. They have not been authorized by God or sanctified with the blood of his Son. * * * The instruments were used as worship to God and to give glory and eclat to the earthly kingdom. They were tolerated by God as were many other things during this period, that he did not approve. The establishment of the kingdom itself was an act of rebellion against God. (See 1 Sam. 8: 1-20.) * * * God only has the right to prescribe conditions and ways of worshiping him. All his appointments for service and worship are revealed by the Holy Spirit, sealed by the blood of Jesus Christ, and are recorded in the Word of God. To worship him in ways not required by him is to reject God as the only Lawmaker, trample under foot the authority of the Son of God; is to count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and to do despite unto the Spirit of Grace. (Heb. 10: 28, 29.) * * * The introduction of the organ violates the fundamental law: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." To use the organ is to serve some one else. "In [238] vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matt. 15: 9.) "Why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, . . . after the commandments and doctrines of men?" (Col. 2: 20-22.)--Queries and Answers by D. Lipscomb, pp. 226, 227, and Gospel Advocate, 1899, pp. 376, 377.

25. Elisha G. Sewell. This veteran preacher, and Editor of the Gospel Advocate, has stood like a stone wall against the tide of innovation in religion. We quote the following from his pen:

Suppose that the Lord's Supper had never been required and that men had introduced it of their own accord, that it was only a human invention; then all that attend to it as a part of the worship of God would be doing just as King Saul did when he saved the best of the sheep and the oxen which he had taken from the Amalekites to make a sacrifice to the Lord, instead of destroying them. God had said nothing about a sacrifice in that case; that was altogether an invention of Saul. * * * Those who introduce instrumental music into the worship of God to-day act upon precisely the same principle as that which actuated King Saul. God commands Christians: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." (Col. 3: 16.) Where God simply says "singing," men, by their wisdom and choice, put in the organ, which soon discourages and drives out singing, so far as the congregation is concerned. Instruments [239] were entirely left out of the New Testament churches, and for six hundred years or more there was not an organ in the worship of any church. The first one was introduced among the Catholics; and since then many of the leading denominations have introduced musical instruments into their churches. But there is not a word of authority for it in the New Testament. * * * David and all Israel played on instruments most zealously; he had also a new cart to carry the ark on. Neither the instruments of music nor the new cart were of God, but of David. This effort was an entire failure because David did not do the Lord's way. He afterwards called on the priests and Levites and had the ark borne on the shoulders of the Levites, as God had ordained, thus doing God's way; and the ark was borne to Jerusalem in safety. (See 1 Chron. 15.) * * * The great sin to-day in putting the organ into the worship that God ordained in the church is in presumptuously adding a purely human invention to the word of God. In so doing men pose as being wiser than God and as possessing even greater authority. The Bible must be studied as a whole, and all passages on the same subject must be examined and so applied as to make no conflict between different passages. This done on the instrumental-music question will bring harmony out of confusion and settle some very troublesome controversies.--Gospel Advocate, 1903, p. 532; 1907, pp. 531, 600, 601.

26. George G. Taylor. This well-known preacher and able logician strikes at the root of the matter in the following vigorous passages:

Worship, in order to be acceptable, must be offered with a view of honoring and praising the Lord, and not to please men. When in the temptation Satan sought to divert worship from its proper object, he was repulsed with the statement: "It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Matt. 4: 10.) * * * Now it is an undeniable fact that all that can be known of what will please the Lord in worship is what has been revealed in his word. Anything, therefore, which has not been revealed in the New Testament Scriptures can never be known to be pleasing to him; so that all such worship must of necessity be, to say the best of it, of doubtful propriety. Since all service to God must be free of doubt in order to be divinely approved (see Rom. 14: 23), and since God has nowhere in his word given any assurance that worship associated with instrumental music is acceptable with him, it must, therefore, be classed among those things which are doubtful. This being true, it follows that the condemnation which inspiration has pronounced on all services involved in doubt rests upon instrumental music in the worship of the church. * * * In the church at Rome a question had arisen concerning eating meats. Whether the meat in question was that of animals forbidden by the law of Moses or meats in general is not clearly stated; and so far as our present inquiry is concerned, it makes no difference whether it was the one or the other or neither. Some of the members of the church at Rome claimed that it was their privilege to eat meat, which others contested, strenuously contending that it was wrong and sinful for them to do so. This practice upon the part of those who doubtless honestly believed it was [241] their privilege, and which even the apostle declared was of itself innocent, became the occasion of grief to those of their brethren who entertained the opposite view. * * * Now it was the purpose of the apostle to furnish a remedy for this unhappy state of things. Looking toward the accomplishment of this benevolent design, he submitted the following statement, embodying an important principle: "The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." * * * Now the state of church affairs which existed at Rome prevails at the present time among the churches all over the land. The causes producing the confusion in the two cases are in principle precisely the same, which in both instances consists in a part of the church persistently insisting on practicing what is acknowledged by them to be a simple matter of preference, while another part of the church believe and contend that such practice is wrong and sinful. The only difference between the two cases consists in the fact that the apostle admits that the specific practice in question at Rome was perfectly innocent in itself, while in the case of churches now the practices occasioning the trouble have no such apostolic concession in their favor. * * * It cannot be denied that in principle the use of instrumental music in worship now is logically parallel with eating in the church at Rome in primitive times. The kingdom of God now consists no more in the use of instrumental music than the same kingdom then consisted in eating and drinking; but it does consist in "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" now, just the same as it did then. * * * Many good, Christian people cannot conscientiously engage in worship attended by instrumental [242] music even as an "aid" to the worship, since, on account of its objective results, they are constrained to regard it as sinful; so that when it is pressed into the service of the church under the pretext that it is only an "aid" to the worship, it is attended with objective results incalculably grievous. Disrupted churches, alienated affections, broken friendships, and the demolishment of Christian fellowship, with all their attendant evils, are only a few of the long list of evil consequences which brand this unholy, unlovely, unchristian, and sinful practice with the signet of divine condemnation. * * * We maintain, therefore, that divinely authorized example demands of us to dispose of instrumental music in association with church worship just as it was disposed of by the primitive churches; but by these churches it was completely and without any doubt designedly declined. This being true, conformity to this divinely established precedent requires that we also shall decline its use. All those churches, therefore, which are using instrumental music as an "aid" to their worship and all who advocate its use are alike in sinful rebellion against Christ.--Gospel Advocate, 1907, pp. 610, 611, 626, 659, 675.

