Chapter 6:
The Reformation.
The early Reformers, when they came out of Rome, removed them [musical instruments] as the monuments of idolatry. Luther called the organ an ensign of Baal. Calvin said that instrumental music was not fitter to be adopted into the Christian Church than the incense and the candlestick; … The Church of England revived them, against a very strong protest, and the English dissenters would not touch them. – McClintock and Strong, 1894 1
If we quote a reformer at all, we misrepresent him.
Our story handed down is that the Reformers widely opposed musical instruments in praise. Their followers in later generations were often enticed to bring instruments back, though scattered remnants such as ourselves have remained faithful to forbid them.
As McKinnon has said, this conclusion from our forefathers demanded “history that was selective and interpretive.”2 In this chapter on the reformers, we will find that pro-a cappella arguments cite secondary sources that cannot be found in the primary sources, which contradict them. We read snippets that crop away the full story.
What did Reformers outside of our heritage think about musical instruments? It would normally be a bit surprising to see us, the people of the book, citing the conclusions of a Lutheran, Methodist, or Baptist as support for our positions on any Bible matter, but we make exceptions for this topic. Quotations from the early icons of other fellowships serve us for a couple of reasons.
First, quotations attributed to those outside our heritage encourage our own people. They imply that our view of music was once the mainstream view, that we don’t want to move from a position purportedly embraced by the greatest reformers.
Second, quotes from outsiders call out to those traditions. They say, “If you won’t listen to us about musical instruments, then at least listen to your own forefathers.” In today’s world, it is easy for them to verify those quotations. It’s time for us to do the same.
Remember that the purpose of this (and every other) chapter is to shine light on mistaken historical arguments that prevent the unity of Christ. We will be looking at the arguments of our websites and publications against instruments; these are not the arguments of those who allow instruments. My former work, Missing More than Music, focused on the scriptural arguments, and you will not find the name of any reformer mentioned in those pages. My fellowship in the a cappella Churches of Christ, though, appeals to the opinions of the Reformers. Or better said, we appeal to what we think they taught. I have found, however, that if we quote a reformer at all, we misrepresent him. The goal of this chapter is that we no longer divide Christ based on misunderstandings about the beliefs of the Reformers.
Leaving the Middle Ages
Europe’s Middle ages had lasted for a millennium, spanning the 5th through the 15th centuries. It is said to have begun with the Fall of the Roman Empire and to have ended with the Fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Ottoman Empire in 1453. The flight of learned Christians to central Europe was a significant factor in the period of Renaissance – meaning rebirth – that followed, as was Guttenberg’s printing press of 1439. Christianity’s “rebirth” was known as the Protestant Reformation, but it was nevertheless just one of many disciplines to be “reborn.” Here is a brief list of some of the scholars, explorers, inventors, artists, astronomers, mathematicians, doctors, philosophers, and theologians who ushered in this Renaissance in their fields, giving life to the reformation of the sciences and arts together with the reformation of the church:
Christopher Columbus 1451 – 1506
Leonardo da Vinci 1452 – 1519
Josquin des Prez c.1453 – 1521
Amerigo Vespucci 1454 – 1512
Michelangelo 1465 – 1564
Desiderius Erasmus 1466 – 1536
Niccolò Machiavelli 1469 – 1527
Nicolaus Copernicus 1473 – 1543
Thomas More 1478 – 1535
Raphael 1483 – 1520
Martin Luther 1483 – 1546
Ulrich Zwingli 1484 – 1531
Paracelsus 1493 – 1541
William Tyndale 1494 – 1536
John Calvin 1509 – 1564
Miguel de Cervantes 1547 – 1616
Francis Bacon 1561 – 1626
William Shakespeare 1564 – 1616
Galileo 1564 – 1642
Rene Descartes 1596 – 1650
Martin Luther (1483 – 1546)
Father of the Reformation and the Lutheran Church
The church of Luther’s day, at the dawn of the 16th century, was ripe for reform. Its view of music was just one facet of church life to be examined.
Though it may be hard for us to imagine, the church at that time continued to be beholden to the wisdom of ancient Greek philosophy, as introduced by those who were the first to oppose musical instruments 1000 years earlier. Rather than studying the Bible, students of the universities studied books about the Bible, and they studied books of philosophy.
Instead of reading the Bible itself, students during the Scholastic period read Peter Lombard’s Sentences, which were his commentaries on portions of Scripture – or even read Duns Scotus’ gloss on Lombard’s Sentences. … [Sentences was] universally reckoned the most important theology textbook of the Middle Ages. – Eric Metaxis, 2017 3
Having lived in the fourth century B.C., Aristotle was obviously not a Christian. But the medieval Scholastics deeply valued Aristotle and his writings and believed that his teachings on reason could be incorporated into church theology. This was at the heart of Scholasticism itself, and Thomas Aquinas’ writings in the thirteenth century were its culmination. – Eric Metaxis, 2017 4
In the previous chapter we considered Thomas Aquinas’ famous quote opposing musical instruments, and we found that he based his opposition expressly on the teachings of Aristotle, not on scripture. Another example of this dependence on Aristotle can be found in Aquinas’ view of women. In his Summa Theologiae, Aquinas (1225 – 1274) considers the odd question of whether it was right for God to have made woman “in the first production of things.” In his question and answer, he refers to Aristotle as “the Philosopher.” The writing of Aristotle that Aquinas refers to is Generation of Animals. The citation in Aristotle’s work is available online.5 Aquinas writes,
Objection 1. It would seem that the woman should not have been made in the first production of things. For the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii, 3), that “the female is a misbegotten male.”…
Reply to Objection 1. As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). …. 6
We have trumpeted Aquinas’ views on musical instruments, but certainly not his views on women. Both of these arguments show the academic desire of the Middle Ages church in Aquinas’ day to reach conclusions based on ancient Greek philosophy and its own ability to reason, not on scripture.
