Harper II.11
James Dodson
Page 37
CHAPTER XI.
THE PRECEPTIVE THEORY EXAMINED—ARGUMENT AGAINST IT FROM THE METHOD OF WORSHIP IN THE SYNAGOGUE.
The evidence already adduced, or which can be produced, seems adequate to establish the following points, namely: that for many hundreds of years, singing, or chanting, which Maimonides includes under the general head of prayer, has been an element in the synagogue service; that during this time, no instrumental music has been tolerated in synagogue worship, unless in a few instances of recent date; and that the traditionary sentiment among the Jews is adverse to the use of instrumental music in the synagogue, so much so that those of them who advocate its use, do not venture to plead the ancient custom of the synagogue, but have recourse to the temple service for precedent and authority.
It will be remembered that one object in our diverging into the inquiry as to the ritual of the synagogue since the time of Christ, was to obtain help in determining what was its ritual under the Old Testament dispensation. It may be said that our inquiry thus far has brought to light no evidence that instrumental music was absent from the synagogue service under the old dispensation, and I frankly admit that no direct evidence has been, or perhaps can be, presented to this effect, but indirect proof of this point is involved in the facts enumerated. Let us try to weigh the evidence impartially.
To have satisfactory grounds for believing that when, in 1836, a memorial was presented to the synagogue authorities in London, asking that an organ be allowed in the synagogue, the movement was deemed by the mass of the Jews, revolutionary; that the prevailing sentiment of the Jews, is at present entirely adverse to the admission of instrumental music into synagogue worship; that in the twelfth century the synagogue was destitute of instrumental music; and that there is not a particle of direct evidence, and no indirect evidence worthy of notice, to prove that at any previous date, such music formed a part of the synagogue service. So far as the New Testament times are concerned, all the evidence available, and it is considerable, points to the conclusion that in the synagogue no instrumental music found place. Then let it be borne in mind, that the Jews have proved themselves proverbially tenacious of their ancient religious customs, and particularly so since their dispersion. Moreover, let it be considered how strong a tendency there is in men to pass from a simpler to a more florid and pompous ritual. Furthermore, let it be noted how steadfastly the Jews have adhered to the use of trumpets for making proclamations, thus showing that, had they deemed it proper, they certainly could and would have provided instruments for the service of song. Due weight being allowed to all these considerations, and to this in addition that there is no conflicting evidence, it seems a rational conclusion that instrumental music has never formed a feature of synagogue worship, unless in very recent times. Had it ever been a feature of that worship, it is difficult to see how it could ever have ceased to be so; for when the temple had been destroyed and its music hushed, it is but natural to suppose that the Jews would have been doubly zealous for the perpetuation of instrumental music in the synagogue, if
Page 38
that had been previously a part of the synagogue worship. It is sometimes suggested that owing to their deep depression after the destruction of Jerusalem, and in order to escape the notice of their foes, the Jews may have abandoned the use of instrumental music in their synagogue assemblies. But their stubborn fortitude and tenacity in such matters forbid this supposition; while, moreover, as far back as we can trace, even in the days of Chrysostom, about the close of the fourth century, which were gloomy days for the Jews, the use of the trumpets for making proclamations in the synagogues, was faithfully maintained.
In view of the various facts and considerations enumerated, the assertion may be made, with some confidence, that in Old Testament times the synagogue service included no instrumental music.
But, assuming the correctness of this conclusion, what is its significance? Manifestly this, at least, that in Old Testament days, instrumental music in worship was considered to be a peculiarity of the temple ritual, and to be so identified with it that the abolition of the temple service involved the legal abolition of the instrumental element thereof.
Should the quibble be raised, as by some it is, that there is as little evidence that vocal music was practised in the synagogue, as that instrumental music was, although vocal, as well as instrumental, music was rendered in the temple service, and, therefore, that according to our mode of reasoning, singing, as much as playing on instruments, must have belonged to the temporary ceremonial worship; I would answer, that vocal song, being more directly natural to man than playing on instruments, might be more readily than instrumental music supposed to have entered into the synagogue service; that chanting or singing has from time immemorial been a part of the synagogue worship in the New Testament dispensation and, therefore, presumably formed an element of the synagogue service in Old Testament times; that, moreover, we have express New Testament authority and instructions to praise God with vocal song, whereas, we have no such authority, we believe, for employing instruments for rendering homage to him; while, besides, we know that singing was practised by divine authority apart from the temple, as, for instance, by our Lord and his disciples at the institution of the Supper.
Some maintain that in the Old Testament synagogue there was no devotional service; but for reasons partly hinted, I greatly doubt the correctness of this position. Were it proved, however, we could still turn it to our account. For, if the Jews, unused to any music in their ordinary Sabbath assemblies, began, on being converted, to sing in christian assemblies, but not to use instruments of music, as hereafter will be shown, they must have been authoritatively instructed to make this selection, and by whom instructed, but by the Apostles?
Before passing from this department of the discussion, I deem it important to state that it is by no means an argumentative necessity for the opponents of instrumental music to prove that it was limited as a part of worship to the temple. We could afford to admit that instrumental music was as much at home in the synagogue as in the temple, and yet maintain that it was ceremonial in its nature and
Page 39
intent. For the ceremonial system was a network that covered all Palestine and extended to the Jewish people wherever they were. While the temple, and before its erection, the tabernacle, formed the great seat and centre of ceremonial rites and forms, these, at least many of them, might be observed elsewhere.
For instance, circumcision might be performed in any place. So, also, the laws regulating the use of “meats” and “drinks,” many forms of ceremonial defilement, and the method of deliverance from the disabilities incurred by such defilement, were in force outside the environs of the national seat of worship. If, then, it could be proved that instrumental music was practised in worship in every synagogue and habitation in Palestine, it would not follow that instrumental music does not belong to the transient arrangements of the ceremonial law. Ceremonialism was not confined to the temple or to Jerusalem. It is very vital to the cause of the advocates of instrumental music in worship to prove that they were lawfully used in worship by the Jews anywhere; but it is not vital to the cause of the antagonists of instrumental music in worship to prove that outside the precincts of the tabernacle or the temple such a performance was unlawful. We can take either horn of the dilemma. Our opponents can take only one. Indeed, I hardly know which is more fatal to the instrumental side: the assumption that instrumental music in stated and formal worship was lawful only in the temple, or the assumption that it was lawful anywhere.
While I believe that the former of these positions is the more tenable, I am far from admitting that it is essential to the argument against the use of instruments in worship. Nay, I can see how the latter position might be almost, if not altogether, as serviceable as the former to the opponent of instruments. And, if asked how, I would answer on this wise:—If it can be shown, as it certainly can, that the early church, not now to include the period of the apostolic age, which might be reckoned debateable ground, used no instruments of music in worship, this fact can be accounted for only on the supposition that some powerful arrest had been laid upon the practice, previously so general, according to the supposition. If the Jews had been accustomed to use instruments in their houses and synagogues when they sang their psalms, the absence of the instrumental strains from the services of the early church, after the apostolic times, would prove beyond reasonable dispute that some powerful repressive influence must have been exerted upon the people, many of whom were Jews, to induce them to omit from their worship that to which by the supposition they had been accustomed, and to which, as sensuous in its character, there is so strong a propensity in man. And what influence could it have been that thus swayed the early church but the power of apostolic example and teaching?