Action of the United Presbyterian General Assembly on Instrumental Music in Worship.
James Dodson
[Tract No. 3.—The Down Grade]
Action of 1883.
One of the necessary results of enacting the repeal of the prohibitory rule is, that it was a kind of premium upon disloyalty to the authority of the Church. The Assembly of 1881, in answer to the memorial of Dr. James Harper and others asking that measures be taken to enforce the rule, had resolved that “the Presbyteries and Synods are competent and are expected by the Assembly to apply the law.” These courts are subordinate to the General Assembly. It was perfectly known by the Assembly of ’82 that the resolution of ’81 had been disregarded, and that more than the number claimed as a majority in the Presbyteries had voted for repeal while determinedly violating the law. Quite a number of these voted for the action of the Assembly by which repeal was enacted. The whole system of determined violation of a constitutional law, and disobedience to the authority of the Church, was thus not only sanctioned and approved, but the Assembly availed itself of the aid of those in rebellion to secure the overthrow of the law. It was by the votes of such that there was even a show of the alleged majority for repeal. Such disregard for its own authority by the Assembly, and of that of the Church of Christ, cannot be without its bitter fruits, though they may be borne many days hence.
Very great dissatisfaction prevailed in the Church as the result of the action of ’82. In a number of instances
[Page 2]
instruments were introduced into the worship of congregations, peace and harmony were disturbed, and members were compelled to violate their consciences, or leave the Church. In no instance was the injunction of the Assembly in regard to such cases enforced by any judicial action of the lower courts, as the letter of that injunction requires. A large convention met in Allegheny in August, ’82, to protest against the action taken, and to insist that instruments should not be employed in worship until properly authorized. When the General Assembly of 1883 convened, a memorial was laid before it with 6,579 signatures of ministers, elders and members, praying it to declare that instrumental music is unlawful in all our congregations until the Church constitutionally determines it to be authorized by the word of God. There were also memorials of the same import from Rev. R. A. Browne, D. D., Rev. James Barnett, D. D., and the Presbyteries of Keokuk, Allegheny, Lake and Cleveland, and from the sessions of Pawnee and Mission Creek, and from Robinson’s Run congregation. All these memorials were referred to the Committee on Bills and Overtures. See Minutes, page 706-7, 713-17.
In reference to these memorials the Committee on Bills and Overtures presented majority and minority reports. The majority report was adopted. Its object was mainly to refute two principal positions taken by the memorialists in support of their prayer asking the General Assembly “to declare explicitly that, in none of the congregations under the care of the Assembly, can instrumental music be lawfully used in worship until the Church shall have decided by constitutional enactment that such music in worship is divinely authorized and prescribed.” These positions were
1. That the Assembly had “resolved that the enactment of the repeal did not authorize the use of instruments in the worship of any of our con-
[Page 3]
gregations.”
2. That “the Confession of Faith declares explicitly that nothing is to be used in the worship of God that is not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.”
The first position is answered by totally contradicting and explaining away that portion of the third resolution in the action of ’82, which declares that “this decision is not to be considered as authorizing instrumental music in the worship of God.” The Assembly held that this would, in its distinct and literal sense, render the entire action of ’82 on the subject null and void, and that the language must be understood in harmony with the other member of the resolution “that there is no sufficient Bible authority for an absolutely exclusive rule on the subject,” and that it must harmonize with the entire action in which the prohibitory law was declared repealed. The Assembly affirmed further in answer to this position, that the repeal of a law authorizes “freedom from its restraints,” and “leaves the subject without the law repealed.”
It has been stated in a preceding Tract that the affirmative proposition implied in the expression, “there is no sufficient Bible authority for an absolutely exclusive rule on the subject” is, that there is Bible authority for an exclusive rule, provided it is not absolutely exclusive. The declaration that “this decision is not to be considered as authorizing instrumental music in the worship of God” is in its literal and necessary meaning in entire harmony with this view of the second clause of the resolution. The declaration, therefore, that the repeal of the law authorizes “freedom from its restraints” is in direct contradiction of the declaration that the repeal was “not to be considered as authorizing instrumental music in the worship of God.” The Assembly of ’82 had impliedly declared that there was still a restraining rule in the word of God, though not absolutely prohibitory. The Confes-
[Page 4]
sion of Faith and Catechisms, comprehending the chief standards of the Church, still stood forth boldly proclaiming the doctrine that “what is not commanded in worship is forbidden.” The action of the Assembly repealing the prohibitory rule in the Directory for Worship did not leave the subject without law, as the Assembly affirm, either in the word of God, as is admitted in the action of ’82, or in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms.
To the second position of the memorialists in support of their prayer “that the Confession of Faith declares explicitly that nothing is to be used in the worship of God that is “not prescribed in the Holy Scripture,” the Assembly answered by a mere evasion. This was the assumption that instrumental music was not “anything appointed” in the ordinance of praise, that it is to be classed among the “mere incidents or helps to its observance” as “the particular tunes to be sung, or the particular means by which the key-note may be found, or the use of musical notes as a help in singing, or the employment of trained singers to lead in the praise service.” It is further affirmed that the repeal of the law was a declaration by the Church that the principle referred to in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms was not applicable to the question of the use of instruments in worship. The Assembly affirms, moreover, in answer to the memorial, that it has no power to declare that the prohibitory principle is, in effect, still operative. This, it avers, can only be done by overture, and it is unwilling in its fear of the effects of a continued strain that would be put upon the Church to re-overture the question in any form. Finally, mutual forbearance is recommended as the only remedy from the present distracted condition of the Church. See Minutes, pages 727-9.