This dependence on Greek philosophy had come to a head at the dawn of the Renaissance. By the time of the Reformation, Luther’s contemporary Erasmus (1466 – 1536) wrote,
Aristotle is so in vogue that there is scarcely time in the churches to interpret the gospel.7
Luther lamented,
What will they not believe who have taken for granted everything which Aristotle, this chief of all charlatans, insinuates and imposes on others, things which are so absurd that not even an ass or a stone could remain silent about them! . . . I wish nothing more fervently than to disclose to many the true face of that actor who has fooled the church so tremendously with the Greek mask, and to show to them all his ignominy, had I only time! … He is the most subtle seducer of gifted people, so that if Aristotle had not been flesh, I would not hesitate to claim that he was really a devil. 8
While many men had called for reformation of the church and numerous had been martyred for their faith, a number of events cemented Luther’s place in history at the head of the Protestant Reformation.
First was Luther’s legendary posting in 1517 of his 95 Theses to the church door of Whittenburg Castle. The church of that day was guilting people into buying indulgences to pay for the release of their deceased loved ones from purgatory. Each of Luther’s posted theses was a statement that he proposed as a topic for debate, challenging this practice of church fundraising through indulgences.
Second was Luther’s defense before the newly appointed Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (of Spain) and the assembled princes and powers of the empire convened to try Luther in 1521 in the German city of Worms. When called by the church and Emperor to recant his challenges, the lowly monk (albeit a monk with a doctor’s degree) famously declined, “Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.” With this stand, Luther changed the course of modern civilization, not merely that of the church. Historians can hardly say enough about the ramifications of what Luther did that day, though his boldness personally earned him a never-fulfilled sentence of death.
When he made it clear that he feared God’s judgment more than the judgment of the powerful figures in that room, he electrified the world. How dare anyone, much less a mere monk, imply there could be any difference between them? … Suddenly the individual had not only the freedom and possibility of thinking for himself but the weighty responsibility before God of doing so. – Eric Metaxis, 2017 9
A third influence was the rush of printers to disseminate everything that Luther wrote on any subject. Never before the recent invention of the printing press could the words of a commoner have reached such a wide audience as Luther commanded, writing as he did in the common language of the people.
The fourth historical event that sealed Luther’s place in history was the political state of the world in the early 1500s. German princes were able to initially hide and then protect Luther from the emperor’s decree of death. Charles V was otherwise engaged in fighting not only the Muslim Turks to the East of the Empire, but also the French. He was unable to turn his attention to the Reformation in Germany until after Luther’s death in 1546, a quarter century after the decree. By then, there was no turning back.10
Luther’s impact on church music was no small part of the change he brought to the reformation.
From the very beginning, Luther recognized the power of music to spread the Protestant faith. He was himself a skilled lutenist,11 flutist, singer, and composer, and he deeply admired the works of Josquin des Prez…. Luther placed special emphasis on communal participation in worship and to that end encouraged the congregational singing of hymns – known in the German repertory as chorales – which in turn spawned a vast new repertory of melodies and texts. – Mark Evan Bonds, 2003 12
Josquin des Prez, born just 30 years before Luther, is regarded as one of the greatest composers of all time. In this renaissance of music, he and others of his day began writing music for multiple voices, doubled by musical instruments. Because this style was first made known in the large church chapels of the Renaissance, it became known as a cappella, the chapel style.
The a cappella style arose about the time of the composer Josquin des Prez, in the late 15th century, and reached preeminence with Palestrina in the late 16th century in the music that he wrote for the Sistine Chapel of the Vatican. Because no independent instrumental parts were written, later scholars assumed that the choir sang unaccompanied, but the evidence is now that an organ or other instruments exactly ‘doubled’ some or several of the vocal parts. – New Encyclopædia Britannica, 2005 13
In An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg, 1523, Luther wrote about his view of freedom in worship.
I also wish that we had as many songs as possible in the vernacular which the people could sing during mass…. But poets are wanting among us, or not yet known, who could compose evangelical and spiritual songs, as Paul calls them [Col. 3:16], worthy to be used in the church of God. … I mention this to encourage any German poets to compose evangelical hymns for us.
