Nevin on the Historical Argument
James Dodson
HISTORICAL ARGUMENT.
We take our stand on the fact, that, for the first six hundred years of the Christian era no instrumental music was ever employed in the worship of the Christian Church—and this notwithstanding that manifold abuses and corruptions in other respects had already crept in during the period. This one fact is worth ten thousand merely speculative reasonings. It appears in the foreground grandly, broadly, most conspicuously, like an impregnable rock, against which all other arguments of every sort, metaphysical, analogical, theological, or philological, dash themselves in vain, and only break into foam and spray. It is very significant, moreover, that in that large portion of the nominally Christian Church, distinguished as the Eastern or Greek Church, corrupt as it became in other respects, no such thing has ever had place from the earliest period till the present time. The practice was introduced in the Western Church by Pope Vitalian so late as A.D. 660.
The great champions of the Reformation vigorously denounced the use of instruments in worship. Luther, whose love of music, and even the music of instruments, though not in public worship, is well known, according to Echard, reckoned organs amongst the ensigns of Baal. The same author says, “They are laid aside in most of the Reformed Churches, nor would they be retained among the Lutherans, unless they had forsaken their own Luther.” Calvin, commenting on Psalms xxxiii. 2, says, “I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and viols, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is the puerile instruction of the law: I speak of the stated service of the temple. For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God.” [Calvin’s allusion here seems to be what we distinguish as secular music, and his meaning, that this should be indulged in only in a spirit and manner befitting Christians.] “But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things
[Page 53]
from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to Him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints only in a known tongue. (1 Cor. xiv. 16.) The voice of man, although not understood by the generality, assuredly excels all inanimate instruments of music; and yet we see what St. Paul determines concerning speaking in an unknown tongue. Does any one object that music is very useful for awakening the minds of men and moving their hearts? I own it; but we should always take care that no corruption creep in, which might both defile the pure worship of God and involve men in superstition. Moreover, since the Holy Spirit expressly warns us of this danger by the mouth of Paul, to proceed beyond what we are there warranted by him is not only, I must say, unadvised zeal, but wicked and perverse obstinacy.” Language certainly sufficiently strong and pointed, and we might cite many passages from Calvin to the same purport. Beza says, “If the apostle justly prohibits the use of unknown tongues in the church, much less would he have tolerated those artificial, musical performances which are addressed to the ear only, and seldom strike the understanding even of the performers themselves.” John Knox, in his refutation of the mass, lays it down as the true principle of Christian worship, that we should be guided by the inquiry “what has the Lord required, not what has He not forbidden,” according to the commission given to His ministers, Matt. xxviii. 20—“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” “This principle,” he declared, “not only purified the church of human inventions and Popish corruptions, but restored plain singing of Psalms, unaccompanied by instrumental music.” The Scottish Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly wrote, on the 20th May, 1644, to the Assembly of the Church of Scotland (then in session), whose deputies they were—“We cannot but admire the good hand of God in the great things done here already.”* The Scottish Assembly, writing back to the Assembly in London, say—“We are greatly refreshed to hear by letters from our commissioners with you, that many corruptions, as altars, images, and other monuments of idolatry and superstition, are removed, effaced, and abolished; the service-book in many places forsaken, and plain and powerful preaching set up—the great organs at Paul’s and Peter’s taken down.” Dr. Burney, in his History of Music, himself an advocate of the organ (he was an organist), testifies respecting the period when the Westminster Assembly sat, that “a new form of divine worship was established in which no music was allowed but plain singing.” To introduce the practice now is in so far a return to the Dark Ages,
_____
* “Altars are removed—the great organs at Paul’s and Peter’s in Westminster are taken down—images and many other monuments of idolatry defaced and abolished.”
[Page 54]
We commend these latter citations to the careful consideration of those who, because the Westminster Divines have not expressly condemned instruments among the many things they have so condemned in their standards, but have contented themselves with pointing out the duty of singing Psalms, draw from this silence the inference that “they were not fully convinced that under the New Testament dispensation the use of instrumental music is unwarrantable; they were not convinced that the law and practice of the Old Testament had been clearly and certainly repealed by the New”*—and so left it designedly an open question. Fact has force enough completely to overbear all merely speculative inference. History in this instance shows conclusively that the inference is totally wrong, and that the silence relied on was designed to be construed as prohibition. And this, again, may help to confirm the conclusion, that the silence and absence of exemplification in the New Testament itself, in respect to that which was formerly divinely enjoined, is designedly prohibitive—prohibitive too, with an authority to which no modern assembly of fallible mortals can pretend. Will those who appeal in this way to the Westminster Divines follow the example furnished by their conduct in the matter? Will they, when the opportunity next presents itself, move in the supreme court of their own Church that the harmoniums (or organs, if there be any such) which have already a place in any of the congregations under its authority shall be cast out, along with any “other monuments of idolatry and superstition” that may possibly be found therein? Or will they be consistent, and hold that the Westminster Divines designedly left incense and lighted candles open questions also?
The advocates of instruments are bound to account for the facts we have adduced somehow, in consistency with their views. “The solemn and absorbing topics,” we are told, “that engaged the minds of men in connection with the foundation of the Christian Church were fitted to preclude the consideration of mere accessories or accompaniments of worship.” This pretence for a reason cannot pass. It had been wiser never to utter it. If these “topics” had such an effect then, why should they not have the same now? Is this a confession that the minds of men are not now engaged and absorbed with these topics as they should be? There were frivolous practices on the part of some professing Christians in the earliest period of the Church’s history, and instrumental music was in common secular use. Paul, when writing to the Corinthians, was not so absorbed by more important themes as to prevent him from entering upon such details—circumstances of worship, if you will—as the question of being covered or uncovered, and the length of hair exhibited by man and woman respectively, in their assem-
_____
* Rev. J. Robson in Evangelical Witness for August, 1872, page 203.
[Page 55]
blies; nor did he think this beneath his dignity as an apostle. See 1 Cor. xi. 1–16. The statement we have quoted, we take to be a virtual acknowledgment, that in the mind of the early Christians the instrumental accompaniment was held to be incompatible with the very nature of the worship required by the New Dispensation.
Another steps forward and informs us, that “apostolic precept is binding upon the Church until the end of time, and apostolic example is of equal authority and obligation; but both the precept and the example must be recorded in inspired writing.” Indeed! Will the Instrumentalists, then, have the goodness to produce the inspired record of a single instance in which an apostle, or any Christian in the apostles’ days, is represented as using a musical instrument in worship? When they do this, we will strike our colours at once. They know very well they have nothing of the kind to produce, although it devolves upon them to do so, before they can with any show of reason ask us even to tolerate the practice. To demand the inspired record of the negation, the absence of any act, fact, or practice, before it be pronounced inadmissible, is most absurd, and shows the desperate shifts to which the Instrumentalists are reduced. Where, on this principle, we demand in turn, is it recorded in inspired writing that the apostles did not sprinkle the worshippers with something called holy water—did not erect a cross or crucifix, and kneel before it to utter their prayers—did not pray to saints and angels, to be their protectors and intercede for them—did not pray for the dead—did not burn incense, and light candles or lamps in daylight—did not administer extreme unction to the dying? It may be said, we have general principles in the inspired Word by which such things are shut out from Christian worship. That would be to abandon the “consideration,” and take other ground. Besides, even on this new ground, the instruments are equally shut out. The general principles of the Word rightly understood, have this effect, as we believe we have established in the preceding pages.