27. J. B. Briney. This distinguished writer and debater, though subsequently identifying himself with those using instrumental music in the worship, wrote strongly and convincingly against that side in 1869, as the following extracts from his writings show:

It was a glorious day for the cause of the truth when the pious and venerable Thomas Campbell [243] conceived and set forth the principle contained in the following language: "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." This declaration contains the germ and pith of the present Reformation. It was the guiding star of such men as the Campbells, Scott, Stone, and Creath, in their march back to the apostolic ground. It was the watchword of those noble, grand old veterans as, weak in numbers but strong in faith, they bared their bosoms to the darts of Popery, and rushed forward to rescue the ordinances of Jesus Christ from oblivion's embrace. This was the banner that gave them possession of many a hotly contested field, and led them on to glorious victory. Under it they fought, under it they conquered, and dying, they bequeathed it to us, that under it we might at least hold what they gained. So long as we adhere to this principle may we march forward with heads erect and banners streaming. But the moment we abandon this we will be at sea, without compass or rudder, and our ship will be driven by the merciless blasts of the head winds of sectarianism in the direction of the port of Rome; and in this state of case we may well haul down our colors and seek recognition in "courts ecclesiastic." We will need the sympathy of such courts, then.

It is no matter of astonishment that, when the foregoing principle was enunciated, such a thoughtful man as Andrew Munro should make the following statement: "If we adopt that as a basis, then there is an end of infant baptism."

I beg leave to make the following respectful suggestion to Brother J. S. Lamar: If we adhere to that as a basis, then there is an end of instrumental music in the worship. But we must adhere to that, or else [244] the "reformation is a failure." This brings us to the main point had in view in the preceding essays. That singing as worship is a divine appointment, is abundantly clear, from the following Scriptures: "What is it, 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." 1 Cor. 14: 15. "And be not drunk with wine wherein is excess; but be filled with the spirit; speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord." Eph. 5: 18, 19. "By him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name." Heb. 13: 15.

Singing is worship only as it consists in prayer and praise. It is not the sound simply, the mere music, that renders it acceptable to God, but the sentiments of devotion. From the first of the above quotations we learn that in these sentiments of prayer and praise, the spirit and the understanding unite. In the third quotation these sentiments are called "sacrifice of praise," and are defined to be the "fruit of our lips." It follows, then, with the clearness of a sunbeam, that the instruments to be used in offering this sacrifice are the vocal organs with which God has endowed his creature, man. Here, then, is a divine ordinance consisting in the offering of prayer and praise to the Lord with our lips--this latter term being used generically to denote all the vocal organs.

Now, I affirm that an "instrumental accompaniment" is an addition to this ordinance, and affects its character, and is therefore an infringement of the divine prerogative.

That singing is worship is a divine ordinance, will not be questioned in the face of the Scripture cited above. That the "instrumental accompaniment" is an addition, is simply certain from the historical facts in the case, it having been born five hundred years out of time. Therefore, whatever men may think of its expediency, it affects the character of the divine appointment, and cannot be tolerated for a moment.

