Nevin on Not a Trivial Matter
James Dodson
THE PRACTICE NOT A TRIVIAL MATTER.
We hear it sometimes spoken of as a matter of very small importance. Even if the consideration were true, it would cut both ways, and with vastly greater force against than for. Why manifest such undue anxiety for it—why disturb the peace of the Church, and distract the minds of men from subjects of acknowledged greater moment—if it be as thus represented? The conscience of no one is aggrieved by the absence of an instrument. The conscience of many will be wounded, and their devotion seriously interfered with, by its presence. Ah, but, says the Instrumentalist, if you insist on forbidding it, that infringes upon my Christian liberty—pure lawlessness as we have shown—and so he thinks himself entitled to assume an air of virtuous indignation, an attitude of defiance, and imagines he has the Apostle Paul on his side. Paul could say that “neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.” The latter clause, by the way, we have not heard quoted in this controversy—this, perhaps, has its own significance—and if the quotation of the former availeth anything for the Instrumentalist’s purpose, it availeth for the introduction of the whole Mosaic ritual. But then, Paul would never for a moment consent to the circumcision of a Gentile.* The Instru-
_____
* The Rev. A. C. Murphy, indeed, has said that “to meet the scruples of the Jewish converts, he seemed not unwilling that Titus, the Greek, should be circumcised, as Timothy had already been. He deferred so far
[Page 85]
mentalist, however, totally mistakes his own position as compared with that of the apostle. He makes free to reverse any analogy that exists between them. The Judaizers of old, it is true, insisted on circumcision and keeping the law of Moses, as necessary to salvation. The Instrumentalists do not profess to regard the use of an instrument as possessed of such stupendous importance. We certainly owe them no thanks for that. But, short of this, and so far as there is any analogy in the case, it is all the other way from what they appear to conceive. It is they, not we, that are in the place of the Judaizers; and we have the apostle on our side, not they. This being so, we call upon all true-hearted Presbyterians to arise, quit them like men, stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free, and not suffer themselves to be entangled again with the smallest fraction of that yoke of bondage, respecting which Peter could use the words, “a yoke, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.”
We have actually heard another expression of Paul’s publicly quoted in this controversy—“We know that an idol is nothing in the world”—and then it was added, with an adaptation of other words of his, ‘neither, if we use an instrument in worship are we the better; neither, if we use not an instrument, are we the worse’—as if Paul gave authoritative permission to Christians to erect an idol in their places for worship, and to assemble there, and feast together, partly at least in honour of the idol—all this on the ground, that we know an idol to be nothing in the world!! This goes considerably beyond adducing the worship of the golden calf as a proof (while it proves nothing about instrumentation) of the early use of instruments in the worship of the God of Israel.
We are far from regarding the agitation on behalf of instruments in worship as of small significance, were it for nothing else than as a sign of the times, an index to the proclivities of the age in which we live.
The sentiment has been promulgated, that instrumental music in worship was “fitted to the infantile state of the human race”—“unnecessary and even unsuitable in its manhood”—“adapted to the Church of the Old Testament, but not to that of the New”—and yet that it would be a wise thing now to permit it. Is this a sentiment worthy of a father in the Church, a leader of the host of the Presbyterian Israel in Ireland?
Let those who make light of the subject reflect, that God’s trifles, if there be such, are not to be trifled with. When Uzzah put
_____
[Footnote continued from p. 84:]
to an honest, though unwarrantable prejudice.” Where did Mr. Murphy learn this? The apostle himself asserts the contrary, in language as emphatic as we can well conceive—“To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour.”—Gal. ii. 5.
[Page 86]
forth his hand to steady the ark, because the oxen that drew the cart on which it was placed shook it, the act might seem at a first glance only indicative of pious care, positively commendable. But we know the result. It were well, if those who conclude that any sufficient intimation of the will of God on any subject, whatever may be their ideas of its comparative triviality or importance, may be with impunity treated as a thing of nought, lightly tampered with, and their own notions, from whatever source derived, substituted for it as a rule of guidance, should always REMEMBER PEREZ-UZZAH.
But what would you do, it is asked, with those congregations that insist on having an instrument? Would you excommunicate them? Those who ask the question should consider, whether they have not contributed, by their silence and connivance in the past, to create the difficulty they feel. Had the first case of the kind been treated firmly, it would have prevented the multiplication of such cases. Even as it is, we do not believe that a peremptory order from the Supreme Court to desist from the use of the instrument, an order to which effect could be given, would lead to any such grave consequences as seem to be imagined. It is the number of those ministers who favour the use of instruments which gives encouragement to those who have them to hold out as they do. A sort of appeal ad misericordiam has been made from an influential quarter on behalf of one case. The alternative in that case is represented to be—either an instrument or no service of praise at all. We do not believe there is a settled congregation of Presbyterians in Ireland in which there could not be found one or several capable of raising a psalm tune, and surely the rest could follow. If it be otherwise, what business have they with an instrument? Good music, or any music, must be only lost upon a people so utterly destitute of the musical faculty. We are constrained to come to the conclusion, that the motive must be a very different one from that which is alleged. There may be indeed some self-deception. A certain exalted personage is said to have repeated so often to his friends, how he led a battalion on the field of Waterloo, that he came at last actually to believe it himself.
The Instrumentalists deprecate very much the use of strong language by their opponents. They counsel great moderation and mildness of speech. This is quite usual with innovators. We do not think there is much occasion, and to lecture brethren in this style certainly comes with a very bad grace from those who cannot write many sentences on the subject without assuming airs of superiority, giving it clearly to be understood that they reckon all the brighter intelligence of the Church to be on their side of the question, while on the other they see little but prejudice, bigotry, narrow-mindedness, and illiberality. They
[Page 87]
should know, or be made to know, that this is ten thousand times more offensive and irritating than the use of such a harmless-looking little phrase as “ominous of evil,” which seems to have furnished the sole text for one lecture of the kind we have alluded to, that happened to come under our observation several months ago.
The effort should be to get the people to sing universally and heartily, and no paltry economy should be allowed to stand in the way of such a desirable consummation. There may be some reason to complain in many quarters of the numbers who are dumb when God’s praise is being sung. The remedy is not to be found in the introduction of instruments—that will only have the effect of multiplying the number of mute listeners—but in having the people instructed in the art of singing. It is right and proper and much to be desired, not only that all should sing, but that they should do it skilfully; although there is a danger to be guarded against of being so absorbed in the outward and artistic effort, the merely bodily service, as to fail in rendering real worship in spirit and in truth. God judges not as man judges. He looks upon the heart. Here is one congregation, where the singing is such as would be even offensive or painful to a highly cultivated and critical ear; but it is the genuine honest outburst from hearts truly devoted to God, and earnestly bent on glorifying His great name. Who can doubt that it is most acceptable to Him who searches the heart? There is another, where the celebrants, be they few or many, are so taken up with rendering the service in true artistic style, with or without an accompaniment (greatly more likely to be the fact in the former case), that they have no attention or heart to spare for anything else. Were Isaiah to rise from the dead we can conceive of him addressing, in the name of the Lord, such a congregation of professed worshippers much as he did Israel of old—“When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.” “And the harp, and the viol, the tabret, and pipe, and wine are in their feasts: but they regard not the work of the Lord, neither consider the operation of His hands.”