This is enough for now about the mass and communion. What is left can be decided by actual practice, as long as the Word of God is diligently and faithfully preached in the church. And if any should ask that all these [forms] be proved from Scriptures and the example of the fathers, they do not disturb us; for as we have said above, liberty must prevail in these matters and Christian consciences must not be bound by laws and ordinances. That is why the Scriptures prescribe nothing in these matters, but allow freedom for the Spirit to act according to his own understanding as the respective place, time, and persons may require it. And as for the example of the fathers, [their liturgical orders] are partly unknown, partly so much at variance with each other that nothing definite can be established about them, evidently because they themselves used their liberty. And even if they would be perfectly definite and clear, yet they could not impose on us a law or the obligation to follow them. 14
Luther consistently made clear that this liberty extended to musical instruments. In the preface of his missive, “The German Mass and Order of Divine Service” (January, 1526), Luther writes,
In fine, we institute this Order not for the sake of those who are Christians already. For they have need of none of these things (for which things’ sake man does not live: but they live for the sake of us who are not yet Christians, that they may make us Christians); they have their Divine Service in their spirits. But it is necessary to have such an Order for the sake of those who are to become Christians, or are to grow stronger; But, above all, the Order [of Worship] is for the simple and for the young folk who must daily be exercised in the Scripture and God’s Word, to the end that they may become conversant with Scripture and expert in its use, ready and skillful in giving an answer for their faith, and able in time to teach others and aid in the advancement of the kingdom of Christ. For the sake of such, we must read, sing, preach, write, and compose; [emphasis mine, DRC] and if it could in any wise help or promote their interests, I would have all the bells pealing, and all the organs playing, and everything making a noise that could. The Popish Divine Services are to be condemned for this reason that they have made of them laws, work, and merit; and so have depressed faith. And they do not direct them towards the young and simple, to practice them thereby in the Scripture and Word of God; but they are themselves stuck fast in them, and hold them as things useful and necessary to salvation: and that is the devil. 15
Luther condemned the “Popish Divine Services,” saying they were of the devil, but it was hardly the instruments (or the singing or the preaching, etc.) that made them so. To say otherwise is to misread Luther. If anything, Luther condemned the binding of laws for worship where God had made none. Removing musical instruments was not one of the changes Luther made.
Even late in his life, Luther continued to defend the use of musical instruments in worship. Ewald Plass writes, “In a Bible which Luther presented to the Halle organist Wolf Heinz in 1541 he wrote Ps 149:1 and the following remark.”
A new miracle deserves a new song, thanksgiving, and preaching. The new miracle is that God through His Son has parted the real Red, Dead Sea and has redeemed us from the real Pharaoh, Satan. This is singing in a new song, that is, the holy Gospel, and thanking God for it. God help us to do so. Amen.
The stringed instruments of the following psalms are to help in the singing of this new song; and Wolf Heinz and all pious, Christian musicians should let their singing and playing to the praise of the Father of all grace sound forth with joy from their organs and whatever other beloved musical instruments there are (recently invented and given by God), of which neither David nor Solomon, neither Persia, Greece, nor Rome, knew anything. Amen. 16
Luther could hardly be clearer, yet these quotes are not found on our websites.
This brings us to a singular quote condemning musical instruments purported to have come from Luther. In truth, it is not a direct quote, but a secondary source regarding Luther’s beliefs.
In the late 1800s, pro-a cappella Methodists James Strong (famous for his concordance) and John McClintock gave us their 10-volume set, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Volume 6 (published 1894) contains their entry for Music. In it, they offer arguments on both sides of the instrumental music issue, though they choose a winner, characterizing the pro-instrument arguments as “rather speculative than logical.” Surprisingly, including in their day, they place Luther in the anti-instrument camp, using him to lead off and satisfy their argument that,
“3. The early Reformers, when they came out of Rome, removed them as the monuments of idolatry. Luther called the organ an ensign of Baal.” 17
To the contrary, Luther never removed or called for the removal of musical instruments. To this day, no one has found where he called instruments an “ensign of Baal.”
We cite the secondary sources McClintock and Strong on our websites. The two men offer neither source nor context … nothing to indicate the basis from which they drew their conclusion. Their source might have been lost to us if not for John Lafayette Girardeau, another advocate of a cappella singing. Writing just a few years before McClintock and Strong, he identifies the source in his dismissal of the quote. No one cites Girardeau, therefore, because he concludes that this attribution is contradicted by Luther himself. In his seminal Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church (1888), Girardeau writes,
I will not appeal to Luther. Eckhard is referred to as saying: “Lutherus organa musica inter Baalis insignia refert,” “Luther considers organs among the ensigns of Baal.” But the German reformer expresses a different opinion in his commentary on Amos vi. 5. 18
The source of Luther’s “ensign of Baal” label is therefore revealed to be Heinrich Eckhard (1580 – 1624), who was born and lived 100 years after Luther. For his part, Eckhard says he is responding to a charge made by others regarding Luther, which is perhaps why even he gives no primary source. You can see Eckhard’s book online.19 Girardeau rejected Eckhard’s characterization of Luther because he saw it as contradicted by Luther’s clear teaching in his commentary on Amos 6:5, which reads,
5. And like David, have invented. That is, as if in imitation of David, they, too, play the psaltery, although they are actually the poorest sort of imitators. David used the psaltery to praise God, to encourage his love toward God, and to stir up the spirit through the Word of God. They, on the other hand, use if for their own luxury, to satisfy their own ears, etc.20
Girardeau could not agree that a harp could possibly be a vehicle to “praise God, encourage…love toward God, and stir up the spirit through the Word of God.” These clearly were not the words of someone who tied instruments to Baal but were rather another example of Luther’s embrace of them.
This explains why modern historians of Luther waste no ink on Eckhard. Nevertheless, McClintock and Strong’s secondary – well, tertiary, really – source from the 1890s is still found on Church of Christ websites. If any scholar today placed stock in this reference to “ensigns of Baal,” then the last historian to identify the source wouldn’t be the pro-a cappella partisan, Girardeau, as he rejected Eckhard’s conclusion almost 150 years ago. No one to date has found a primary source for Eckhard’s assessment;21 we rather find Luther’s repeated opinion to the contrary in clear text.
