2 Samuel 6

So it is that he who of all philosophers so praised truth, Plato, gave new life to the dying ember of Hebrew philosophy by condemning a life spent in revelry. "When I arrived," he said, "what is here called a life of pleasure, filled with Italian and Syracusan meals, was very repulsive to me. It is a life in which one gorges oneself twice a day, sleeps not only during the night, and engages in all the pastimes that go with this sort of life. No one upon earth could ever become wise in this way, if from his youth he had followed such pursuits as these, nor would he ever attain in that way any reputation for an excellent physique." Surely, Plato was not unacquainted with David, who, when he was settling the holy ark in the middle of the tabernacle of his city, made a feast for all his obedient subjects and "before the face of the Lord, distributed to all the multitude of Israel, both men and women, to everyone, a cake of bread and baked bread and pancakes from the frying pan." This food sufficed, this food of Israel; that of the Gentiles is extravagance.

"Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them." Strictly speaking, the word symphony is used by musicians for the voices of harmony. For among musical tones, some harmonize with each other and others do not. But the Gospel is also familiar with this term as applied to music where it says, "He heard music [symphōnias] and dancing." For it was fitting that, at the harmony that resulted between the father and his son who had been lost but was now found through his repentance, a symphony should be heard on the occasion of the rejoicing of the house.… Akin to this kind of symphony is what is written in the second book of Kings [Samuel] when the brothers of Aminadab "went before the ark, and David and the sons of Israel were playing before the face of the Lord on well-tuned instruments and in power and in songs." For the "well-tuned instruments in power and in song" have in them that harmony of tones which is of such power that if only two people bring before the Father in heaven any request with that symphony which is found in divine and spiritual music, the Father grants it to them—which is most remarkable.

And that David danced before the Lord does in no way encourage faithful Christians to take seats in the theater. He did not distort his body in obscene movements and dance out the drama of Grecian libido.… Therefore, no approval whatever is given for spectators of illicit things.

When the people of the Hebrews were bringing back the ark of the Lord to Jerusalem, Uzzah, from the house of Abinadab the Israelite, who had touched the side of the ark without having examined his conscience, was slain. And yet he had drawn near not to take anything from it but to hold it up when it was leaning because of the stumbling of a young ox. So great a concern was there of reverence toward God that God did not accept bold hands even out of help. The Lord also proclaims the same thing, saying, "Everyone who is clean shall eat of the flesh, and whichever soul touches the flesh of the sacrifice of well-being and has his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people." Are these things which existed long ago, and now they do not happen in this way? What then? Has God ceased to care for what concerns us? Has he withdrawn beyond the view of the world, and does he look down from heaven upon no one? Is his forbearance really ignorance? God forbid, you will say. Therefore he sees what we do but he waits, indeed, and endures patiently, and he grants an opportunity for repentance and holds out his own Christ to postpone [the end], so that they whom he has redeemed may not readily perish. Understand this well, you sinner: you are observed by God; you can appease him if you want to.

But even the dancing of the body is considered praiseworthy in honor of God. In fact, David danced before the Ark of the Lord and Michal, the daughter of Saul, saw him dancing and playing musical instruments in the presence of the Lord. After he returned home, she said to him, 'How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today! He has exposed himself in the sight of the maidservants of his servants, as one of the rabble might shamelessly expose himself!' David said to Michal in the presence of the Lord, 'It was before the Lord, who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his house when he appointed me ruler over the Lord's people Israel and Judah. I will celebrate before the Lord. I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of, I will be held in honor.' And Michal, he said, had no son to the daughter of Saul until the day of his death. It is a clear example, therefore, that even the Prophet who played on the musical instruments and danced before the Ark of the Lord, was justified; and she who criticized him was condemned to barrenness.

But the things which viewed corporeally are unseemly, when viewed in regard to holy religion become venerable, so that they who blame such things will involve their own souls in the net of blame. Thus Michal reproves David for his dancing and says to him, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of his handmaids! And David answered her, It was before the Lord, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel: therefore will I play before the Lord, and I will be yet more vile thus, and will be base in mine own sight, and of the maid-servants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.

They [the Galatians] had, in fact, only introduced one or two commandments, circumcision and the observance of days, but he [Paul] says that the gospel was subverted, in order to show that a slight adulteration vitiates the whole. For as he who but partially pares away the image on a royal coin renders the whole spurious, so he who swerves ever so little from the pure faith soon proceeds from this to graver errors and becomes entirely corrupted. Where then are those who charge us with being contentious in separating from heretics and say that there is no real difference between us except what arises from our ambition? Let them hear Paul's assertion, that those who had but slightly innovated, subverted the gospel. … Don't you know that even under the old covenant, a man who gathered sticks on the sabbath, and transgressed a single commandment, and that not a great one, was punished with death? And that Uzzah, who supported the ark when on the point of being overturned, was struck suddenly dead, because he had intruded upon an office which did not pertain to him? Wherefore if to transgress the sabbath and to touch the falling ark drew down the wrath of God so signally as to deprive the offender of even a momentary respite, shall he who corrupts unutterably awe-inspiring doctrines find excuse and pardon? Assuredly not. A lack of zeal in small matters is the cause of all our calamities; and because slight errors escape fitting correction, great ones creep in. As in the body, a neglect of wounds generates fever, mortification and death; so in the soul, slight evils overlooked open the door to graver ones.

