Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

which appropriates to the percep-
tions of one sense, the epithets
which are logically limited to the
impressions received by certain of
the others. These are all illustra-
tions under different disguises of
the poetic fallacy.' Though none
of them may be logically true, none
of them are poetically false. And
Mr. Ruskin may rest assured that
no poet ever existed who did not
acknowledge, in a lesser or greater
measure, the influence of this poetic
law. The poet, indeed, abdicates
his noblest privileges when he de-
clines to avail himself of the plastic
resources which his artistic nature
supplies; and in any estimate of his
powers it must be accepted as a
sign, not of strength, but of weak-
ness and poverty, that

The primrose on the river's brim
A yellow primrose is to him,
And nothing more.

Here we must close. We are glad to have met Mr. Ruskin on the neutral ground of poetry, and to have enjoyed an opportunity of estimating the soundness of his judgment on a less technical subject

659

than those to which he has hitherto
chiefly limited his research. Any
opinions of his, as those of a highly-
cultivated thinker, deserve respect
and consideration; and our disagree-
ment with him we hope is more as
regards the form than the substance
of his criticism. But as that criti-
cism undoubtedly appeared to us to
echo the opinions of the critical
school, to which we have alluded
(and which has recently attempted
in particular to identify the Laureate
with certain maudlin and unhealthy
poets, with whom he has really
nothing in common), we have felt
ourselves called on to examine it
minutely and searchingly, though,
we trust, with no undue severity.
To those topics in the present
volume which relate to the func-
tions, not of the poet, but of the
painter, we cannot now allude,
even in passing. A more fitting
opportunity may occur when the
work is concluded-a work which,
whatever its shortcomings, must
always occupy a marked and peculiar
position in the history of English
criticism.
J. O. S.

PEACE!

PEACE, Peace! How soon shall we forget

The friends, the loves, who crumbling rest;
Whose fame has earned no coronet

To deck the humble soldier's crest?

Poor artisan, or peasant lad,

Beguiled by drink or glory's tale,
In worn red jacket, meanly clad,
Who died to win the peace we hail.
In long gazettes his name was told,

Dead, mangled, lost, for ever gone;
The wave of Time is o'er him rolled,
His place is filled, his duty done.
The village wonder for a day;

His sweetheart is another's now;
Bleak Tauris holds his lifeless clay,
Without a cross its place to show.
The blazoned urn for lordly dead,
The spurs, the stars for those who live,

The kiss of love, the bridal bed,
The country and the women give.
But who shall for plebeian weep,

Of all who spell the warlike story?
The mothers only, they will weep
When hearing of the nation's glory.

VOL. LIII. NO. CCCXVIII.

A. C. S.

UU

THE ORGAN QUESTION.*

'RE EPUBLICANS are born, not made,' says the lively author of Kaloolah; and so, we have long held, are true-blue Presbyterians. A certain preponderance of the sterner elements, a certain lack of capacity of emotion, and disregard of the influence of associations,-in brief, a certain hardness of character to be found only in Scotland, is needed to make your out-and-out follower of John Knox. The great mass of the educated members of the Church of Scotland have no pretension to the name of true-blue Presbyterians: Balfour of Burley would have scouted them; under the insidious influence of greater enlightenment and more rapid communication, they have in many respects approximated sadly to black prelacy. Dr. Candlish's book reminds us that out-andout Presbyterians are still to be found in the northern part of this island. In arguing with such, we feel a peculiar difficulty. We have no ground in common. Things which appear to us as self-evident axioms, they flatly deny. For instance, it appears to us just as plain as that two and two make four, that a church should be something essentially different in appearance from an ordinary dwelling; that there is a peculiar sanctity about the house of God; that if it be fit to pay some respect to the birth-day of the Queen, it cannot be wrong to pay a greater to the birth-day of the Redeemer; that the worship of God should be made as solemn in itself as possible, and as likely as possible to impress the hearts of the worshippers; that if music is employed in the worship of God, it should be the best music to be had; and that if there be a noble instrument especially adapted to the performance of sacred music, with something in its very tones that awes the heart and wakens devotional feeling, that is beyond all question the instrument to have in our churches. Now all this the

