CHAPTER XVII.
An Appeal to the Candid and Reflecting.

To all the candid and reflecting of every name and creed, but most especially to those who profess no creed but the Bible, this Appeal is respectfully and fraternally addressed. It is taken for granted that the well-informed of this class already deplore the divided condition of the church of God, and would rejoice at the restoration of union, harmony, and peace among its members. It is further assumed that all candid and reflecting persons, whether well-informed or otherwise, are prepared to give respectful attention to any reasonable arguments which concern either the cause or the cure of this baleful condition.

This Appeal is purposely limited to the class here named, for the simple reason that it is useless to appeal to any others. Those who are committed to a given course regardless of either reason or consequence, are, as a rule, not prepared to treat with proper courtesy or to listen with due patience and respect to any argument or appeal from those who differ from them, no matter how serious nor how just may be the ground for such argument and appeal.

But there are multitudes of honest and sincere people who are involved in error on what constitutes divinely acceptable worship, and who occupy their present position simply because they have always been under circumstances which veiled from their eyes the true position. Such persons are always more or less open to conviction, and are ready to renounce error and to walk in the light of the truth as it may dawn upon their pathway. It is not unreasonable to hope that a courteous, respectful, and fraternal appeal to this large class will not be wholly in vain.

For the sake of clearness and conciseness, it is proposed to present the facts and arguments of this Appeal under the two following heads: 1. Its object. 2. The means necessary to its accomplishment. We shall, therefore, briefly consider, first of all:

I. The Object of Such an Appeal.

The reader is entitled to full and adequate information on this point. No child of God, no matter how grossly involved or thought to be involved in error, can consistently be asked, on this account, to make any change in his religious position without the definite and well-grounded assurance that the new position to which he is invited will not only involve no greater error than the one in which he is already supposed to be involved, but that the end in view is one which demands such a change.

Happily for us, the end which is sought in the [268] present case is one which will commend itself to all right-thinking persons. That end is nothing more nor less than the union and coöperation of all the children of God upon a basis which is not only not called in question by any one, but which all accept as authorized by the Holy Scriptures. Surely this transcendently great and praiseworthy object not only merits the serious attention of my readers, but also any possible effort on their part in bringing about a consummation so devoutly to be wished.

That we may the better appreciate the importance of an Appeal with such an end in view, let us dwell, for a moment, on the religious situation which now confronts us. Among all the facts of the religious world of to-day, none, perhaps, is more prominent than the fact of division. Not only are there different denominations, as they are popularly styled, but often the same denomination is divided and subdivided into warring factions and parties. It is true, much is heard nowadays to the effect that the spirit of union is "in the air," and wherever it is so, we should, of course, thank God for it; but, nevertheless, the fact of division still remains, and with it a strange unwillingness, in many quarters, not only to have one's faith and practice in general subjected to the light of investigation, but an equal unwillingness to surrender matters which even their advocates themselves regard as matters of pure indifference. This only blocks the way to union and serves to perpetuate the babel of denominationalism with [269] its multifarious contradictions and inconsistencies which have been the bewilderment of men for centuries, reminding one of Milton's graphic lines:

Paul's picture of the Corinthian factions, crying "I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ," is vividly reproduced on a vastly extended scale, and the work of strife and rending the body of Christ continues. Indeed, it may be truly said that, as the enemies of Christ mangled His physical body and nailed it to the cross, so the professed friends of Christ have divided His spiritual body and left it bleeding at every pore, while insidious skepticism and infidelity are spreading their deadly poison and sapping the foundation of religious faith. When the Master prayed for the oneness of His followers, He put it in this form: "that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be in us; that the world may believe that thou didst send me," (Jno. 17: 21). Precisely as it is here distinctly implied that union among the followers of Christ will establish and strengthen the faith of men in the divine origin of His cause, so, beyond all question, division in the body of Christ is one of the most powerful weapons ever wielded by infidelity against that cause. Hence, the object of this Appeal is to increase the number of those who delight to sing:

II. The Means Necessary to Its Accomplishment.

It is the purpose here simply to indicate such steps as are necessary to the end in view, and these may be considered in the following order:

1. It is impossible, of course, to effect union between two parties without one of them yields to the other. This settles it, then, that there can never be union between the advocates and the opponents of instrumental music in the worship until one side yields to the other, or both sides yield in common. This latter is the proper course to pursue if it can be pursued without the sacrifice of truth or conscience on either side.

2. Concerning the two parties to this baleful controversy, which one of them, if either, should yield to the other? Or, is it a case in which each can yield to the other, and thus by mutual concession effect the desired union? This would seem to be the charitable and magnanimous course for both sides, and I hesitate not to say that, in all cases where it is possible to make such mutual concession without any sacrifice of truth or conscience, it ought to be made--yea, and it will be made by all well-informed persons who have the Spirit of Christ. One of the primary and fundamental principles of all Christian [271] living is the principle of mutual consideration and mutual forbearance; while, on the other hand, another principle for the regulation of Christian conduct, equally vital and fundamental, is the obligation to refuse to yield wherever either truth or conscience would be violated by the act.

