Harper II.23
James Dodson
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE OPTIONAL THEORY EXAMINED—THE “TUNING FORK” PLEA CONSIDERED.
A fourth argument, known in logic as an “argumentum ad hominem,” is sometimes advanced in support of the optional theory, and is briefly this:—“You do not object to the use of a tuning fork or note book in connection with the praise of God, but if not, you have no right to object to the use of musical instruments in that exercise.” So strong is this appeal to consistency counted by some, that a distinguished lecturer, in addressing the students of Yale Theological Seminary, as previously mentioned, expressed the opinion, that this whole controversy might be condensed into a nut shell, thus, “Those who object to the use of an organ might as well object to the use of a tuning fork, or a note book in worship.”
In relation to this antiquated quibble, a few remarks will suffice.
In the case of the tuning fork, its use ends the instant the service of song begins; while in the case of the organ, its sound continues as long as the singing and commingles with it.
Moreover, the sound of the tuning fork is intended for the ear of him alone who uses it. Not so with the organ. It may, and often does, produce the most perceptible element of the sound made in praise of God. The sound of the tuning fork is no more a part of the service of worship, than is the preliminary use of a
Page 78
lozenge or the clearing of the throat. If musical instruments, as used in worship, are simply on a par with a tuning fork, they must not be viewed as yielding any distinct element of the enjoyment found in the service, or any enhancement directly of the song; for no one will say that the sound of a tuning fork, however useful it may be for “starting the tune,” acts independently and directly as a source of elevation and enjoyment. It serves simply as a guide in striking the first note of the song, and if musical instruments occupy precisely the same footing, in so much that we may reason from the use of the one to that of the other, they must merely aid in raising the tune, or at the utmost help the voice to do its work well. The moment they are regarded as contributing an additional element of enjoyment to that which the voice affords, they are distinguished from a tuning fork, which partakes of the nature merely of a preliminary expedient for the production of proper vocal music. A tuning fork and a note book contribute no element directly of the enjoyment derivable from singing. There is not an ingredient of pleasure and enhancement, directly yielded by the tuning fork or pitch pipe. Neither is there by the note book, for in fact the note book is silent, and neither it nor the fork is heard, or intended to be heard by the audience. But is this all that is meant by the use of musical instruments? Is it not understood and intended that these not only guide the voice, but supplement it, or yield to it a new element, which, blending with the human voice, adds to the impression it produces? The instruments are prized, not merely because they may help to produce finer singing, but also and, I think, chiefly because they supplement the voice, contributing what may be lacking in it, as to volume and variety, and drowning all discordant tones. In this point of view, they are presented in the scriptures. “Praise him,” it is said, “with the sound of a trumpet,” not, “Seek by aid of a trumpet to guide the voice in praising him.” Besides, if guidance was all that God meant in prescribing instrumental music, why did he prescribe so many instruments and such a variety? A cornet, or at least two or three cornets might have served the purpose.
The tuning fork and the organ are not parallel, and therefore to allege that he who tolerates a tuning fork cannot consistently object to an organ, is illogical. Principal Candlish, who was at least as vigorous of intellect as our Yale lecturer, did not hesitate to write this language, “I will not condescend to recognize intelligence in any man, who, at this time of day, would quibble about pitch pipes and tuning forks, or who could make game of the whole affair by some abstract and recondite disquisition on the identity of wind instruments, whether living or dead.” To this, it may be added, that a shrewd lawyer, Mr. Reddie, the town clerk of Glasgow, made bold to use these words, “The argument which would identify an organ with a pitch pipe does not merit a serious answer.”
As to the note book, I must confess that I have no wish to see attention largely taken up with it during the service of praise. The attention should rather be given beforehand to the notes, so that in actual worship, there might be no distraction of the mind from the worship proper, by close inspection of notes. But the note book certainly makes no sound, and, in that respect, forms no factor
Page 79
as the sound of an organ does, of the audible service. Besides, if we sing at all in melody and unison, the mind must, in some degree, refer to the musical cadences which notes indicate, and it is quite possible that there is less distraction of thought caused by the discreet use of a note book, than by the effort of memory to recall the proper notes. There is nothing sacred in the mere letters of a printed bible, yet we may read the bible in worship without perceptible distraction, and why might not also musical notes be read in time of worship without undue distraction? We may sing a psalm from the pages of the Psalter. In doing this, we must give some heed to mere letters and words; yet we do not count such a direction of attention incompatible with the proper spirit of worship, and why may not some heed be given to musical notes without marring the spirituality of the service of song?
Furthermore, if note books are on a par with instruments, how happens it that when God prescribed the latter, particularly, he said nothing about the former? Does he not seem to have regarded the use of notes as an incidental circumstance for which no specific appointment was needed, while not so regarding the use of instruments? The mass of men do not feel that a tuning fork, and a note book, and instruments of music are on a par, and equally circumstances of worship which need no express appointment. Most men, if asked on the subject, and not prompted by some special pleader, would say that instruments occupy a different place from the other appliances named. The Greek church has magnificent singing, and I presume, also tuning forks and note books, but it admits no instruments of music as aids in its worship. John Calvin is commonly supposed to have been possessed of some acuteness, yet, while he strongly disapproved of the use of musical instruments in worship, he had no objection to a note book in connection with the song of praise. The argument we have been considering looks too much like a subterfuge and makeshift, reminding one of the subtleties to which Romanists resort in defending or commending their erroneous tenets and corrupt practices.
The Optional Theory as well as the Preceptive, having now been discussed and rejected, we turn to the theory of prohibition, the only alternative.