Ulrich Zwingli (Switzerland, 1484 – 1531)
Born only a few weeks after Luther, his contemporary Ulrich Zwingli led an independent movement of reformation in Switzerland. Music was just one of the major differences between the two movements, and the Calvinists diverged from both. [Jean Calvin (1509 – 1564) was born a quarter century after Luther and Zwingli.]
The Calvinists, under Jean Calvin, banned instrumental music of any kind from church and limited sacred music to the unaccompanied unison singing of the Psalms. Ulrich Zwingli (1484 – 1531) and his followers were even more extreme. They considered music too seductive and irrational a force to be permitted within the liturgy. Zwingli even ordered organs in many northern European churches to be destroyed. Luther deplored these extremes, “I am not satisfied with him who despises music, as all fanatics do,” Luther declared. “Music is … a gift of God, not a gift of men.” – Mark Evan Bonds, 2003 22
How then would a reformer decide whether to encourage song-writing and communal singing and “have all the bells pealing,” as Luther said … or to ban singing entirely and burn organs, as Zwingli taught … or to prohibit song-writing and the singing of multiple parts, allowing only the text of scripture and Old Testament psalms (excluding their use of instruments), as Calvin proclaimed?
For his part, Zwingli was a talented musician, but his understanding of music was influenced by Plato and an inclination to interpret musical passages of scripture allegorically. He believed that the New Testament commands for music were figurative, that Christians were to sing in their hearts, not with their voices.23
Zwingli’s Regulative Principle of Worship. Zwingli is further recognized as “the first reformer to clearly articulate what we know today as the regulative principle of worship.”24 Embellished later by the Puritans (further below), the Regulative Principle of Worship was embraced by the Churches of Christ. Before we go into what this principle is, we should make note of what it is not.
First, the Regulative Principle of Worship is not defined in the Bible. One might have hoped that its definition could be found in scripture, like how we identify Matthew 7:12 as the “Golden Rule.” If that were the case, then we could merely turn to a passage or a collection of passages and say, “This teaching is known as the Regulative Principle of Worship.” But there is no place in scripture that teaches this principle. It is instead a framework for interpreting the Bible that is not found within the pages of the Bible. Even those who adhere to it today disagree not only about how to define it, but also therefore about how to apply it. The inescapable problem with using this principle to divide Christ’s church is that it a product of the reasoning and deductions of men.
Second, the Regulative Principle of Worship is not defined in the writings of either the early church or the Jews before them. That is what it means to say that Zwingli in the 16th century was “the first reformer to clearly articulate what we know today as the regulative principle of worship.” The principle is rather an attempt of men to standardize modern practices based on deductions about principles that they allege were held by early Christians, though early Christians never pointed us to those principles.
Third, the Regulative Principle of Worship does not give guidance for personal life, but rather for communal acts of the church. There is no named regulative principle for Christian living or loving your neighbor or marital faithfulness or caring for the poor or the sick, etc. The Regulative Principle of Worship is a pattern debated by Christians about how to do corporate activity correctly. No one suggests applying these principles to anything else.
Finally, the Regulative Principle of Worship has not brought unity to those who follow it. Its adherents have not merely disagreed, but have severed relationships over issue after issue, from what days one can or must take the Lord’s Supper to how many cups are allowed, from Sunday school to Vacation Bible School, from how to take up a collection to how the money may be spent, and on and on. The Regulative Principle told Zwingli that singing in Christian assemblies was wrong, but most adherents today disagree.
Having seen what the Regulative Principle is not, we now turn to what it attempts to be.
The regulative principle of worship is a Christian doctrine, held by some Calvinists and Anabaptists, that God commands churches to conduct public services of worship using certain distinct elements affirmatively found in Scripture, and conversely, that God prohibits any and all other practices in public worship. The doctrine further determines these affirmed elements to be those set forth in Scripture by express commands or examples, or if not expressed, those which are implied logically by good and necessary consequence.25
In the Churches of Christ, you have probably never heard a sermon on the Regulative Principle of Worship, but you are likely quite familiar with its tenets of command, example, and “necessary” inference. John Mark Hicks, professor of Theology at David Lipscomb University, explains that Churches of Christ adopted the regulative principle of worship “with a Reformed understanding of command, example and inference (CEI).”26 He goes on to clarify, “One of the basic problems with CEI is that it all ultimately comes down to ‘I’ [Inference].”27 We will resume our discussion of the Regulative Principle of Worship later in this chapter in the section on the Puritans and yet again in the next chapter.
If we note that Zwingli burned church organs, we should note that by the same standard he forbade singing of any stripe in church assemblies.
