Page images
PDF
EPUB

These are startling facts; but they are facts. And they must belong to each other. They cannot be so many isolated accidents. They must be practical indications of some great principle.

If music were a thing indifferent-if it were a device of man, arbitrary, conventional, capricious-we should not simply ignore it; it would be our duty, as christian men, to stand on our guard against it; yea, to lift up our voice and denounce it, mingling itself as it does with things at once so peculiar and so in danger of contamination. But, seeing it is neither indifferent, nor discretionary, nor of human origin, but a work of inspiration from God himself; a very influence, so to speak, in which He who “maketh the clouds his chariot" has descended, and does continue to descend and touch the very inmost recesses of the inner sanctuary; so that the experience of God's holy ones in every age has corresponded therewith, and that to such an extent that we might almost say the most holy-a David-an Elisha-an Augustine-a Luther-men singular as chosen vessels, have left immortal testimonies to their singular responsiveness to music; seeing, I say, all this is as it is, and at the same time such facts as those I have enumerated present themselves, it surely becomes us to investigate the matter with something more than mere carnal curiosity, and see if it cannot be made to assume the distinctness of an ascertainable and instructive truth.

And, indeed, to "speak boldly," as in such a matter "I ought to speak," I might even challenge attention on the lower ground of self-defence. Short of some such vindication as I am about to offer them, no small portion (their own conscience must determine how many) of the quiet readers of the Christian Observer are involved in one of the strangest paradoxes human experience has ever witnessed.

66

The Bible everywhere associates sacred feelings, and holy solemnities, and all that is pre-eminently august, awful, and soul-stirring, with music. Morning stars" singing; saints, whether in joy or sorrow, singing; ransomed, returning with singing; "forests and mountains called to "break forth into singing;" yea, God Himself joying over his people "with singing." Nor vocal music only. We need not go through the continually recurring instances of Miriam's timbrel, and David's harp, and Asaph's psaltery, and prophets prophesying "with tabret and pipe," and Elisha awaiting the descent of the Holy Ghost, first calling for a minstrel. There are still more signal evidences of the Divine association, even of instrumental music, with things emphatically solemn. "The voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder," before the Lord began his colloquy with his servant Moses, face to face, on the dreadful mount. "The Lord went up with the sound of the trumpet ;" and "The Lord Himself shall descend," not only "with the voice of the Archangel," but "with the trump of God." All these things are of the deepest possible import; and

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

yet of the utmost possible simplicity. There is no mistaking them. They appeal to the instincts of universal nature. They are not amongst the shadows of a bygone dispensation; but belong as much to the foretold future as to the recorded past. And yet, amongst those who attend with the deepest reverence at our solemn assemblies, and cherish, with the most earnest feeling, the blessed prospect of the "new song" and the "harp of gold," by far the greatest number (and I shall not be mistaken in these pages as to whom I mean) exhibit a notorious and habitual indifference to our liturgical music, if not something very like an avowed jealousy of its cultivation. And, to make the paradox complete, the practical elimination of an integral portion of what is thus divinely recorded and divinely announced, is the peculiar work, not of those who make the commandment void through a professed reliance on human tradition, but of those whose very watchword is "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible."

I have sufficiently indicated the first part of the paradox; let me add a few words as regards the second. The parties I allude to are not opposed to music elsewhere. They allow it, and enjoy it, for secular purposes. The harp, and piano, and singing are at their feasts. They go further; they appreciate music in connection with our metrical psalmody. They have not, so far as I know, attempted formally to proscribe it even in our Liturgical service. The paradox is not the less real because it does not amount to antagonism. They have tolerated what they would have never courted. They have allowed others to do what they would quite as lief have seen undone. They are not disturbed by the choral burst, "O come, let us sing unto the Lord;" but they would be at least as well satisfied if the words were simply read by the officiating minister. They would feel, I am quite sure, a collapse at the mere recital of "God save the Queen;" but they accept with perfect content the cold reading of the "Te Deum," on Sacrament Sundays. I need say no more to define my meaning. Here is a total non-recognition, so far as the Liturgy is concerned, of the musical, in its divinely-appointed alliance with the devotional element. It is no matter of degree. Such insensibility, not to music in the abstract, but to music as congenial and cognate with all our most hallowed, impassioned, and elevating emotions, is a paradox-contrary to nature, contrary to experience, contrary to the plainest statements of the word of God.

Could such a paradox admit of aggravation, it would be in the total indifference with which, at least at first hearing, its very assertion will, I fear by some, be accepted. On this, however, I forbear to dwell. It belongs to conscience; and it belongs to God. Whether it be amongst the duties, or the "negligences and ignorances," is not at present for me to say.

But I will hope better things. Short of such aggravation I

may assuredly say to those who find themselves in so seemingly monstrous a paradox, that they may at least give attentive hearing, if only in self-defence, to the historic statement that explains it.

That statement I propose to offer, with your permission, in your next Number.

PRESBYTER.

NATIONAL EDUCATION. THE LAST BLUE BOOK.

Report of the Committee of Council on Education: with Appendix. 1859-60. Presented to both Houses of Parliament, &c. &c. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode. (pp. 854. price 5s.)

We are not about to tax the patience of our readers with a long discussion upon national education. The subject is dry and threadbare. But it is nevertheless important; and there are some new features in this last report which we observe with satisfaction, and upon which we wish to make a few remarks.

