Harper II.22
James Dodson
CHAPTER XXII.
THE OPTIONAL THEORY EXAMINED—THE “CIRCUMSTANCE” PLEA CONSIDERED.
A third plea put forward to sustain the optional theory is what may be styled the “Involution or circumstance plea,” the tenor of which is that the command to sing in the praise of God carries with it, as an incident or circumstance, the right if not the obligation, to use instruments of music as aids to the voice in that exercise. “The command to sing,” it is said, “involves the obligation to sing in a becoming manner, according to the apostolic rule, ‘Let all things be done decently and in order,’ but instruments are serviceable, if not indispensable for the attainment of such a result; therefore, it is proper and may be a duty to employ them in rendering formal praise to God.” According to this plea, instrumental music is one of those circumstances about the worship of God, which do not require a divine appointment, but are implied in the direction to praise God in song. A few comments on this argument are here subjoined:—
1. It is granted that there are certain circumstances about the worship of God, for which no express appointment is needed, but the warrant for which is included in the general direction to worship God. For instance, if we are to have meetings on the Sabbath, as we are required to have, we must have some agreement as to the places and times for meeting. These are matters, as has been elsewhere shown, that are to be ordered by human discretion, in accordance with the general directions and spirit of the word of God. Again, we have no specific instructions touching the tunes or chants to be used in praising God. What, and how many these shall be, and when one shall be used, and when another, are matters not fixed by statute, but to be ordered on the general grounds of prudence and edification as indicated in the scripture. If instrumental music belonged to the category of these circumstances about worship, we should be constrained to admit that it is warranted, under the general appointment, to sing the praises of God.
2. There are sufficient reasons, however, for rejecting the assumption that instrumental music is in such a sense an incident or circumstance of song, as that
Page 74
the prescription of the latter implies the right to have the former. Among these reasons, are the following:—
(1.) The unaided vocal organs of men are adapted to render, in an appropriate manner, the praises of God in song. There is no instrument of music fit to be compared to the human voice, for flexibility, richness of tone, and above all, expressiveness. Some of the greatest masters, in the department of music, have declared their preference for unaided vocal music, at least in worship; and it is a current remark of travellers, that the singing in some of the churches of St. Petersburg, where no instruments are tolerated, is not excelled, if ever equaled elsewhere in the world. The human voice, it may be affirmed, has in itself all the resources requisite for the most appropriate expression of the praise of God in song.
It needs, however, to be noted that, in praising God, it is neither necessary, nor in ordinary circumstances, desirable that the singing should be elaborate. It should be artistic, but true art is always in harmony with the ends to be attained. Hence, the simplest style of music may be really the most artistic, the end and laws of the service being taken into account. The artistic is not to be confounded with the artificial.
There is no countenance given in the bible to the notion, that the music in the praise of God is to be intricate and complex. It may be admitted that the Davidic arrangements, in virtue of which, many persons were set apart for the performance of the service of song, indicate that this part of worship was to be skillfully rendered, 1 Chron. 15:22. Yet how very little is there even in the Old Testament, to inculcate the idea that the singing of the praise of God should be complex or florid, or to use a modern epithet, “operatic!” There is one text often quoted, and it is the best, I think, that can be quoted, that our singing in worship should be elaborate, namely, Ps. 33:3, “Play skillfully with a loud noise,” but not to say that this refers to instrumental performance, not vocal, at least if “zamar” is to be understood as our opponents understand it, it is very doubtful whether it means to play in good time and execute delicate and difficult musical combinations. It most probably means no more than to do with energy and zeal whatever is denoted; for the literal rendering of the original is “Make good to play (or sing) with a loud noise.” Besides, what is very simple in music admits of a skillful, or on the contrary, of a careless rendering.
Moreover, in the entire New Testament, there is not a word of command or exhortation, to offer an artificial and elaborate service of song to God. There is a general direction given, 1 Cor. 14:40, “Let all things be done decently and in order,” but the word “decently,” which very fitly represents the original, is equivalent to “suitably” or “decorously,” and the question arises what is becoming or suitable in the matter of song in the praise of God? Nowhere does the bible tell us that the music in worship, must for brilliancy and complexity rival that of the opera, or of the secular concert. This itself is significant, and is in striking contrast with the tone of the church in our day; for the musical element in public worship is now exalted in many quarters to a level with the exposition of
Page 75
the scriptures, and by not a few is deemed even more essential than preaching to the success of the church. If this modern and growing “rage” for fine music in churches is just and wise, it seems rather unaccountable that the apostles failed to give directions as to the style of music which all the churches, but especially those in seats of refinement and wealth, should strive to acquire. In giving instructions to Timothy how to behave himself in the house of God, why did Paul omit to urge upon him the great importance of forming a well-trained choir that strangers might be attracted to the place of Christian worship, and that the children of the church might be retained? Paul laid stress incomparably more on soundness in the faith and earnestness in the proclamation of the gospel, than on the sound of singers and players. And this is obvious from the fact that, while he has much to say about preaching the word, he never drops a hint to the effect that an effort should be made to improve the singing of the converts to Christianity, so that the church music might equal, if not excel, that of the Pagan temples. Even when he touches on the subject of singing, although he enjoins it as a duty to sing to the Lord, he does not give a hint as to the importance of elevating the standard of church music, so as to produce a favorable impression on all who should hear, and especially help to keep the young people from seeking the gratification of their musical tastes in heathen festivals and rites.