John Calvin (France, 1509 – 1564)
Like some of the early ascetic Christians, Calvin was wary of singing itself. He was concerned that lyrics other than scripture could be misleading, which is true, as it is also true of sermons and prayers. He was concerned that harmony or singing in multiple parts could be distracting, which is true as well, as it is also true of any melody or chant. The whole truth is that he was concerned about singing in any form. Following in the steps of Augustine, he wrote,
We must, however, carefully beware, lest our ears be more intent on the music than our minds on the spiritual meaning of the words. Augustine confesses (Confess. Lib. x. cap. 33) that the fear of this danger sometimes made him wish for the introduction of a practice observed by Athanasius, who ordered the reader to use only a gentle inflection of the voice, more akin to recitation than singing. But on again considering how many advantages were derived from singing, he inclined to the other side. If this moderation is used, there cannot be a doubt that the practice is most sacred and salutary. On the other hand, songs composed merely to tickle and delight the ear are unbecoming the majesty of the Church, and cannot but be most displeasing to God. 28
In the end, Calvin allowed singing with a couple of conditions. First, the songs had to come from scripture, not songs written by contemporary Christians. New words could give a song rhyme or meter, but no expanded thoughts. Second, as noted earlier, Calvin allowed only “the unaccompanied unison singing of the Psalms” in the church liturgy. He steadfastly opposed polyphony, or the singing of multiple parts, whether harmony or different movements, such as echoes. He believed that harmony failed to express the unity of the church. (This is commonly called “unison singing,” though men would typically sing an octave below women.)
Harmonized hymnbooks (psalters) were produced, but this harmony was intended for the home.
Calvin was clear that they did not belong in the liturgy, where only unison, unaccompanied psalms would suffice. Composers, it would seem, were ready to comply. As Claude Goudimel [1520 – 1572] penned in the preface of one volume of his polyphonic settings, “We have added three parts to the psalm tunes in this volume: not that they may be sung thus in the church, but that they may be used to rejoice in God particularly in the homes.” – Witvliet , 2003 29
The songs we sing today – with harmony and interplay of voices – are they beautiful songs that encourage our faithfulness, or are they, as Calvin feared, “composed merely to tickle and delight the ear”? Are they what Calvin called, “most displeasing to God”?
Calvin eschewed instruments and polyphony and the composition of new songs, while Luther encouraged them all. Never one to mince words, Luther contrasted the views of those like Zwingli and Calvin to his,
He must be a course clod and not worthy of hearing such charming music, who does not delight in this, and is not moved by such a marvel. He should rather listen to the donkey braying of the [Gregorian] chorale, or the barking of dogs and pigs, than to such music.30
If Calvin opposed musical instruments in the liturgy, so also did he oppose multiple parts there as “most displeasing to God.”
Our English heritage
After Henry VIII split with the Roman Catholic Church in 1527, the reformers in England became among the most musically restrictive of all.
Surely among the most hostile of all the reformers towards music were the English. During the reign of Edward VI (1547 – 53), veritable search-and-destroy missions were carried out against books of elaborately polyphonic “popish ditties,” which is one reason why the magnificent English music of the Middle Ages and early Renaissance only survives fragmentarily, and why so much of it is better represented in Continental sources than in English ones. – Weiss and Taruskin, 1984 31
Our English forebears, like the French under Calvin, were certain that God opposed the harmonies we sing today. Many Puritans among them went a step further, following Zwingli in opposing singing of every kind in their assemblies.
The Puritans
John Price identifies William Perkins (1558 – 1602) as “one of the leading theologians among the early Puritans.”32 Of Perkin’s influence, Price notes,
Perkins looks back to the example of the early Church Father, Justin Martyr, in support of his own rejection of musical instruments and writes, “Justin Martyr in his book of Christian Quest. And Ans. 107, ‘It is not the custom of the churches to sing their meters with any such kind of instruments, but their manner is only to use plain song.’”33
As detailed in appendix A, we know that a compilation erroneously attributing “Questions and Answers” to Justin Martyr had surfaced in 1540, and it became a mistaken foundation for opposing musical instruments in the days of the Puritans.
Price goes on to explain the evolution of the Regulative Principle of Worship by the Puritans. You recall that in Zwingli’s mind, this principle forbade all singing, whether accompanied or not. Many Puritans were inclined to agree with him. John Price observes,
During the late 1600s, many Particular Baptists in England believed that singing in public worship was an ordinance of the Jewish ceremonial law that was not to be continued under the gospel. Benjamin Keach (1640 – 1704), the leading Baptist theologian of his time, labored to convince his brethren that singing was a New Testament ordinance. In 1691, he published The Breach Repaired in God’s Worship, in which he shows from the Scripture that singing, just like prayer and preaching, is a moral, or natural duty incumbent upon all men in all times. – John Price, 2005 34
This Puritan framework distinguished two kinds of worship, moral versus ceremonial. You see the word “moral” in the argument from Benjamin Keach, above. This framework was key to swaying others in the Reformed tradition to allow singing in their assemblies.
Moral worship, the Puritans argued, was something that everyone knew without necessarily being told. Murder, rape, lying, etc., were morally wrong apart from any written ordinance. Man was accountable for moral trespasses regardless of hearing a rule against them, because these laws were already known in his heart.
A different kind of worship was something that you would know to practice only if you were told. For example, you would never know to take the Lord’s Supper or to be baptized without a specific command to do so. Because you would have to be given a “positive” or “Do this” command, this kind of worship became known as “positive worship.” Although “positive worship” might also be referred to as “ceremonial worship,” it was more encompassing than just the activities of a worship ceremony. Questions about how the church is governed or how contributions are dispersed, for example, were questions of positive worship outside of a communal ceremony.
Both these kinds of worship, then, are bigger than our assemblies. Murder and lying are wrong irrespective of an assembly, and a “positive ordinance” on church governance finds that elders oversee the church even outside of an assembly.
