Nevin on the Evils of Instruments

EVILS CONNECTED WITH THE USE OF INSTRUMENTS IN WORSHIP.

---

We hear it sometimes said that we should strive to make our church services as attractive as possible. No doubt, within certain limits. But when this becomes a ruling motive, without regard to the ruling of Scripture, where is the process to end? Other methods, even more questionable, may come to be resorted to. It looks very plausible to say, that, if one is attracted to the church,

[Page 78]

no matter from what motive, he may hear the Gospel, be converted, and saved. The end does not justify the means. Many will come in this way, dragged to church by the ear so to speak, who will not listen to the Gospel, and the effect, in many cases, may be, only to harden the heart against the reception of the truth that is the means of saving the soul, when, otherwise they might be influenced by it—for, are they not regular church-goers, and joining ostensibly in acts of worship? Paul was willing to become all things to all men, that he might gain some; but we do not believe he ever contemplated such a thing as this. Not thus did Paul’s Divine Master command, “but go ye out to the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in.” Let a competent witness give evidence as to the working of the plan, where it has been fully tried. J. G. Holland, in Scribner’s for January, writes, “We pay immense sums to make churches attractive, and there are those in New York that are crammed every Sunday simply for the purpose of hearing expensive music. There is a very large attendance upon certain churches in this city that has not the first motive of worship in it—churches in which artistic music is made so prominent, indeed, as quite to put all ideas of worship out of the mind of those who are musically inclined.” This, while no proper inducement to attend is held out to the poor, rather in the way of throwing stumbling-blocks in their path. And so it inevitably comes to be, wherever the organ is in full blast. The attractive process has its drawbacks. One gentleman makes a present of an instrument, and, because, the congregation vote it out, he is offended and walks off to another denomination. Another says, that, if instrumental music is introduced in the church he frequents, they will not have him; he will go where he will get it better: and he is likely to do as he says, and to have many imitators. Every magnet has two poles, one that attracts and one that repels. The presence of those who come to hear the music, not the Gospel, or to join in real worship, would surely be dearly purchased at the price of driving out others, who may well be presumed to be amongst the most godly and conscientious of the flock.

It is not altogether the practice of instrumental music, much as we are opposed to it, that we deprecate, but the principles on which it is generally sought to be vindicated. These would cover much wider ground. Professor Wallace is at some pains to show that instruments have no tendency to introduce Ritualism. He tells us that this “connects itself with pretensions to priesthood.” But this is not telling us what Ritualism is. Here, again, there is an absence of any proper definition. What is Ritualism? We give our definition, and let any one who can, give a better. It is the bringing into the practice of worship of any thing which has no Scriptural sanction either by precept or example. We take it to be

[Page 79]

synonymous, to an extent, with superstition, the latter, however, taking in a wider compass, including doctrine and other practices besides those coming under the head of worship. The Professor would doubtless say he believes instruments to have sanction from Scripture even in Christian worship, and thus he would eliminate them from our definition. We think differently, as we have endeavoured to show. But, independently of this, it cannot be denied that there are two very marked tendencies in the professedly Christian world at the present day. One is towards what is called free inquiry, the Broad, the latitudinarian, the sceptical. The other is towards the Ritualistic. These might seem at first sight opposed to each other. But under certain conditions they can come together, exercise mutual toleration, and even co-operate. The proof is only too patent, and we need not wait to illustrate. Now, if instrumental music in worship, be not in itself Ritualism, a first step it may be in it (we believe it is), yet it is in keeping and very naturally falls in with it. The persons who commenced the English movement known at first as Tractarianism had little idea, we presume, what it would lead to. Some novelties in practice were introduced. These had to be defended. The principles adduced for vindication were found to have a wider scope. Thus came other novelties in practice, which led to further ‘developments’ in principle. And thus the process went on, doctrine and practice having a mutual influence, acting and re-acting, mutually corrupting, until it has issued with many in what is full-blown Popery, all but the name. We are sometimes reminded of certain churches that have long had organs, and yet have retained their orthodoxy. It is open to question whether the churches alluded to have really retained their orthodoxy so pure and entire as we are asked to believe; but, apart from this, which we do not care to pursue, we look upon the presence of the organ as a descent from a higher condition of spirituality—as a corrupt and corrupting element. It may take an indefinitely longer period to effect the transformation on a Presbyterian, than on a Prelatic Church. The process goes on under more unfavourable conditions, but once initiated it does go on. The Church was wholly Presbyterian in the days of the apostles, yet the antichristian leaven was already fermenting. The breaking forth of evil is like the breaking-forth of water. The orifice in the inclosing embankment may be just now large, or it may be very small. The catastrophe will be the same in the end. The difference is only a question of time. The apostolic caution is good for communities as for individuals, “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” How many Churches in Christendom are wholly free from the influence of the two tendencies to which we have adverted?