When the ark of the Lord was being transferred to Jerusalem, and the oxen kicked and made the wagon lean to one side, Uzzah, the Levite, reached out his hand to support the ark that had been tipped, and there follow immediately these words: "And the indignation of the Lord was enkindled against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his ignorance, and he died before the ark of God. And David was grieved because the Lord had struck Uzzah, and he was afraid of the Lord that day and said, 'How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?' " When David, who was a just man and a prophet and had been anointed as king, whom the Lord chose according to his own heart that he might do his will in all things, saw ignorance punished by the wrath of the Lord, he was afraid and was grieved; nor did he ask the Lord his reason for striking a man who was ignorant, but he feared a similar judgment happening to him.

For our vows are celebrated when the church is united to Christ, as John says: "The one who has the bride is the bridegroom." Because of this marriage, therefore, it behooves us to dance, for David, at once king and prophet, is also said to have danced before the ark of the covenant with much singing. In high rejoicing he broke into dancing, for in the Spirit he foresaw Mary, born of his own line, brought into Christ's chamber, and so he says, "And he, like a bridegroom, will come forth from his chamber." Thus he sang more than the other prophetic authors because, gladder than the rest of them, by these joys he united those coming after him in marriage. And, by inviting us to his own vows in a more charming way than usual, having danced with such joy in front of the ark before his marriage, he taught us what we ought to do at those other vows. The prophet David danced, then. But what would we say that the ark was if not holy Mary, since the ark carried within it the tables of the covenant, while Mary bore the master of the same covenant? The one bore the law within itself and the other the gospel, but the ark gleamed within and without with the radiance of gold, while holy Mary shone within and without with the splendor of virginity; the one was adorned with earthly gold, the other with heavenly.

We read in the law that even those who seem to have acted lightly against the sacred commandments have, nevertheless, been punished most severely. This is that we might understand that nothing which pertains to God must be considered lightly, because even what seems to be very little in fault is made great by the injury to God. What did Uzzah, the Levite of God, do against the heavenly command when he tried to steady the tottering ark of the Lord? There was nothing on this point prescribed by the law. Yet, immediately when he steadied the ark, he was struck down. Not that he was insolent in manner or undutiful in mind. Yet he was undutiful in his very act, because he went beyond his orders.

You will be blessed if you give thanks to God both in adversity and in prosperity and if you consider the prosperity of this life as smoke and vapor that immediately vanishes. David was a king, yet, in spite of having numerous treasures and ruling countless peoples with a strong hand, he sang of himself as humble and said, "I am afflicted in an agony from my youth." And again, he said to the daughter of Saul, "I shall walk humbly, and I shall appear humbly before the Lord, who chose me rather than your father." Likewise, he also said, "I am a wayfarer of earth and a pilgrim like all my fathers."

On the contrary, when David despised the power of his kingdom by dancing before the ark of the Lord's covenant, he said: "I will play and become more vile than I have become, and I will be humble in my own eyes." For whom would it not exalt to break the jaws of lions, to tear apart the arms of bears, to be chosen while his elder brothers were passed over, to be anointed to the governance of the kingdom when the previous king was rejected, to strike down Goliath—fearsome to all—with a single stone, to bring back the numerous foreskins proposed by the king after slaying the foreigners, to receive the kingdom by promise, and afterward to possess the entire Israelite people without any opposition? And yet in all these things he despises himself, who confesses that he is humble in his own eyes. If therefore holy men, even when they do mighty deeds, think lowly of themselves, what will those say in their own excuse who swell with pride without any virtuous work?