What set these later Puritans apart from Zwingli was their belief that a cappella, unison singing in an assembly of believers was a question of moral worship and not, surprisingly, a question of ceremonial (or positive) worship. They argued that everyone should know that it was inherently right to sing in unison without instruments in an assembly … without ever being given a “positive” command for it. Just as one would know to share God’s word and pray in an assembly without being told, they said, so would one know it was right to sing there. This teaching abandons command and example in favor of an inference that singing is always right in an assembly regardless of a command.
Puritans who fled to the Americas had taken the same path, as Price points out in this argument from John Cotton (1585 – 1652), born a century after Luther and Zwingli.
Singing with Instruments, was typicall, and so a ceremoniall worship, and therefore is ceased. But singing with heart and voyce is a morall worship, such as is written in the hearts of all men by nature. – John Cotton, 1647 35
In summary, the Puritan argument alleged this: Since everyone inherently knew (by inference) that singing was appropriate in our assemblies, no command was for it was ever needed, but since no one inherently knew that accompaniment was appropriate for assemblies, accompaniment could only be allowed in communal worship by express command, not by inference. (The Puritans also inherently knew to allow instrumental accompaniment in private, just as Calvin allowed harmony in private worship.)
This perspective contends that instrumental music was never used to praise God in public worship (as distinct from private worship) without what John Price has called “an explicit divine command.”36 In other words, whenever accompaniment was used, God must have given a detailed command explaining exactly who was supposed to play exactly which instruments in what settings. One problem with this conclusion is that for accompanied, communal singing outside of the tabernacle and temple, there is no correlation of explicit command and example. For example, there is no explicit command for women only (and not men) to play tambourines (and no other instrument) while dancing in a song of praise led by Miriam at the Red Sea (Exodus 15:20,21). Price argues that we must “rightly assume” that explicit commands for accompanied public worship were always given but never recorded.37 Or when David praises God in public worship with no recorded “positive” command (i.e.: 1st Chronicles 13 – 15), Price argues that David was perhaps leading a mere civil celebration, but not worshipping God.38 Read that passage of scripture and see what you think.
Moreover, if it were true that unaccompanied singing alone was always inherently welcome in public worship, then one must wonder why there was no singing of any kind in the tabernacle – from the days of Moses down past all the judges of Israel and through the reign of King Saul – until David instituted singing by command of God, albeit singing with accompaniment.
Maybe the biggest problem with this separation of God’s commands into moral versus positive worship would be the unintended consequences it has produced: the elevation of one’s view of positive worship over moral worship. Our preoccupation with a couple of hours of our lives on Sunday mornings can overwhelm our focus on the other 166 hours of our week. It was this consequence that perhaps troubled Luther the most. We will pick up with these unintended consequences of the regulative principle in the next chapter, but we close the discussion for now with this quote from Luther.
It easily happens that ceremonies become laws, and after they are established as laws, they quickly become snares to men’s consciences. Meanwhile pure doctrine is obscured and buried, especially if those who come after are indifferent and unschooled folk who are more concerned about ceremonies than they are about mortifying the lusts of the flesh. — Martin Luther, 1545 39
John Wesley (1703 – 1791)
Co-founder, with his brother Charles, of the Methodist church
Our tradition cites John Wesley as saying, “I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither Heard nor Seen.” The truth is that he said the opposite.
The quotation we cite comes from Clarke’s Commentary, volume IV, page 686, in commentary on Amos 6:5. The citation may be viewed online.40 Clarke produced the six volumes of the set from 1810 to 1826.
The first problem with this quotation from Clarke is that no one has found it anywhere other than this second-hand reference from Clarke, more than a generation after Wesley. In 1980, Steve Wolfgang wrote in the pro-a cappella publication, “Truth Magazine,”
Though having some exposure to the Wesleyan tradition, I have been unable to document this often-quoted statement anywhere else, and would be indebted to anyone who can provide verification. 41
Wolfgang went on to conclude,
We are not attempting here to be hypercritical of the excellent work of brethren in compiling useful quotations, but simply wish to counsel all of us (self included) to be extremely careful to check the reliability of what we quote, if we must quote.42
I contacted Steve while working on this book, and he confirmed that no one has contacted him with the primary source of Clarke’s quote.
The second and bigger problem with the quotation from Clarke is that it is contradicted by statements from John Wesley that we do find in the extensive primary sources. Wesley’s own journal entry for August 29, 1762 – Wesley was 59 at the time; Clarke was 2 – embraces musical instruments in worship:
Sunday, 29. – I preached at eight on Southernay Green, to an extremely quiet congregation. At the cathedral we had a useful sermon, and the whole service was performed with great seriousness and decency. Such an organ I never saw or heard before, so large, beautiful, and so finely toned; and the music of “Glory Be to God in the Highest” I think exceeded the Messiah itself. 43
(Handel’s Messiah, which included musical instruments, had been composed in 1741. Also, the quietness of the congregation stands in contrast to the disruptions he notes during his attempt to speak later that same Sunday.)
Clarke cites Wesley as wanting to neither hear nor even see a musical instrument, but the truth is that Wesley spoke highly of both the sight and the sound of the organ in the worship at Southernay Green. He found the assembly to be both serious and decent, as he put it.