true-blue Presbyterian at once denies. He holds that all that is required of a church is protection from the weather, with seat-room, and, perhaps, ventilation; he denies that any solemnized feeling is produced by noble architecture, or that the Gothic vault is fitter for a church than for a factory; he walks into church with his hat on to show he does not care for bricks and mortar; he taboos Christmas-day, with all its gentle and gracious remembrances; he maintains that the barest of all worship is likeliest to be true spiritual service; he holds that there is something essentially evil and sinful in the use of an organ in church; that the organ is a portion of the trumpery which ignorance and superstition had foisted into the house of God;' that to introduce one is to convert a church into a concert-room,' and ' to return back to Judaism;' and that the use of instrumental music in the worship of God is neither lawful, nor expedient, nor edifying.'t

[ocr errors]

We confess that we do not know how to argue with men who honestly hold these views. The things which they deny appear to us so perfectly plain already, that no argument can make them plainer. If any man say to us, I don't feel in the least solemnized by the noble cathedral and the pealing anthem,' all we can reply is simply, 'Then you are different from human beings in general;' but it is useless to argue with him. If you argue a thesis at all, you can argue it only from things less liable to dispute than itself; and in the case of all these matters attached to Presbytery, though not forming part of its essence, this is impossible. Whenever we have had an argument with an old impracticable Presbyterian, we have left off with the feeling that some people are born Presbyterians; and if so, there is no use in talking to them.

But all these notions to which allusion has been made, are attached

*The Organ Question: Statements by Dr. Ritchie and Dr. Porteous for and against the Use of the Organ in Public Worship, in the Proceedings of the Presbytery of Glasgow, 1807-8. With an introductory Notice, by Robert S. Candlish, D.D. Edinburgh. 1856.

The Organ Question, pp. 108, 125, 128, &c.

1856.]

The Organ in Scotland.

to Presbytery by vulgar prejudice; they form no part of its essence, and enlightened Presbyterians nowa-days are perfectly aware of the fact. There is no earthly connexion in the nature of things between Presbyterian Church-government and flat-roofed meeting-houses, the abolition of the seasons of the Christian year,* a bare and bald ritual, a vile precentor' howling out of all tune, and a congregation joining as musically as the frogs in Aristophanes. The educated classes in Scotland have for the most part come to see this, and in Edinburgh and Glasgow, even among the Dissenters, we find church-like places of worship, decent singing, and the entire service conducted with propriety. And one of the marked signs of vanishing prejudice is, that a general wish is springing up for the introduction of that noble instrument, so adapted to church music, the organ. Things have even gone so far that the principal ecclesiastical court of a considerable Scotch dissenting denomination, has left it to be decided by each congregation for itself, whether it will have an organ or not. And several dissenting ministers of respectable standing and undoubted Presbyterianism, are pushing the matter strongly.

We should have fancied that men of sense in North Britain would have been pleased to find that there is a prospect of the organ being generally introduced: and this upon the broad ground that church music would thus be made more solemn, more worthy of God's worship, more likely to awaken devotional feeling. We should have fancied that there was no need for special pleading on the part of the advocates of the organ, and assuredly no room for lengthened argument on the part of its opponents. The entire argument, we think, may be summed up thus: Whatever makes church music more solemn and solemnizing is good; the organ does this: therefore, let us have the organ. If a man denies our first proposition, he is a person who cannot be reasoned with. If he denies the second, he

661

has no musical taste. If he admits both, yet denies the conclusion, then he is either prejudiced or yielding to prejudice. And so the discussion ends. And though we do not by any means hold that the majority is necessarily right, still in this world we have, after all, no further appeal than to the mass of educated men, and they have decided the organ question.' We believe that the Scotch Church and its offshoots are the only Christian sects that taboo the organ.

