An organ having been erected in the new Claremont Church, Glasgow, the same question came up in 1856 before the United Presbyterian Synod, with which the Relief Synod had been for some years incorporated. Again more formally in 1858, when the following mo- tion was carried alike against one for toleration, which had many supporters, and against another, which cer- tainly had few supporters, and contained the assertion, " Instrumental music was one of the carnal ordinances
ORGAN
426
ORGAN
of the Levitical economy." The motion which passed into law Avas :
"That the synod reaffirm their deliverance of 1856 re- specting the use of instrumental music in public wor- ship, viz., 'The synod refused the petition of the me- morialists, inasmuch as the use of instrumental music in public worship is contrary to the uniform practice of this Cliurch, and of the other Presbyterian cliurches in this country, and would seriously disturb the peace of the churches under the inspection of this synod; and at the same time enjoined sessions to employ all judicious measures for the improvement of vocal psalmody;' and the synod now declare said deliverance to be applicable to diets of congregational worship on week-days as well as on the Lord's day."
It is to be observed that in each of these three instan- ces a constitutional principle of Presbyterianism was violated, the organ was introduced, and the innovation made without consulting the brethren, without asking the advice or sanction of the presbytery. Presby- terians, Independents, and Methodists now, however, use organs, so that they have ceased to be a denomina- tional characteristic. And why not? The question is one of taste rather than conscience or Scripture. The passage in Ephes. v, 19, so often appealed to by both parties, says nothing for either (see Eadie, Coimnentary on the place, and the works of Alford, EUicott, Mej'er, Hodge). Instrumental music was no Jewish thing in any typical sense, the choristers and performers of Da- vid's orchestra were no original or essential element of tlie Levitical economy. The music of the Temple stood upon a different basis from sacrifice, which has long been formally superseded. The service of song is not once alluded to in the Epistle to the Hebrews as among the things which "decayed and waxed old." Its employment in the Christian Church is therefore no introduction of any point or portion of Jewish ritual, nor any digression into popish ceremonial. Indeed, the employment of an organ to guide the music is properly not ritualistic at all. The leader has his pitch-pipe, and the hundred pipes of the organ only serve to guide and sustain the voice of the people. Nobody wishes to praise God by the mere sound of the organ : its music only helps and supports the melody and worship of the church. It has been abused certainly, but the sensuous luxury of some congregations should be no bar to the right and legitimate use of it by others. In fact, the proper employment of it might be pleaded for on the same grounds as scientitic education in music. Both are simply helps to the public worship of God. See Cromar, A Vindication of the Or(/an (Edinb. 1854, 12rao) ; Campbell, Two Papers on Church Music, read before "The Liverpool Eccles. Musical Society" (Liv- erpool, 1854).
IH. Objections against its Use in modei-n Jewish Wor- ship.— The introduction of the organ in the Je^vish re- ligious service, especially in Germany, has excited great and fierce discussion, and a small library could be filled with the works written pro and con. About the j-ear 1818 an organ was introduced into a temple at Ham- burg, when twenty-two rabbins, among them Mordecai Eunet and Moses Soplier, gave their decision against such innovation in a work entitled n^"i3n ^121 nbs. On the other hand, Shem Tob Samun, a noted rabbi, supported by rabbins of Jerusalem, J. C. Ricanati, of Ve- rona, and the renowned A. Chorin, published an opinion in 'p~\:S.T^ n;-: and na3 ^1X in favor of reforms and the introduction oi the organ. The first works for and against the reform were in Hebrew. At a later time the reformers and their opponents continued their de- bates mostly in (ierman, in periodicals and pamphlets. The objectidus against the introduction of the organ are of tiiree classes. (1.) It is prohiljiled to play music on the Sabijath. A Jew is not allowed to play on the Sab- bath, and everything prohibited to a Jew we are not allowed to have done by a Gentile. (2.) In obedience to the prohibition of the Torah, " In their statutes thou shalt not walk;" and, .as the organ is a specific Chris-
tian invention used in churches, we are prohibited from its use. (3.) In obedience to a Talmudical law {Sotah, 49 ; also copied in Orach Chuyin, oGO), that, in memory of the destruction of the Temple, Jews should not play any musical instrument.
The first of these objections has been refuted by Wie- ner in his Referate iiber die der ersten israel. Synode zii Leipzig iiberreichten Antrdge (1871). He argues that " to play music on the Sabbath is not among the thirty- nine kinds of labor enumerated in the Talmud Sabbath, nor even among those derived from that class. To play a musical instrument is called an art, and no labor — riDXbn irxi ir^sn {Rosh Ilashanah, 29, c). Music is not only not prohibited, but even commanded for the holidays by the Torah. The Talmud (^Erubim, 102) allows repairing a musical instrument in the Temple, but not in any other place : ' It is allowed to tix a broken string (on the Sabbath) in the Temple, but not outside.'" From this prohibition. Dr. Wiener concludes " that to make music must have been allowed, nD'^'T22, other- wise the Talmud would have used the words 'as to make music is prohibited, the more so is repairing,'" and he considers this omission as an evident proof that music was allowed. A prohibition is deduced from the Talmud (Beza, 36, c) by those who are opposed to the use of the organ, but this is an expression whose mean- ing is differently' understood by Maimonides and Jos- saphath ; the latter even allowed the playing of musical instruments. Among the rabbinical authorities we find a great difference of opinion. Thus the Shulchan Aruch, or, rather, Moses Isserles, prohibited playing a musical instrument {Orach Chayim, 349, 3). Rabbi Nissiin al- lowed manual work (nSTlJ rtDX^^) to be done by a Gentile, if it were necessary for a religious function, Rema (R. Moses Isserles) also stated {Orach Chayim, 276), " Some allow a GentUe to light lamps on the Sab- bath for a religions meal, and in consequence of such permission some even went so far as to allow this for every meal and festivity." And (ib. 338), " Some allow a Gentile to play musical instruments on the Sabbath in honor of a wedding, but in our times they are in- clined to lighten the precepts (!)." Of Mehrll it is related that, at the time he made the nuptials of his son, it was forbidden by the government to make mu- sic, and he sent the bridal party to another city in order that they might enjoy music there on the Sabbath (see Rema, 339, and Eliah Rabah).