Unlike Wesley, Clarke was personally, staunchly opposed to musical instruments. In the commentary on Amos 6:5, where Clarke appeals to Wesley as opposing musical instruments, Clarke gives his own opinion on the subject:
I believe that David was not authorized by the Lord to introduce that multitude of musical instruments into the Divine worship of which we read.
You can branch out from the online link to his commentary and read Clarke’s analysis of every Old Testament verse welcoming musical instruments. Like the ascetics of the Early Church, Clarke had difficulty rejecting instruments under the New Testament without equally condemning them under the Old.
If we cite Wesley at all, it should be in his approval of the sight and the sound of musical instruments, not as a basis for dividing Christ’s church over them.
Charles Spurgeon (1834 – 1892)
The Calvinist Baptist known as the “Prince of Preachers”
Spurgeon penned a seven-volume commentary on the Psalms, which he titled “The Treasury of David.” Our heritage has highlighted one of his comments on Psalm 42:4, which reads,
What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, the refined niceties of a choir, or the blowing off of wind from inanimate bellows and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it.44
It is no longer surprising to find disdain for musical instruments in the context of Old Testament commentary. Think about that. It is disappointing, however, to find that we continue to selectively choose what we cite, as demonstrated with our approach to Charles Spurgeon. In the same work, in his commentary on Psalm 33:2, Spurgeon clarifies,
EXPOSITION Verse 2. Praise the Lord with harp. Men need all the help they can get to stir them up to praise. This is the lesson to be gathered from the use of musical instruments under the old dispensation. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days, when Jesus gives us spiritual manhood, we can make melody without strings and pipes. We who do not believe these things to be expedient in worship, lest they should mar its simplicity, do not affirm them to be unlawful, and if any George Herbert or Martin Luther can worship God better by the aid of well-tuned instruments, who shall gainsay their right? We do not need them, they would hinder than help our praise, but if others are otherwise minded, are they not living in gospel liberty? 45
Spurgeon rather indicts us of, “not living in gospel liberty,” but we don’t quote that. This position of liberty is Spurgeon’s consistent take-away from Psalm 33. In his public comments on that passage from his published sermons, we read,
God was acceptably worshipped in the olden time with harp and with psaltery, and he may be so now; yet we worship him, so we judge for our own selves, better without them.46
Spurgeon unequivocally taught that the use of musical instruments fell into the realm of liberty, not doctrine. He steadfastly opposed splitting Christ’s church over the issue. He firmly disagreed with us on both counts. We should be careful not to selectively proffer quotations in any way that implies otherwise.
Conclusion
Our selective history is equally apparent with regard to the Reformers as we found it with regard to the Early Church. We attribute to men things they contradicted or never said, or else we omit the full content of their beliefs. Our telling of the Reformation story incorrectly paints men as though they almost uniformly agreed with us on our one issue. Again, if we quote a reformer at all, we misrepresent him. Our mistaken quotations from the Reformers offer no basis for the division of Christ.
1 John McClintock and James Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Eccleciastical Literature (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1894), Volume 6, p. 762. books.google.com/books?McClintock and Strong
2 James McKinnon, The Temple, the Church Fathers, p. VII: 241.
3 Eric Metaxis, Martin Luther: The Man Who Rediscovered God and Changed the World (New York: Viking, 2017), pp. 25, 55; Kindle locations 532, 1080.
4 Eric Metaxis, Martin Luther, p. 50, Kindle location 998.
5 Aristotle, Generation of Animals (350 B.C), Book II, section 3, translated by A.L. Peck (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943), p. 175. See online at archive.org/stream/generationofanim00arisuoft#page/174/mode/2up
6 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologie, First Part, Question 92, Article 1, available online at newadvent.org/summa/1092.htm
7 Erasmus, Annotations on the New Testament (1519), as cited in Eric Metaxis, Martin Luther, p. 357, Kindle location 4646.
8 Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Volume 48 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1963), pages 37 – 38., as cited by Eric Metaxas, Martin Luther p. 94, Kindle location 1765 – 68.
9 Eric Metaxis, Martin Luther, p. 2, Kindle Location 139.
10 Ibid., pp. 390 – 91, Kindle location 7046.
11 The lute was a stringed instrument.
12 Mark Evan Bonds, A History of Music in Western Culture (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003), p.155.
13 New Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 1, (Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2005), entry for a cappella, p. 1., also online at britannica.com/art/a-cappella
14 Martin Luther, An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg (1523), in Liturgy and Hymns (ed. Ulrich St. Leupold; trans.Paul Zeller Strodach; vol. 53 of Luther’s Works, American Edition, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965), pp. 36 – 37. See also patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/blessed-martin-luther-the-communion-of-the-people/
15 Martin Luther, The German Mass and Order of Divine Service (January 1526). history.hanover.edu/texts/luthserv.html
16 Ewald M. Plass, compiled by, What Luther Says: A practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishihng House, 1959), p. 982.
17 John McClintock and James Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Eccleciastical Literature, Volume 6, p. 762. books.google.com/books?McClintock and Strong
18 John Girardeau, Instrumental Music, pp. 154 – 55.
19 Heinrich Eckhard, Fasciculus Controversiarum Theologicarum (1619) books.google.com/books?Heinrich Eckhard
20 Hilton C..Oswald, Ed., Luther’s Works, vol. 18 (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1975); “look inside” on Amazon.