There is abundant evidence that the theory that instru-
[Page 5]
mental music is “not anything appointed” in the ordinance of praise, and that it is to be classed among the mere incidents, or helps to the observance of the ordinance, as the “tune,” or the finding the “key-note,” or musical notes, or trained singers, was an after-thought—an invention to enable the Assembly to escape from the declaration in the repealing act, on the one hand, that the “decision is not to be considered as authorizing instrumental music in the worship of God,” and the doctrine of the Confession of Faith and Catechisms on the other, that nothing is to be employed in the worship of God but that which he has appointed. The discussions during the year in which the question of repeal was considered and voted on, were upon the question whether the word of God authorized the use of musical instruments in the New Testament worship, or not. The affirmative vote declared that it was authorized, either by an optional warrant, or by simple requirement—some believing the one theory, and some the other. The negative vote denied the correctness of either position. The position that it is a mere incident, or circumstance, like that by which the key-note of a tune is found, was a new one that had never been discussed. It was a surprise to many who immediately accepted it and voted for it. The affirmation that the Presbyteries in voting for repeal had adopted this view, was without a shadow of a foundation.
The theory itself is contrary both to Scripture and reason. Every one knows that the use of instruments was a subject of divine precept under the Old dispensation. It was required, not as a mere incident, but as a part of the ordinance of praise, as prominent in it as was the singing with the voice. In the change from Old to New Testament ordinances, there is not a hint that the nature of instrumental music in worship is changed from
[Page 6]
being a constituent part of the ordinance of praise, to that of a mere incident that needs no authorization or regulation by the word of God, or by the Standards of the Church. No effort has been made to prove that such a change took place. It is a pure assumption. The very contention for its use, and the zeal and energy that has been put forth to remove the barriers out of its way, prove that, even in the estimation of those who are its advocates, it occupies a higher place than that of a mere incident. Yet, this being the new doctrine of the majority of the Assembly, it required to be overtured in order to become the doctrine of the Church. When the minority report was under consideration as a proposed amendment to that of the majority, the following was accordingly proposed: “Strike out all after the word ‘Resolved’ in the first resolution, and insert the following: That the following question be submitted in overture to the Presbyteries: Shall instrumental music be considered an incident in the worship of God?” This was lost—the ayes being 72, and the nays 148. The amendment to insert the minority instead of the majority report was also lost. The following amendment to the majority report was then offered, viz: “Strike out all after the word ‘Resolved,’ and insert the following: That in order to settle existing difficulties in the Church, and to answer the prayer of the memorialists, this subject be sent down in overture in some form to the Presbyteries.” This amendment was lost—75 voting aye, and 145 nay, and one excused. See Minutes, pages 725-7.
It will thus be seen that while the Assembly asserted it had no power to declare that instrumental music is still excluded by the Standards of the Church until it is declared to be prescribed by the Holy Scripture, yet it assumed the power to declare that the doctrine of the Church is, that the use of instruments is only an incident.
[Page 7]
in worship that requires no act of authorization. It is right to infer that it desired further to remove obstacles in the way of the introduction of instruments in worship. The resolutions adopted were as follows:
“1. That the action of the last Assembly on this subject be re-affirmed as explained in this report.
“2. That the admonitory resolution, advising and enjoining against all action on this subject offensive to fellow-worshippers, or disturbing the peace of congregations, be emphatically re-affirmed and urged with renewed earnestness on the attention of pastors and sessions and people of the whole Church.
“3. That Drs. Joseph T. Cooper, David A. Wallace and James P. Lytle be appointed a committee to address a pastoral letter to our people, setting forth the true state of the question as settled by the Church, and urging upon them the respect due to the authority of the Church and to each other as Christian brethren.” Another resolution provides for the expenses of the committee. See Minutes, page 729.
A comparison of these resolutions with those of ’82 will show, that what purports to be an authoritative mandate laid upon the lower courts in the former action, is here called an “admonitory resolution,” by which the mandatory character is eliminated. While the former lays its injunction upon “the lower courts,” the latter applies the injunction, or, as it is now explained, the admonition, to pastors and sessions and the people of the whole Church. Moreover, the committee is specially instructed to urge upon them “the respect due to the authority of the Church.” This was after the aid of those in rebellion against this authority had been secured in favor of repeal. The Assembly had stricken down, to a great extent, its own authority and that of the Church by virtually expressing its approval of determined oppo-
[Page 8]
sition to one of the principles of the Church, and declaring that this determined opposition was in accordance with “the judgment of the Church.” It had expressed its approval of a breach of that principle agreed upon in the acceptance of the Standards of the United Presbyterian Church, that determined opposition to any part of the profession of the Church would not be tolerated. Now, however, it instructs its committee to urge upon the people “the respect due the authority of the Church.” When those who exercise this authority disregard it by sanctioning rebellion and determined opposition, it is not to be expected that those under it will attach great weight to their admonition to respect it.
The re-affirming of the action of the Assembly of 1882 “as explained in this report,” was not only a refusal to regard the prayer of the thousands who appealed to the Assembly by their memorial for relief, but an act which made the yoke heavier upon them. It explained the resolution that the act of repeal was “not to be considered as authorizing instrumental music in the worship of God” as having no force, and the repeal itself as granting the liberty for this mode of worship. It defined the principle that what “is not prescribed in the Holy Scripture” in worship is forbidden, so as to exclude the use of instruments from its application. The instruction given to the lower courts, and the injunction laid upon them by the previous Assembly, is now explained to be simply an “admonitory resolution,” “advising and enjoining” against offensive and disturbing action on the part of pastors, sessions and people. It is evident the Assembly took advantage of the occasion furnished by the memorials to open the way still wider for the introduction of instrumental music in the congregations of the Church. It is a significant fact that six of the ministerial members who voted for the action of this Assembly, have since severed their connection with the Church.