The statement that music is the same, whether produced by the

[Page 80]

organs of articulation or by an instrument, is very plausible. To many it may appear as an unanswerable argument on behalf of the use of instruments. But we should not trust our own speculations on such a point. The music produced by the one method may have a tendency injurious to religion which does not belong to the other. The first question should be, What is the mind of the Spirit speaking in the Word? Experience will ever be found to confirm its decisions, never to conflict with it, if the experience be real. What effect has the instrument upon congregational singing? Does it make this more general, or does it banish it to a great extent? The answer to this question is diametrically opposite, as it comes from one who favours instruments or from one who opposes their use. We cannot speak from personal observation. The minister who is in the pulpit, and the members of the choir, may tell you that the congregation is all singing, when such is not the fact, though they think so. One goes into a Church where there is an organ, and stands up with the rest, at first joining in the singing, but he is soon stared out of countenance by those around him, till he is fain to be silent like themselves. Having an opportunity, he hints at this to the minister afterwards, when he is surprised to hear him say, “Oh, my people all sing.” This is no fancy sketch; we have it on indubitable testimony, as a thing that actually occurred. It is just what we would expect. There are many to whom the pleasure of listening would be marred by taking a part, when an organ is performing. Besides, the performances on the organ in Churches are not always confined to what is solemn and sacred. We have heard one, who had ample opportunity of verifying what he alleged, say that, in a region where organs were common, it was no uncommon thing for a congregation to be marched out to one of those light secular airs which are well known as wedded to words that are very childish and foolish, and which may have been heard last, or many a time, in a place of a very different character. As music is a thing pre-eminently of association, this is surely calculated to banish all devotional feeling, if such has had, any place in the people’s heart. It may be said that the like of this is only an abuse—no reason against proper use. But if the organ is admitted, it is impossible to exclude abuse to greater or less extent. Some say, if the organ were kept in a subordinate place, as an aid to sustain the voice (that is on the supposition that it can do so, which we do not believe), they could see no objection to it. But some of these are also candid enough to admit, that it never could be restricted to that subordinate place. The evils of the practice may be summarized thus—

1. It has the effect of preventing many from joining with their voice, as they ought to do, in the solemn worship of God. This is denied, but we believe it is so to a large extent.

2. It is

[Page 81]

theatrical, sensuous, and inconsistent with that simplicity and spirituality which are required under the Gospel.

3. It is expensive. How much good might be effected, if the large sums of money spent upon great organs were given to sustain missionary enterprise?

4. It is calculated to engender alienation, strife, and division, to grieve and wound the consciences of many God-fearing men, and to prevent that uniformity in worship to which all Christians should strive to attain, and which was one great professed aim of our Covenanted ancestors in these lands.

5. Its influence on devotional feeling, we are persuaded, is on the whole most injurious—it is so easy for one to come under the self-deception that what is merely the gratification of a natural musical taste is true and real devotion.

6. It is a violation of the Second Commandment, which forbids the worshipping of God in any “way not appointed in His Word.” Hence John Knox did not hesitate to class it under the head Idolatry. There are some whose ideas of idolatry seem to be exceedingly circumscribed. At one time we are told that a musical instrument “is not fairly characterized as ‘dead insensate matter,’” leaving us to infer that it must be a living sentient being; at another, that “it is a mere machine.” But whether one or other of these, there is no idolatry in the case, it seems, unless one falls on his knees before it, and worships it. Now we hold that to rest in any means or aid to devotion, even though it were divinely prescribed, is to idolize that means, for it occupies the place which the Great Object of worship should occupy. It is surely quite possible to do this with music. Where an organ has place there is always a considerable class who go, not to hear the Gospel or to worship God, “but for the music there.” Are they not guilty of a sort of spiritual idolatry? Can those who erect the organ free themselves from all responsibility of inducing them to it?

7. The practice cannot be vindicated except on principles which would justify much more—altars and altar lights, incense, vestments of various shapes and hues—the whole symbolic paraphernalia, in short of the Ritualists.

It may be objected, that it is not becoming to speak of evils connected with what was once Divinely enjoined. But if it formed part of the Dispensation now “done away,” as we believe it did, and if it be now forbidden, as we believe it is constructively, then we can see no presumption in the case. A small but highly respectable class of Millenarians confidently expect that, in the latter day, there will be a restoration of animal sacrifices, not as types of a Saviour to come, but as memorials of a Saviour already come. Suppose a party should now introduce the practice in anticipation of that day, would there be no evil in that? As we are not to indulge our own speculations drawn from the light or law of nature, reason, or Christian prudence, in opposition to the

[Page 82]

revealed will of God, so neither are we to imagine that there can be aught but evil in running counter to His will. And it should be understood, that there are many points on which God has revealed His will with sufficient clearness, yet not so as to preclude the trial and exercise of reason and faith in respect to that revelation.

We hear occasionally of the great necessity there is for some additions to our psalmody. From whence does the necessity arise? Some do not condescend to explain. Others who attempt an explanation cannot do so without either speaking disparagingly and irreverently of the inspired Psalms—sometimes it amounts to railing accusation—or else (which comes to much the same thing) talking of certain deep modern experiences, which require new songs to give them adequate expression. If these undescribed experiences be different from those of God’s people of old who were guided by inspiration, they must be very apocryphal and not very saintly. We must believe them indeed to be wholly unreal and imaginary, and the alleged necessity built on them must be of a like character. There is no necessity in the case but what springs from a morbid craving after the attractive and sensational. A correspondent of the Melbourne Age (in Australia) writing over the signature “A Presbyterian,” so far back as November, 1869, came out with the following:—“I know it’s of little use talking to old or even middle-aged men of the advantage of instrumental music. * * The only way to manage is to endeavour with all our might to get a harmonium into each Sunday School, and in a few years these scholars of to-day will be the hearers, and by their numbers drive the present system clean out of the field.” Our Irish Presbyterian Instrumentalists may not be quite so frank and outspoken as this Australian, but they have been quietly pursuing the system of tactics here indicated, saying nothing about it. Harmoniums have been in use for many years in the “Sunday” Schools held in the lecture rooms attached to a number of Churches, and hymn books have been introduced into a still larger number. The result can be easily forecast. The School room is but a few steps at most from the Church, and the hymn book is sure to be followed by the organ.