*   *   *

Am I told that it is expedient because "it attracts the world?" I beg leave to state that the worship of the Lord's house was not ordained for the world. Is the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ to be brought down to the standard of the world? Is this the programme of expediency? If the caprice of the world is to be regarded in these matters, the very same emergency that demands the organ will demand the very best skill in its use, and, therefore, the beer-bloated Dutchman from the theater of Saturday night will be in demand in the sanctuary of God on the Lord's day!

*   *   *

The Holy Spirit has provided for the use of singing in another capacity aside from the worship proper: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and spiritual songs, singing with grace (gratitude) in your hearts to the Lord." Col. 3: 16. Singing, then, may be used in teaching and admonishing. Can this be done with an instrument? Let the Spirit answer: "And even things without life-giving sounds, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?" 1 Cor. 14: 7. [246] Evidently, there is neither teaching nor admonition in inarticulate sounds. The instrument does not give the necessary distinction in the sounds. This being the case, there is no place in the assembly of the saints for the organ, and they who introduce it do so at their peril.

*   *   *

Having seen that the "instrumental accompaniment" is sinful, per se, I wish to put it upon another footing. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul teaches that when an enlightened Christian eats meat which has been sacrificed to an idol, his act is not sinful, per se. But as he clearly teaches there may be circumstances under which such an act would be exceedingly sinful. If there were those who were not so fully enlightened upon this point, and whose consciences were therefore weak, this weakness was to be the rule of action in the case. And of violating this rule the Apostle says: "But when ye sin against the brethren and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ." Now, in this music affair I am willing to be called a weak brother, if thereby the cause of my Savior can be served. Indeed, I like that weakness which fears to leave the channels designated by the word of God, to try the trackless and shoreless sea of expediency. My conscience will not allow me to engage in singing as an act of worship, where there is an "instrumental accompaniment." A weak conscience, you say? Be it so, I demand that my weak conscience shall be respected. Remember that when you introduce an organ into the worship, and thus wound my conscience. however weak it may be, you sin against Christ, and he will call you to an account for it in the great day.

Let the plain truth be told: The introduction of [247] the organ is no mere impropriety; it is a gross insult to the Lord Jesus Christ, and a sin against the God of Heaven. The observance of this Pauline principle will keep the instrument out while time lasts.--The Apostolic Times, June 10 and 17, 1869, pp. 69, 73.

28. Dr. William Thomas Moore. This distinguished preacher and author, though now fully identified with those using the organ in worship, delivered an Address in 1872 from which the Apostolic Times, Lexington, Ky., published an extract, and made editorial comment as follows:

We have been much edified quite recently by reading an Address by Brother W. T. Moore entitled "The Utilitarian Tendencies of the Present Age and the Remedy." It contains some remarks on organs and kindred corruptions, which we think worthy of republication. The reader will please remember that it is Brother William T. Moore, of the Central Christian Church, Cincinnati, from whom we quote, and keep this in mind while reading the following:

"Religion is not now what it once was--an earnest, deep and certain faith in the power of the gospel to convert the world, but a cold and lifeless formalism, resting on a doubtful hope in the promises of God, and almost entirely destitute of life or practical godliness. The church is no longer considered sufficient of itself to perform its mission, and hence 'auxiliaries to the church' are becoming as numerous as the locusts of Egypt. A long catalogue of human societies, bearing banners which absorb the [248] rays of light from the church, is now occupying, if not the most prominent, at least the most conspicuous place in our moral library. But these outside appliances are considered indispensable agents to do the 'dirty work' of the church, and as such, they must be sheltered by its gracious wings. Nor does the evil stop here; for a new order of machinery has recently been brought into requisition. 'Picnics' and 'fairs,' 'pew rents' and 'door fees,' and the 'called and sent' instruments to defray the expenses of the church. The worship, too, which of all other things, should be most spiritual, largely partakes of the same principle. Prayer books for the soul's own warm and healthy outpourings. And, for that deep-toned, stirring melody in song, tempered by the love of God 'shed abroad in the heart,' we have organs that grind out their quantum sufficit by purely mechanical force! In some places they are not satisfied with the ordinary way of performing this 'praise to God,' but have clearly out-heroded Herod himself, by applying the power of steam to the instrument to make it do better and faster work!! Who ought to wonder now at the 'confessionals' and 'indulgences,' and who can fail to discern the tendencies of the age?'--Apostolic Times, October 10, 1872, p. 4.

The truth to which Brother Moore then gave such wise and timely utterance is still the truth, and those "tendencies" are still the same, only they have gained in momentum and are now going at a more rapid rate. Some are still making the same noble fight which he was rightly making then, and the deepening conflict is sometimes discouraging; but they know that it is impossible to estimate the good that might have been accomplished and the vast difference [249] it might have made in the condition of things to-day, if all had faithfully persevered in the fight; and so they press on in the conflict with the sure conviction that God reigns and the truth will prevail.