We should not have been surprised to find opposition to the organ on the part of the unreasoning crowd, who regard it as a rag of Popery, and whose hatred of everything prelatical is quite wonderful. But it startles us to find reasonable and educated Scotchmen maintaining that an organ is an idol, and that its use is not only inexpedient, but absolutely sinful and forbidden. We have read with considerable interest, and with great surprise, Dr. Candlish's publication on The Organ Question, elicited by the alarm he feels at certain recent movements on behalf of instrumental music in Presbyterian worship' (p. 5). His part in it is confined to an introductory essay, reflecting little credit upon either his logic or his taste: and instead of arguing the matter for himself, he prefers to reproduce what he regards as a complete discussion of the subject, in two documents, written nearly half a century since. The circumstances under which these were written are as follows:

In the centre of a considerable square, opening out of the Salt Market of Glasgow (indissolubly associated with the memory of Bailie Nicol Jarvie and Rob Roy), there stands the elegant church of St. Andrew. It is a facsimile, on a slightly reduced scale, of St. Martin's-in-the-fields, at Charing Cross. Fifty years since, Dr. Ritchie, the incumbent of that church, in accordance with the wish of his entire congregation, one of the most intelligent in Scotland, introduced an organ. On Sunday, the 23rd of August, 1807, the sole organ which

*We happened once to be in Dr. Cumming's chapel on an Easter-Sunday, and found that the prayers and sermon were as full of reference to the season as the service for the day in the Prayer Book; perhaps more so.

has been used since the Reformation

in any Scotch church in Scotland,* was used for the first and last time. Extreme horror was excited among the ultra-Presbyterians. Dr. Ritchie was forthwith pulled up by the Presbytery of Glasgow, and getting frightened at his own audacity, he declared at its meeting that he would not again use an organ in the public worship of God, without the authority of the Church.' Upon this the Presbytery passed a resolution to the effect That the Presbytery are of opinion that the use of the organ in the public worship of God, is contrary to the law of the land, and to the law and constitution of our Established Church, and therefore prohibit it in all the churches and chapels within their bounds; and with respect to Dr. Ritchie's conduct in this matter, they are satisfied with his declaration.' Dr. Ritchie gave in a paper containing his reasons of dissent; and a committee of the Presbytery prepared a reply to it. These two papers form the substance of the book now sent forth with Dr. Candlish's name.

The commotion excited in Scotland by the introduction of the organ was indescribable. Dr. Ritchie was accused of the monstrous

crime of worshipping God by images, of violating the articles of the Union, of demolishing the barriers for the security of our religion, of committing a deed of perjury to ordination Vows' (p. 61). A howl of execration was directed against the man who had exhibited the flagrant insolence of introducing what John Knox had tastefully described as a 'kist fu' o' whistles. Pamphlets and caricatures were numerous. Dr. Candlish thinks it worth while to preserve the remembrance of a picture 'which represents Dr. Ritchie, who was about the time of these proceedings translated to Edinburgh, travelling as a street musician, with a barrel organ strapped across his shoulder, and solacing himself with the good old tune, I'll gang nae mair to yon toun' (p. 28). Wit and

intelligence appear to have been tolerably equal in Scotland in those days.

Dr. Candlish's own sentiments are plainly enough expressed. He thinks that cogent arguments can be urged, both from reason and Scripture, against the practice of using the organ' (p. 14). He hopes that his present publication will make many who have been almost led away by the plausibilities that are so easily got up on the side of organs, pause before they lend themselves to what may cause a most perilous agitation' (p. 31). This is fair enough, because there may be prejudices in the mass of the Scotch people so strong that it would be inexpedient to shock them by introducing instrumental music.

But

Dr. Candlish goes on, in words which bewilder us, to give his opinion on the essential merits of the question :

It is not that I am afraid of a controversy on this subject, or of its issue, so far as the merits of the question are concerned. I believe it is a question which touches some of the highest and deepest points of Christian theology. Is the temple destroyed, is the temple worship wholly superseded? Have we, or have we not, priests and sacrifices among us now? Does the Old Testament itself point to any

thing but the fruit of the lips' as the peaceoffering or thank-offering of gospel times? Is there a trace in the New Testament of any other mode of praise? For my part, I am persuaded that if the organ be admitted, there is no barrier, in principle, against the sacerdotal system in all its fulness, against the substitution again, in our whole religion, of the formal for the spiritual, the symbolical for the real!