Is the church to-day of the same mind with Paul in this matter? I am persuaded it is not, and that, on the contrary it lays a stress on the mere music in the service of song, vastly disproportioned to the stress which the New Testament, or even the Old Testament, lays upon it.
Moreover, I do not hesitate to maintain that the most truly artistic sacred music is the most simple, and the freest from flourishes and intricacies. Singing, when practised as a mere musical entertainment, may be complicated and difficult of execution and yet be in good taste; but the singing of praise to God, especially in New Testament times, should be simple and comparatively artless. The music of the sanctuary should be influenced and regulated by the fact that it is the will of God, that the poor and illiterate who may be found in the church should sing, no less than the rich and refined. The singing of public worship is to be congregational singing, as distinguished from solo singing and mere choir singing; and as it is the will of God that the poor and ignorant as well as the rich and educated should compose the church and its public assemblies, so the singing should be adapted to the company by whom it is to be executed. The Apostles Paul and James tell us indeed to sing, but they do not tell us to sing tunes of a difficult and ornate style; and there is reason to believe that for at least two centuries after the apostolic age, the singing in the church was in general of the most unartificial kind.
Even, therefore, if it could be proved that for the best vocal execution of difficult music, instruments are necessary as aids, it would not follow that for the best music in worship, such aids are either requisite, or desirable. The really artistic is the fit and becoming, and the really artistic music of the sanctuary is the simple and sober, or, if not always what might be called “sober” or grave, at least simple.
Page 76
Besides, if even it were proved that instrumental help is essential to the attainment of the highest grade of vocal culture, it would not follow that instruments of music should be introduced into the actual worship of God. The singer may train himself in whatever way deemed best, yet not have the right to employ those subsidiary or preparatory arts when he appears before God to praise him.
(2.) By some high authorities in musical matters, the use of musical instruments, and of none more than of the organ, is deemed detrimental, rather than helpful, to vocal execution. The instrumental current may fill up and cover the discords and defects in the singing, thus leaving them unnoticed and unimproved. This has been touched upon already, but is mentioned here in refutation of the view that instrumental music is virtually sanctioned in the appointment of singing in the worship of God.
(3.) The fact that God expressly commanded the use of musical instruments, as well as of the voice, in his worship, militates against the notion that the instrumental element is a mere incident or circumstance of the vocal element in the exercise of praise. If the direction to sing necessarily included in itself a direction, or even permission, to use instruments, why did God give such special commands to use them, and to use certain specified ones? If, as a matter, of course, the appointment of singing authorized the use of instrumental music, why was there so much prominence given to the latter, especially if it is assumed, as it is by some of our opponents, that instrumental music in worship had been used since patriarchal times? How is it that the mere incident or adjunct is as precisely prescribed as the main element of the service? Why is the subordinate element, that of instrumental music, seemingly made co-ordinate with the vocal music, the chief element? Indeed, there is, perhaps, more prominence given, in the account of the arrangements of the temple, to the instrumental department than to the vocal. This does not prove that the instrumental is as important as the vocal music, for, being less directly natural, the former, if meant to be used, needed to be more distinctly specified than the latter; but it does seem to indicate that the command to sing in the worship of God does not carry in it either a command or a license to employ instrumental music. God never says that he prescribed the instruments just to improve the singing, or to keep it correct. Even many who advance the doctrine that the right to use instruments is implied in the right to sing are fain, in arguing for instrumental music in worship, to avail themselves of the commands, contained in the Old Testament, to use instruments, whereas every such command strengthens our position that, according to the tenor of scripture, instrumental music is not a circumstance or implied accompaniment of singing. Singing in worship can be performed as well as is necessary, or as is desirable, without the use of an instrument of music, for our Lord, all of whose service was perfect, sung, together with his disciples, on a memorable occasion, without instrumental aid; and that operation which may be lacking in a perfect performance is not a circumstance implied in that performance, or in the command enjoining it.
Still further, should any one who holds that instrumental music is a circum-
Page 77
stance necessarily implied in the command to sing, seek to account for the distinct prescription of instruments, by saying, that they were so specified because of their importance as aids to song; then I would ask, ought there not, on the same ground, to be as much zeal shown for them by the church, as God manifested in the commands which he issued? Let us, for sake of argument, admit that instrumental music is an incident of vocal music, and that there was nothing ceremonial in the instrumental music of the ancient Israelitish worship. Ought we not then, in view of God’s obvious urgency in relation to the use of instrumental aids, to be vehemently urgent to have all worshippers use musical instruments in rendering praise to him? Yet, what branch of the church has ever issued a pastoral letter urging that every congregation embraced in it, should take immediate measures for acquiring instrumental help in the service of song? The heart of the church has never really throbbed in sympathy with the conclusion toward which tends the view which I am now combating.
On the whole, the position seems a correct one, that if the right to use instrumental music is involved in the right to sing in the worship of God, there needed not to have been such an explicit appointment of the use of instruments, as is met with, in the legislation touching the services of the temple. Thus the positive commands of the Old Testament to use instruments in praising God discountenance the view, that instrumental music is so far a circumstance or incident of vocal music, that the right to use the latter implies the right to use the former, and so the circumstance plea in favor of the optional theory fails.