Now, the author of this Appeal would not ask either side in the present case, nor in any other case, to yield to any extent whatever at the expense of such a sacrifice. And this brings us face to face with the one vital question now at issue, viz., what are the limits within which men may properly be called upon to surrender any practice in religion? Or, to vary the question, where is the line, drawn by the pen of Inspiration, up to which men may yield in religious matters, but beyond which they cannot yield? If this line can be definitely located, we can then know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, what should be our course toward the use of instrumental music in the worship of God, and we can know this regardless of which side of the line this practice may be found to be on, the only essential point being that we either can or cannot surrender the practice according as it is found to be on the one or the other side of the line. As we are dealing purely with matters of casuistry at this point, Paul's principle shall be our guide in locating the line in question: "To him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean;" and again: "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin," Rom. 14: 14, 23. Observe that this [272] principle takes no note of whether a given thing is wrong in itself or not. It only considers an act in the light of how it is viewed by the actor regardless of whether that view is correct or not. The act or course of conduct may be right in itself, but if the actor believes it to be wrong, to him it is wrong, and God requires him to refrain from it. In the language of Hodge on the passage: "If a man thinks a thing to be wrong, to him it is wrong."

Now, in the light of this Pauline principle, the conclusion is inevitable that, so far as moral consistency is concerned, while men may always either do, or refrain from doing, an act when they do not believe that their course in either case would be sinful, nevertheless they must always do, or refrain from doing, an act when they believe that the opposite course in either case would be sinful; and this locates the line and fixes the limits within which men may properly be asked to surrender a religious practice.

Now, in order that we may see the proper application of these principles to the use of instrumental music in Christian worship, we here note the facts in connection with the practice. Detailed discussion of them is unnecessary at this point, and we shall be content, in the main, merely to state the facts, which are as follows:

1. It is a fact that the church of God is divided. The unholy condition meets men wherever they go.

2. It is a fact that it is divided over the use of instrumental music in the worship.

3. It is a fact that the Bible condemns division. It condemns it in the strongest terms. In His great intercessory prayer, the Son of God anticipated it, and thus addressed the Father: "Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me," Jno. 17: 20, 21. Paul the Apostle said: "Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment," 1 Cor. 1: 10.

4. It is a fact that those who introduce instrumental music into the worship of God can worship Him with a clear conscience without its use. They themselves admit this, and have always admitted it.

5. It is a fact that a part of the church cannot worship with a clear conscience with instrumental music in the worship. Never mind now about those who are accused of being "bitter" in their opposition, "factious," "hard-headed," "unreasonable," "stubborn," and "self-willed." It is here admitted that this charge is too sadly true in some instances, but we respectfully remind the reader that it does not touch the point here before us, inasmuch as such do not constitute the class on whose account this Appeal [274] is made. On the contrary, among those for whom we plead are some of the wisest, purest, most reasonable, most unselfish, and most pious persons who have ever named the name of Christ. They are intelligent, well educated, and well informed in the Bible, and they are actuated by the sincerest and strongest convictions. They simply cannot use instrumental music in the worship of God without doing violence to their consciences. They solemnly believe that the practice is displeasing to the Lord and condemned by Him. This makes it a very serious case with them.

On the other hand, they readily concede that many of those who engage in the practice are equally pious, intelligent, well educated, and well informed in the word of God, and they engage in it, as they themselves allege, because they believe it is their liberty to do so, though they do not claim that God requires them to do it. Herein is a vital and radical difference between the respective claims of the two parties. Those engaging in the practice, do so because they believe it is their liberty, though frankly admitting that God does not require it of them. This makes the case on their part easy of management; but those who refrain from the practice, do so, not because they believe it is their mere liberty to refrain, but because they believe God requires it of them. This makes the case on their part difficult of management. They are shut up to one [275] course which they are compelled to follow, or be untrue to their consciences and to their God.

6. In view of this situation, it is a fact that this latter class cannot consistently yield at this point, and we respectfully add that they should not be asked to do so.

7. In view of the same situation, it is a fact that. the former class can consistently yield at this point, and surely it is not too much to ask them to do what they can do with a clear conscience before God and man when peace, union, and harmony in the church of God are depending upon it.

Will not all the candid and reflecting carefully and prayerfully consider these facts?

More than forty years ago, when the spirit of innovation first began to show itself among those pleading for the restoration of the ancient order, and a few churches had introduced this practice, Dr. H. Christopher made a similar Appeal to the brethren at large urging them to lay it aside with all other corruptions of New Testament order, and he uttered the warning that, if this were not done, other innovations would be certain to follow. Present-day divisions, dissensions, and discussions over innovations hitherto undreamed of, are a verification of his words. I give my readers the benefit of a quotation from his strong Appeal:

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 [276] 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 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 [277] 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. 365-368.

There has been no time since the utterance of these earnest words over forty years ago when they were not applicable to the existing condition of things, and they are equally applicable to-day. We commend them to all the candid and reflecting.

Finally, the reasonableness of this Appeal, as it appears to the author, is clearly established by the fact that it asks for the surrender of nothing in the way of truth or principle, nor that men do anything otherwise in violation of conscience, but that they merely give up a practice which they themselves admit they can give up without displeasing God, and in which they know others cannot engage without a violation of conscience. Is it asking too much of men to urge them to take such a step when union, harmony, and peace among the children of God are depending upon it? Yea, ought they not gladly seize the opportunity? In the language of Thomas Campbell: "What a pity that the kingdom of God should be divided about such things!" And still further in the language of the same great man: "Who, then, would not be the first among us to give up human inventions in the worship of God, and to [278] cease from imposing his private opinions upon his brethren, and that our breaches might thus be healed?"--Memoirs of Elder Thomas Campbell, p. 39.

This is the one divine pathway, and the only pathway, that leads to the union for which the Lord prayed, and for which the Apostles pleaded; and it is to this infallibly safe pathway, in the light of all the facts presented from divers fields of evidence throughout this volume, that the present Appeal humbly invites all the candid and reflecting. It is still true that "if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from all sin," 1 Jno. 1: 7. This divine cleansing and this holy fellowship are open to all who are willing to walk in the truth.