And then, remembering that this may offend Episcopalians, Dr. Candlish goes on offensively to say that the Church of England never attained light enough to reject the organ, and may therefore be permitted the use of a carnal contrivance which the more enlightened Presbyterians would be retrograding in taking up. A position at which the organ is retained, is wonderfully well for us.

* Organs are not unfrequently found in Scotch churches out of Scotland. The Scotch churches maintained by the East India Company at Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, are provided with organs, which are regularly used. The case is the same with several of the Scotch churches in the West Indies, and with one long established at Amsterdam.

Dr. Ritchie's Arguments.

1856.] Southrons; but would be a wretched falling off in the followers of Cameron and Renwick.

Dr. Ritchie appears from his 'Statement' to have been an enlightened and educated man, somewhat in advance of his age, and who had miscalculated the consequences of setting up the organ. The pear was not ripe; it is hardly so yet, after the lapse of fifty years. He adduces just such arguments in favour of instrumental music, as would present themselves to any English mind, modified somewhat by his knowledge of the prejudices of the tribunal he addressed. His statement is written with elegance, and temperately expressed. He sets out by stating that the use of instrumental music in worship has its foundation in the best feelings of human nature, prompting men to employ with reverence, according to the means they possess, all their powers in expressing gratitude to their Creator. This use cannot be traced in sacred history from the time of Moses down to that of David: but David not only employed instrumental music himself, but calls on all nations, all the earth, to praise the Lord as he did, with psaltery, with harp, with organ, with the voice of a psalm.' His psalms are constantly sung in Christian worship; and can it be a sin to sing them, as was done by the original composer, with the accompaniment of an organ?' Christ never found fault with instrumental music, neither did Paul or John; the latter indeed tells us that he beheld in heaven Harpers harping with their harps.' During the earlier centuries, the persecutions to which Christians were exposed probably suffered no thought about a matter not essential: but the use of organs became general in the time of dawning light. At the Reformation it was felt that their use was no essential part of Popery; and thus it was retained by all the reformed churches, those of Luther and Calvin alike, except the Church of Scotland. Organs did not find favour in Scotland, because religious persecution had excited in that country a great horror of whatever had been used in popish or prelatical worship, as altars, crosses, organs. But although the organ was associated

663

with Episcopacy, there is no necessary connexion:

And in the use of an organ in church during public praise, I cannot, for my life, after long and serious attention to the subject, discover even an approach to any violation either of the purity or uniformity of our worship. For who will or can allege that an organ is an innovation upon the great object of worship?- -we all, I trust, worship the one God, through the one Mediator. Or upon the subject of praise?—for we all sing the same psalms and paraphrases in the same language, all giving thanks for the same mercies. Or upon the posture of the worshippers ?-for we all sit, as becomes Presbyterians. Or upon the tunes sung ?-for we sing only such as are in general use. Or upon the office of the precentor?-for he still holds his rank, and employs the commanding tones of the organ for guiding the voices of the people. What, then, is it? It is a help, a support given to the precentor's voice, for enabling him more steadily, and with more dignity, to guide the voice of the congregation, and thus to preserve not only uniformity, but that unity of voice which is so becoming in the public service, which so pleasingly heightens devout feelings, and prevents that discord which so easily distracts the attention of the worshippers.

Such is an outline of Dr. Ritchie's argument. Our readers will, we doubt not, be curious to know what considerations, partaking of the nature of argument, can be adduced against the use of organs in church. Most people, we should think, would be more curious to know this, than to have arguments in favour of an usage for which common sense is authority sufficient. Now, had the committee of the Glasgow Presbytery assigned their true reason for rejecting the organ, it might have been very briefly set out: it was simply to be different from the Prelatists. A true-blue Presbyterian does not think of discussing the fitness of any observance on the ground of its own merits. He brings the matter to a shorter issue-viz., Is it used in the Episcopal Church or is it not? If he goes beyond that, his final question would be, What did John Knox say about it? His infallibility is held in Scotland much more strongly and practically than the Pope's is in Italy. If any man in a Scotch Church Court should venture to impugn anything that

« PoprzedniaDalej »