Harper II.5
James Dodson
CHAPTER V.
THE PRECEPTIVE THEORY—FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ÆSTHETIC ARGUMENT.
The questions may be asked, “Does not Christianity tend to the harmonious development and exaltation of all the original powers of our being? And must it not, therefore, tend to the cultivation and gratification of artistic tastes?” I readily grant that the true tendency of Christianity, is toward the development and elevation of our common humanity, both in respect to the body and to the soul; and that as there is in us an æsthetic faculty, Christianity must have a favorable bearing upon it. Without Christianity, certain departments of our nature may have a vigorous development, even a development outstripping that exhibited under Christian influences. The Pagan Greeks, for instance, have never been excelled, perhaps never equalled, in certain arts, especially sculpture; but this excellence was accompanied with deficiency in other departments of our complex being, particularly in that of morals. It is a suggestive fact, that the first striking advances in the ornamental, and even the useful arts, were made in the line of Cain’s posterity; but those leaders in the department of art, fell far behind in the vastly more important matter of morals. No false religion promotes a symmetrical culture or development, of all the susceptibilities and faculties of our nature. It pertains to Christianity to do this. It promotes holiness, and holiness is wholeness, or the harmonious completeness of a moral agent.
But to infer from all this that provision must be made in the sphere of worship, for the exercise and development of all our powers is unwarrantable. While the true religion, by conducing to the general development of our nature, may lead ultimately to generous culture and great perfection in art, it by no means follows that scope for this culture and display will be afforded in the modes of worship which God appoints. The house of worship is not a physical gymnasium. Why should it be an academy of arts? The worship of God does not afford much field for the exercise and exhibition of man’s skill in the mechanical arts, say in the construction of a steam engine, and is there any reason why the fine arts, as they are called, any more than the mechanical arts, should find scope for their exercise in the fullest degree in the worship of God? It is quite certain that within the sphere of worship God has restricted art in certain particulars. To see that he has done so, we have only to read the Second commandment, which bears on the subject of the prohibition of the making of images and likenesses for religious ends. Is the religion of the bible, therefore, hostile to art, because it lays this embargo on
Page 21
the exercise of it in at least one direction? Now, may it not be that in the musical department, restrictions have been set by God, and that in profound wisdom? May it not be that the use of musical instruments, once sanctioned by him, is now interdicted, just as the use of many other things agreeable to the senses, once allowed, is now forbidden? Nay, even those who contend most for art in worship, will hardly take the ground, that even vocal praise shall be of the most involved and elaborate sort. Is it not felt that the music of the sanctuary should be simple, not complex, plain, not florid? Thus in worship there is, according to the judgment of even enthusiasts for art, restriction imposed. May not this prepare for admitting that God may have seen it wise to exclude from New Testament worship instrumental music altogether? It does not prove that he has; but it may suffice to show that there would be nothing in it contrary to analogy if he should.
The questions, however, will be urged, “Did not God assign a place to instrumental music in the ritual of the Old Testament Church? And, if so, can it be supposed that such music is unfavorable to spirituality?” I answer that the appointments of God are wisely adapted to the ends in view, and the circumstances in which they are made. But this implies that a change of circumstances may necessitate a corresponding change of measures. Toys may serve not only to entertain, but also in some respects to educate little children; but when a certain stage of development is reached, the process of education may be better conducted without the expedient of toys. When that stage is reached, the childish things are to be put away; for, so far from being helps, they would now be hindrances. Now in the training of our race, God seems to have pursued a plan analogous to that which finds place in the training of children. Weighty truths were presented pictorially in the way of symbols and types. The bodily senses were addressed in a more palpable and material way than is the case in the New Testament dispensation. Faith was produced and fostered not so exclusively by hearing as it is now, but also by other senses, in a large degree. The gospel facts were presented in spectacular form to the eyes of ancient worshippers, especially in the sacrificial service. It is true, before the time of Moses, the symbolism employed in religion was simple and scanty, compared with that involved in the elaborate ritual of the Levitical economy, and it may be thought that the method of education pursued with children, was in this case invented; the toys being multiplied as the age of maturity was approached. But even in this respect the analogy does not fail, for is it not found that while a very little child may be entertained and benefited by a very few toys, the more advanced child demands a greater variety? At the time when the Levitical system was established, the nations of the earth had become well compacted and organized, and the forms of their respective religions had become, or were becoming, elaborate. Possibly, as a counteractive measure in part, God, in the arrangements which he made for his chosen people, provided a ritual of an imposing and complicated sort, adapted to exhibit and enforce the truth respecting salvation, and to do this in a form so sensuous as might well have neutralized the influence of Pagan rites prevalent in adjoining lands. To
Page 22
the Israelites he gave forms of worship fitted to instruct them, to break their stubborn wills, and to gratify the strong taste for the outward and sensuous, so sedulously consulted in the idolatrous practices of surrounding nations. Account for it, however, as we may, it is a fact that in the Old Dispensation, the worship partook of show and sensuousness which hardly any, not even Romanists, will say would be warrantable now. That mode of worship, no doubt, was, in the main, more conducive to the various ends which God meant to accomplish by it, than would have been a simpler mode; but the circumstances being changed, the simpler mode may be that which wisdom demands. Hence, although instrumental music may have served an important purpose in the comparatively sensuous and symbolic worship prescribed to the Israelites, it does not follow that it is either requisite or desirable, in the New Dispensation, in which symbolism has but little place.