But because secret pride of heart is reproved by this, which Eliu says, "All who seem to themselves to be wise will not dare to contemplate Him"; it seems good to observe what great gifts of virtues David had obtained, and in all these with how firm a humility he maintained himself. For whom would it not puff up, to break the mouths of lions; to rend asunder the arms of bears; to be chosen, when his elder brethren had been despised; to be anointed to the government of the kingdom, when the King had been rejected; to slay with a single stone Goliah who was dreaded by all; to bring back, after the destruction of the aliens, the numerous foreskins proposed by the King; to receive at last the promised kingdom, and to possess the whole people of Israel without any contradiction? And yet, when he brings back the Ark of God to Jerusalem, he dances before the Ark, mingled with the people, as though forgetful that he had been preferred to them all. And because, as is believed, it had been the custom of the common people to dance before the Ark, the king wheels round in the dance, in service to God. Behold how he whom the Lord preferred specially above all, contemns himself beneath the Lord, both by equalling himself with the least, and by displaying abject behaviour. The power of his kingdom is not recalled to his memory; he fears not to be vile in the eyes of his people, by dancing; he remembers not, before the Ark of Him Who had given him honour, that he had been preferred in honour above the rest. Before God he performed even the extremest vilenesses, in order to strengthen, by his humility, the bold deeds he had performed in the sight of men. What is thought by others of his doings, I know not; I am more surprised at David dancing, than fighting. For by fighting he subdued his enemies; but by dancing before the Lord he overcame himself. And when Michal, the daughter of Saul, still mad with pride at her royal descent, despised him when humbled, saying, "How glorious was the king of Israel to-day, uncovering himself before the handmaids of his servants, and made himself naked, as though one of the buffoons were naked"; she immediately heard, "As the Lord liveth, I will play before Lord, Who hath chosen me rather than thy father." And a little after he says, "And I will play, and I will become more vile than I have been, and I will be humble in mine own eyes." As if he plainly said, I seek to become vile before men, because I seek to keep myself noble before the Lord, through my humility.

Their methods are the methods of all intense and hearty religions; they are popular like all religion, military like all religion, public and sensational like all religion. They are not reverent any more than Roman Catholics are reverent, for reverence in the sad and delicate meaning of the term reverence is a thing only possible to infidels. That beautiful twilight you will find in Euripides, in Renan, in Matthew Arnold; but in men who believe you will not find it—you will find only laughter and war. A man cannot pay that kind of reverence to truth solid as marble; they can only be reverent towards a beautiful lie. And the Salvation Army, though their voice has broken out in a mean environment and an ugly shape, are really the old voice of glad and angry faith, hot as the riots of Dionysus, wild as the gargoyles of Catholicism, not to be mistaken for a philosophy. Professor Huxley, in one of his clever phrases, called the Salvation Army "corybantic Christianity." Huxley was the last and noblest of those Stoics who have never understood the Cross. If he had understood Christianity he would have known that there never has been, and never can be, any Christianity that is not corybantic.

If this is so, let them be very certain of this, that they are the kind of people who in the time of the maypole would have thought the maypole vulgar; who in the time of the Canterbury pilgrimage would have thought the Canterbury pilgrimage vulgar; who in the time of the Olympian games would have thought the Olympian games vulgar. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that they were vulgar. Let no man deceive himself; if by vulgarity we mean coarseness of speech, rowdiness of behaviour, gossip, horseplay, and some heavy drinking, vulgarity there always was wherever there was joy, wherever there was faith in the gods. Wherever you have belief you will have hilarity, wherever you have hilarity you will have some dangers. And as creed and mythology produce this gross and vigorous life, so in its turn this gross and vigorous life will always produce creed and mythology.

But let us ask ourselves (in a spirit of love, as Mr. Chadband would say), what are the ballets of the Alhambra? The ballets of the Alhambra are institutions in which a particular selected row of persons in pink go through an operation known as dancing. Now, in all commonwealths dominated by a religion—in the Christian commonwealths of the Middle Ages and in many rude societies—this habit of dancing was a common habit with everybody, and was not necessarily confined to a professional class. A person could dance without being a dancer; a person could dance without being a specialist; a person could dance without being pink. And, in proportion as Mr. McCabe's scientific civilization advances—that is, in proportion as religious civilization (or real civilization) decays—the more and more "well trained," the more and more pink, become the people who do dance, and the more and more numerous become the people who don't. Mr. McCabe may recognize an example of what I mean in the gradual discrediting in society of the ancient European waltz or dance with partners, and the substitution of that horrible and degrading oriental interlude which is known as skirt-dancing. That is the whole essence of decadence, the effacement of five people who do a thing for fun by one person who does it for money. Now it follows, therefore, that when Mr. McCabe says that the ballets of the Alhambra and my articles "have their place in life," it ought to be pointed out to him that he is doing his best to create a world in which dancing, properly speaking, will have no place in life at all. He is, indeed, trying to create a world in which there will be no life for dancing to have a place in. The very fact that Mr. McCabe thinks of dancing as a thing belonging to some hired women at the Alhambra is an illustration of the same principle by which he is able to think of religion as a thing belonging to some hired men in white neckties. Both these things are things which should not be done for us, but by us. If Mr. McCabe were really religious he would be happy. If he were really happy he would dance.

Briefly, we may put the matter in this way. The main point of modern life is not that the Alhambra ballet has its place in life. The main point, the main enormous tragedy of modern life, is that Mr. McCabe has not his place in the Alhambra ballet. The joy of changing and graceful posture, the joy of suiting the swing of music to the swing of limbs, the joy of whirling drapery, the joy of standing on one leg,—all these should belong by rights to Mr. McCabe and to me; in short, to the ordinary healthy citizen. Probably we should not consent to go through these evolutions. But that is because we are miserable moderns and rationalists. We do not merely love ourselves more than we love duty; we actually love ourselves more than we love joy.