21 Pro-a cappella historian David Hamrick has identified a place where Luther uses the word, “ensigns,” in the context of a Christian assembly (drhamrick.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-fruit-of-our-lips-cappella-praise.html) Hamrick observes that the reference is at best ambiguous.
22 Mark Evan Bonds, A History of Music in Western Culture, p. 156.
The quotation from Luther is found in Table Talks, which were conversations around Luther’s dinner table or other informal settings, collected 1531 to 1546 and published in 1566. This particular recollection is from Johannes Aurifaber, Luther’s assistant, who was with Luther at his death. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_Talk_(Luther)
The full English translation cited by Bond is available in Ewald M. Plass, What Luther Says, p.980, entry 3091, not to mention numerous places online. Plass in turn refers us to two German sources of the complete, published table talks. One is Dr. Martin Luthers Sämmtliche Schriften: Bd. Colloquia oder Tischreden, volume 22 (St. Louis, 1887, known as the Halle or Walch edition), in which Luther’s quotation on music and fanatics is found on p. 1541, entry 5, available online at play.google.com/books/reader?id=blchAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA1541; You can highlight the text and let Google translate it for you. Plass’s other citation is D. Martin Luthers Tischreden 1531 – 46, Volume 6 (1921, known as the Weimar edition), p. 348, entry 7034, which is also available online: archive.org/stream/werketischreden10206luthuoft#page/348/mode/2up
23 Ulinka Rublack, editor, Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformations (Oxford University Press, 2017), p. 624. Viewable online at books.google.com/books?id=3qquDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA624&dq=zwingli+on+instrumental+music&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV3rTajcbZAhWCwFkKHRQeCUwQ6AEIQDAE#v=onepage&q=zwingli%20on%20instrumental%20music&f=false
24 John Price, Old Light on New Worship, p. 90. See also Erwin Fahlbusch, editor, The Encyclopedia of Christianity, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), p. 371, viewable online at books.google.com/books?id=lZUBZlth2qgC&pg=PA371&dq=zwingli+on+instrumental+music&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV3rTajcbZAhWCwFkKHRQeCUwQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q=zwingli%20on%20instrumental%20music&f=false
25 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulative_principle_of_worship (retrieved on 8/15/2018).
26 John Mark Hicks, Stone-Campbell Hermeneutics IV — Regulative Principle and Churches of Christ, johnmarkhicks.com/2008/05/30/stone-campbell-hermeneutics-iv-regulative-principle-and-churches-of-christ/
27 John Mark Hicks, Stone-Campbell Hermeneutics VI — Appreciation and Critique, johnmarkhicks.com/2008/06/01/stone-campbell-hermeneutics-vi-appreciation-and-critique/
28 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 20, Section 32 (Singing of the greatest antiquity, but not universal. How to be performed), translated by Henry Beveridge, esq. Institutes of the Christian Religion, volume 2 (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), Book III, pp. 500 – 501. play.google.com/books/reader?id=lOVDAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA500
29 John D. Witvliet, Worship Seeking Understanding (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), pp. 224 – 25. See Goudimel online at museeprotestant.org/en/notice/claude-goudimel-about-1520-to-1572/
30 Martin Luther, Table Talks, recorded by Paul Nettl, Luther and Music (Philadelphia: Russell and Russell Pub; 1948), p. 16. Online at books.google.com/books?id=82kIAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=donkey
Or Carl F. Schalk, Luther on Music: Paradigms of Praise (St. Louis: Concordia House, 1988), p. 21.
31 Piero Weiss and Richard Taruskin, Music in the Western World: A History in Documents (New York: Schirmer Books, 1984), p. 109.
32 John Price, Old Light on New Worship, p. 108.
33 William Perkins, A Golden Chain (London: John Legatt, 1621), viewable online at books.google.com/books?id=ANcyDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=snippet&q=%22such%20kind%20of%20instruments%22&f=false
34 John Price, Old Light on New Worship, p. 117.
35 John Cotton, Singing of Psalmes, a Gospel-Ordinance (1647), answer 3, pp.5 – 6. Online at archive.org/stream/singingofpsalmes00cott#page/4/mode/2up
36 John Price, Old Light on New Worship, pp. 17, 33, 34, 226.
37 Ibid., p. 32.
38 Ibid., p. 33.
39 Martin Luther, in a letter to Prince George of Anhalt, July 10, 1545, found in Theodore G. Tappert, trans., Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), pp. 311 – 12. Viewable online at books.google.com/books?id=XdIX8_EMTbQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=mortifying&f=false
40 Adam Clark, Clarke’s Commentary (1810 to 1826), volume IV, page 686. studylight.org/commentaries/acc/amos-6.html
41 Steve Wolfgang, “What Have Religious Leaders Said About the Instrument?” in Truth Magazine (June 12, 1980) Volume 24, pp. 389 – 90. Online at truthmagazine.com/archives/volume24/TM024136.html
42 Ibid.
43 The Journal of John Wesley, Chapter 12, (August 29, 1762, “Wesley in Cornwall”), Online at ccel.org/ccel/wesley/journal.vi.xii.xxi.html
44 Charles Spurgeon, The Treasury of David (7 volumes, final published in 1885) Psalm 42 biblestudytools.com/commentaries/treasury-of-david/psalms-42-4.html
45 Ibid., Psalm 33 biblestudytools.com/commentaries/treasury-of-david/psalms-33-2.html