It seems to us that her majesty's committee of privy council have been long at sea, and made but slow progress in the right course. They have sailed round a world of blunders, and squandered no small sum in unwise experiments and schemes which, had they known the character of the labouring classes of the English people, they would never have undertaken. But they descry the right shores at last, and we stand on the beach to welcome their return.

But, first, a word or two on the preliminary question, Why should the state interfere in the education of the poor? A question much discussed, but very imperfectly understood. Had her majesty's commissioners and their inspectors paid more attention to it a few years ago, they would have avoided most of their mistakes, and spent the public money to better purpose; for the right answer involves another point, and determines the kind of education which it is their duty to administer.

Why is it the duty of the state to educate the children of the poor? We answer,-For the same reason that it is the duty of the state to provide a national system of religion, and for no other. If a state religion is bad, state education is still worse, because, less necessary, and embracing a much narrower field of operations. The two must stand or fall together; they rest on the same footing; only with this difference, that the state religion occupies the foreground; and is the more important of the two. Man is an immortal being, so constituted by his Maker that he cannot discharge his duties in this world, as a citizen, without knowing, and to

some extent appreciating, his relation to another. It is the duty of the state to educate for eternity in order that her citizen may be educated for the present life. We do not say that this is by any means the sole, far less, the highest ground; but it is sufficient, were there no other argument, to justify a national church or state religion. And this too justifies the expenditure of the public money upon a system of national education. It is the duty of the state, simply because the poor man's child, uneducated, is unable to do its duty in that state of life to which it has pleased God to call it. It must know its duty towards God, or it cannot comprehend, much less discharge, its duty towards its neighbour. It requires no great degree of moral courage to challenge the advocates of secular education to produce a single argument to show that the state is bound by any consideration of wisdom or humanity to support schools upon their model. Why should the state do so? Is it because education is of general utility? So are a thousand things which the poor ought to know, and which the state ought not to teach them. It is of great importance to every member of society that shoes should fit, and that clothes should wear well. But is the state to teach the useful arts of making shoes and fabricating cloth on that account? If at the expense of those who pay the taxes, such national workshops are, to say no more, impossible. If the state is to gain in return for the instruction given, by a participation of the profits, then we have communism at once, with all its mischiefs. Then, why must the public be called upon to support a communistic theory as applied to education?

But it is said again, that education does in fact elevate the children of the poor. A truly religious education does so, no doubt, in the highest sense. Secular education does so materially, but not morally; and it is not the duty of the state to take one man's money in order to place another man's child, materially, in another state of life. It is unjust to the tax-payer, because it is not of the slightest benefit to the community. That the children of the day-labourer, for instance, should become clerks and shopkeepers at the public expense, is no conceivable advantage to society. That some of them should rise, and that all should have the power of rising by their own industry and energy, is very beneficial. It is cheering to the order to which they belong, and a wholesome lesson to that into which they are introduced: but the value of both lessons is lost if that which ought to be done, under the help of a kind Providence, by their own exertions, is done for them by the state.

With regard to the moral improvement which secular education is said to give, we content ourselves with asking for the facts on which this doctrine rests; for we are not acquainted with them. We ourselves have known, as we have passed through life, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of very worthless men and very worthless women of great taste and great accomplishments. Their refinement of mind no more enabled them to withstand their

favourite sins, than a sheet of pasteboard would enable its possessor to resist an inundation.-And these were not exceptions to the rule, for in truth no rule exists. Let those who maintain the contrary calmly tell us what are the conditions of the rule, and how it acts. What course of mathematics, for example, will extinguish, or sensibly abate, the love of strong liquors in a drunkard? How much Latin or Greek is necessary to enable a dishonest man to keep his hands from picking and stealing? How much French and Italian, with music and singing to boot, will cure his wife of evil-speaking, lying and slandering, if these are her infirmities? If it be of the fine arts these assertions are made, we are sincerely open to conviction. How many immodest men and women, then, have become chaste from their study of the sculpture in the Crystal Palace? This is the age of statistics and tabulated reports; all we ask, and surely the demand is not unreasonable, is to be furnished with some "returns;" but till they be forthcoming, we shall take upon ourselves to say that, as most assuredly they never have been, so most probably they never will be, produced. If our readers feel disposed to charge us with writing on the subject in too light a vein, we can only say that the position of the secular educationists seems to us so perfectly ridiculous, that it is with some difficulty we persuade ourselves to meet it with any kind of argument, whether grave or gay.

Grants from the national purse, that is, let it never be forgotten, from taxes paid by thousands of humble tradesmen who feel these matters keenly, and discuss them freely,-in aid of museums and exhibitions of the fine arts, can be justified only upon one plea, that of improving the taste, and thus adding to the wealth of the nation, regarding it as one great family, and assuming, as we may reasonably do, that with more refined taste, or more scientific skill, or both combined, our manufactures will be improved, and the whole nation share in the benefit. The argument does not go very far, and such grants ought always to be watched, as indeed they are, with jealousy; but for a system of national education, and an annual grant of a million sterling, a much stronger case must be made out.

Yet, hitherto, the case has stood thus: we have been offering to the working classes of England a sort of education which they did not value, a kind of instruction which they felt they did not want. We have persisted, and so have they; until at length it has come to this, that of our million sterling two-thirds, or rather, seventy per cent., has been, we do not say misappropriated, but certainly mis-spent ; spent idly, spent as men spend their money in charity who mean well, but know not how to lay it out so as really to benefit those whom they desire to serve. A little attention to the Blue Book before us will enable every reader to judge how far this representation is correct.

From whatever causes it may have arisen, the fact, as repeatedly

« PreviousContinue »