That the analogy which I have been tracing between the mode of training a child and that of training the church, is not a mere fancy, is apparent from the language of Paul in Gal. 4:1–3, in which the church of the Old Testament is represented as a child under age, and as being held in bondage under the rudiments or elements of the world, called, also, in v. 9, “weak and beggarly elements;” while the church of the New Testament is described as enjoying in comparison the dignified position of a son who has attained his majority. Those “beggarly elements” were, for a time, valuable means for the education and protection of the church; and if instrumental music was one of these, as I believe it was, it no doubt, was in some way fitted to subserve, in the circumstances the interests of religion. But a change of circumstances having come with the atoning death of the Saviour, this music, like other “beggarly” rudiments, might be dispensed with to advantage. The rite of sacrifice was at one time of signal use as a type of Christ and his work of atonement, and, left to ourselves, we might conceive that it could still be carefully employed to give a vivid symbolic representation of the great facts of redemption; yet we may feel quite sure, from the arrangements God has made, that it would not be advantageous in the present dispensation. The abolition of sacrifice is represented as a boon, not a loss, to the New Testament Church. And as bloody sacrifices, once of much religious utility, have been wisely abolished, may it not be so in relation to instrumental music? I am not proving, be it observed, that this music, as an element of worship, has been abolished; but only that it would be nothing wonderful if it had, for though once useful, it might now be deleterious.
The cavil may be raised, that there are many people now as puerile in their conceptions and tastes, as were the Israelites in the time of Moses, and the age of the Levitical ceremonies, and, besides, that there are now those who are children in years, for whom a sensuous system of worship is as desirable and requisite as it was for the Israelites. Ought not, then, instrumental music be as useful for worship now, as it ever was, so far as the classes specified are concerned?
I do not deny the facts on which this cavil rests, but I deny the inference drawn from them. It is conceded that there are the young, the imaginative and
Page 23
the ignorant now, as in past times; but it cannot be supposed by any one who credits the bible, that under the new economy, God has provided for their case in the same way in which he did for the Israelites in their minority. If the argument is good for any thing, it would prove that a ritual, different it may be from that of the Levites, but equalling it in sensuousness and pomp, must have been authorized by God for the New Testament age. But can any one with the New Testament in his hands, reasonably suppose this to be true? Popery, indeed, has acted on the principle that Christianity is to be expressed and extended by sensuous splendor and ceremonial pomp, but Popery is not Christianity. There can be nothing more clearly proved from the bible than this, that the forms of worship established in the church by the Apostles were simple, plain and devoid of show, and thus in striking contrast with the pomp and ceremony of the previous dispensation. Why God has adopted this plan of procedure, we may not be able to tell, but that he has adopted it is amply manifest from the New Testament.
Thus, then, an answer to the cavil under notice is provided, and it is this, that however it may be accounted for, the imposing method of worship prescribed to the Israelites has not been authorized in the New Testament church, notwithstanding the fact, that many in it and around it are children in years, and many children in understanding, if not in years. And if in face of the fact that there are many still who might be attracted by showy forms of worship, God has certainly established simple forms instead, may it not be, nay is it not rather probable that among the sensuous forms eliminated from his worship is that of instrumental music?
In handling the æsthetic argument for instruments I have not discussed the question whether or not instrumental music is really helpful to congregational singing. There are competent judges who hold that in the interest of vocal music, a restraint ought to be laid on the use of instruments. It is commonly conceded that the human voice is the most excellent of all instruments of music. Is it possible that this most excellent of instruments is incapable without an accompaniment of producing the finest effects? Besides, it will hardly be denied, that the main musical element in divine worship is the vocal. Even as a matter of taste, would it not be preferable that the voice exerted in singing should be heard unmingled with the comparatively inferior tones of an inanimate instrument? Is it not a fact that the music of an organ, which is commonly reckoned by eminence the ecclesiastical instrument, serves the purpose of concealing or masking the false tones of the singers? The consequence of its use, often is that a faulty style of singing is indulged, and thus that the singing of a congregation, so far from being improved, is really injured. It is questionable whether any congregation that sings as a congregation, makes better music with an organ than without it. True, it may be found that congregations using organs, or other instruments, sing well, and even eclipse in this respect congregations that use no instruments; but this does not prove that the instruments make the difference. Other causes may be at work. The congregation using the organ may be composed in a large measure of wealthy people who bestow large attention on vocal culture, and thus
Page 24
may outstrip in singing a poorer congregation that uses no organ; but the use of the organ does not make the difference. In a large number of congregations where instruments are used, the congregation does not sing. Only a few, perhaps only the members of the choir sing, and the performance may be very enchanting, but it is not what the Scriptures call for, congregational singing. It is well known that in the Greek church, instrumental music in worship is not allowed, and yet it is asserted by competent authority that the singing in some of the churches of St. Petersburg is unequalled in the world. Important is the testimony borne by one who presumably is well fitted to judge, the precentor, or leader of the singing in Regent Square Church, London:—“The organ,” says he, “is not necessary to the harmony in modern psalmody; it is musically wrong as a leader of praise; it does not prevent flattening; it does not correct errors—it simply drowns them; it is more a fashion than anything else; it is not to be preferred to other instruments, none of which are desirable in public worship.”
The considerations which have been presented may serve to show that the æsthetical argument for the use of instrumental music in worship is destitute of force. And yet feeble as it appears when closely looked at, not a few are influenced by it to such a degree, that they assume at once that no arguments can be valid, which would seem to prove that God has laid an interdict on the employment of our musical powers in the production of instrumental music in his worship. The removal of this preconception and prejudice at the very threshold of our discussion will facilitate future progress.