1* 2 *3 * 4 * 5 * 6 * 7 * 8 * 9 * 10
Mr. Editor: I have read the articles on organs in your paper with some attention, because of the interest I take in the subject, and my desire for information. I am fond of the music of the organ; listen to its magnificent melody with great delight, when played by the hand of a master; and am not prepared to say, that I would object to its introduction into a church over which I had any control. But I have some scruples on the subject, which I wish to propose to your correspondent H., for solution, and which, if he can fully resolve, my mind will be relieved. My object is not controversy, but satisfaction.
Before stating these scruples however, I cannot forbear saying, that there is often a tone of flippancy used in meeting objections to the use of organs, that is not only offensive to a serious mind, but in itself highly discourteous. There are such objections in the minds of grave, judicious, and experienced Christians; who if they are not trained to the latest fashions in things social and ecclesiastical, are at least entitled, in virtue of their age, their good sense, and their piety, to a respectful hearing. It seems often to be taken for granted, that such objections are sufficiently answered, by a complacent smile at old-fashioned bigotry; an equivocal joke about psalm-singing that grates horrible discord to ears polite; and a clinching allusion to log churches, with earthen floors and clap-board benches, as the reductio ad absurdum, of the objection to organs. Now, although I do not class myself with the opponents of the use of organs, yet I do protest against the assumption that this opposition is simply ridiculous, and only deserves to be laughed at. If these scruples are only those of weaker brethren, it will take less trouble to answer, than to ridicule them, all things considered.
I will now propose some of my difficulties in the earnest hope, that they may be fairly met and removed.
1. For what purpose is the organ used? Your correspondent H., furnishes the answer: "to praise the Lord;" "to speak the devotion of the whole, etc.;" in a word as a part of the worship of God. This places it in broad distinction from the building, seats, cushions, etc., which we use when we are worshipping. Surely the sophism that confounds these is too shallow to impose on your intelligent correspondent, if he will look at it for a moment. We do not worship God with our buildings, pews, etc., any more than with our coats and cloaks; we worship God in them. -- They are no part of the worship, but only the conveniences by which we engage in that worship, just as we use our voices and attitudes to express devotional feeling. H. does not scruple to say that he will praise the Lord with the organ; but he would think it worse than nonsense, to say, that he would praise the Lord with carpets, cushions and paint. The distinction is so obvious that it needs no further illustration.
The organ being used, in worshipping God, my difficulty is this. The second command, according to an exposition that H. will admit to be both true and authoritative, forbids "the worshipping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in His word." If you refer to the Psalms, I grant that it was appointed by God as a part of the temple service, but by what right do you take one part and reject the rest? -- And if you base your right on this appointment, by what authority do you change the instruments? The temple music was not made by organs, but by trumpets, etc., according to the specific appointment of God. (See 2 Chron. 29:25, and parallel passages.) But if you adopt its music, why reject its vestments? Why its form of worship? Why its gradations of officers?
It is well known to every scholar that in the prelatic controversy, it is an essential, if not a vital point in the argument, whether the N. T. Church is modeled after the temple or synagogue pattern. We affirm, on what we regard impregnable grounds, the latter; prelatists the former. It is not pretended that instrumental music was used in the synagogue service. By what right then do we engraft it from the temple service if that is laid aside? Were I a prelatist or a papist, the difficulty would vanish, for my model would be the temple service; but being a Presbyterian, I want to know on what clear ground of right I am warranted to make this addition to the worship of God, which will not warrant another man to introduce responses, liturgical forms, vestments, pictures, images, incense, and thus step by step all the forms of Popery? I want a principle which when fairly and logically applied will admit the one and exclude the others. I want it shown that the organ is "appointed" to praise the Lord, as the human voice is, in the commands to sing "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs;" and if it is not, by what authority we use it, that will vindicate us from a violation of [the] second command, and from worshipping God, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men; and what reason can we show for this, that the prelatist cannot show for his use of other additions of worship, that to him are fully as significant and valuable?
2. I have another difficulty arising from the history of their introduction.
H. refers to Ps. 150:4, as though the "organs" there mentioned were the same instruments now in use. But he surely cannot have confounded the "ugab" of Scripture, the simple Pandean pipe of the ancients, with the magnificent instrument now called an organ. They had a principle in common, just as a tea-kettle and a steam engine have; but they differ just as widely.
The organ of modern times was not known in the church until the dark ages. Even Bellarmine finds no earlier use of it than by Pope Vitelhanus A.D 660, or as others reckon A.D. 820: and Thomas Aquinas A.D 1250, argues against its use as unscriptural and wrong, showing that at that date the use was not general. Every scholar knows their introduction met with earnest protests from the first names in the church, owing to the reasons, the warrant, and the tendency of their use. Now is it wise for us to adopt a custom introduced in this manner? Is it safe? Will God bless it?
3. I have another difficulty as to their tendency.
Passing over their expense, which is an item worth remembering when a world is dying for want of the means of grace and suggests the query whether that can be an authorized part of God's worship, which only the rich can enjoy; is not their tendency to prevent congregational singing? If it be said that choirs have at least to a smaller extent, the same tendency, I ask will two wrongs make a right, or the fact that one thing has a smaller tendency to evil, warrant us to introduce another that has a greater?
These are a few of the difficulties honestly felt in this matter, which, if fairly removed, on grounds that are safe and scriptural, no one will listen to the swelling notes of the organ in the worship of God with more pleasure than an
Inquirer.
1* 2 *3 * 4 * 5 * 6 * 7 * 8 * 9 * 10
Page Last Updated: 01/10/08 02:24:01 PM