The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-06-08
For the Central Presbyterian
THE ORGAN.

OF DIR. Dabney under the above title.
l. He evidently holds the opinion, that
if it should be decided by the visible
Church, that the use of instruments other
than the human voice, in the worship of
God, since the introduction of the New
Testament dispensation, is sin, that sin
could not be properly checked by church
discipline" because it is not a sin per Sc !;
and not being sin per- Sc, it is one of the
matters of Christian liberty" do not
think that have mistake his position on
this point. He says: 'It would be
great sin for Christian to drink wine
under such circumstances that his weak
brother thereby stumbleth or is offended
or is made weak But if this Christian
did not drink Unexpectedly, he could
not be disciplined therefor; because God
has not made the drinking of wine sin in
itself. This class Of duties are duties: the
neglects of them are sins: but being mat
ters of Christian liberty, God has left the
remedy to the conscience of Christians
and not to the Church court. The use
of instruments obviously falls into this
class under the New Testament, it is
unscriptural: but the use of instruments
in one department of the worship of the
Old Testament shows that it is not neces.
sarily sin in itself, and so cannot be pro-
perly checked by Church discipline"
If {" duties are duties. and the neglects
of them are sins, then, if sin is not
sin per Sc, the duty, Of which that sin is
an omission, is not duty per Sc. The
observance Of the Lords Supper is not a
duty per Sc, (being a positive ordinance,
/ no Inv, J. L.,
first four thousand years of mans life on
earth,) hence, its neglect cannot be pro-
perly checked by Church discipline, ac-
ording to the Dr.'s reasoning. If his
position is true-that tie use in the wor-
ship of God OF instruments (2aon-human,
| suppose he means) lis aaaScTptatraz,"
then by his own admission, it is Eek
cluded and forbidden and is therefore,
under the New Testament" forbidden
at all times, under all circumstances, and
on all occasions. Yet, if the Church
should declare this to be the teaching of
the word of God, she may not forbid her
members such use of musical instru-
ments: or, having forbidden them, dis
obedience to such law of God and His
Church cannot be properly checked by
Church discipline'l
The DR.. will not deny that the viola
ton of the Sabbath day by member of
the church is properly disciplinable
offence: yet the sin of violating the Sab
bath by engaging iaa secular labor every
first day Of the aOeek, all the gear round,
IS not SIN per Sc. 1t can be shown that
the use of ardent spirits as beverage,
but not to intoxication, should not be
made matter Of Church discipline, upon
other grounds than the plea that such
use is not sin per Sc. If it could be
shown that such use of it was sin at all
times, under all circumstances, and on all
occasions, then it might be properly
checked by Church discipline" And if,
according to the Dr.'s reasoning, the use
of musical instruments, under the New
Testament, is forbidden, at all times,
under all circumstances, and on all occa-
sions, then, members Of the Church have
no " Christian liberty in the matter-it
is disciplinable offence.
2 I object to the opinion advanced by
DR.. Breckenridge, and endorsed by DR..
Dabney, that the worship Of God by
musical instruments, in the time of David
was a mere political and civic ordi-
nance, such as royal secular authority
might be competent to-" DIR. Dabney
evidently repudiates the idea that such
use OF instruments was an unauthorized
corruption" He says: cts introduce
ton by David was either an unauthor-
ised corruption, (Which all of us would
be loath to CHARGE or else, a mere polit-
ical and civic ordinance, such as ROYAL
secular authority might be competent to.
But if so, instrumental music never was
a jus diUi1un1 part of worship: and is no
more precedent for the Church than
David's other civic acts"
The Dr. admitted above, that instru-
rnents were used IN the aOorship of God.
Now he says, it was not "juS dlUinbn1
part OF worship" If so, then l maintain
that it was corruption, authorised in
deed by David hut unauthorized by Je-
hovah, and unacceptable to Him. David
was no more competent to" introduce
musical instruments into the worship Of
God, by royal secular authority" than
Z. IS the President Of these United States
And in such case, the use of them by
David and the children Of Israel was
"Wiltacorshlp." The DR.. seems to think
so himself, for he advances " this reason