Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1883-06-06
u, P. GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT
PITTSBURGH.
The Question Of instrumental
Music up for DiScussiOn.-
Speeches on Each Side.


the U. P. General Assembly held there
on the instrumental Music" question
now agitating that church. We give
below two of the leading speeches, one
on each side of the question, as made
on the 29th ult:
The Assembly met at $50 in the
afternoon, by which time the church
was literally packed, many having re-
tained their place during the recess.
| The Moderator then announced that
the special order was the consideration
of the report of the Committee on
Music
DR.. n. c. McDill, of Indiana, was
recognized by the Chair. He said the
large attendance at the sessions showed
that there were important principles
underlying the subject under discussion,
and that the people were deeply inter-
ested He said the fundamental law
| was conciliation and forbearance, but
the trouble was to find out who should
do the conciliating or who should be
forborne. He said in his opinion the
easiest and best way out of the trouble
| was to send the matter down in an
overture. He did not speak as q
memorialist, because he had not signed
| any paper on the subject But by an
overture o clear expression of the
| Church could be obtained. He did not
ask this in factious opposition, but be-
cause he could not conscientiously SUBJ
scribe to music in the church. AS for
himself, he intended to stay in the u
P. Church, whether he had his way or
not.
Rev. Alex. Young, D. D., said he
had not been forward in the discussion
| which ensued after the overture was
sent down in 1881. He had never
written line on the subject, and had
rarely spoken on the question in Pres
byteries where it was discussed. He
had read both sides and had talked
about the subject to those among whom
he mingled He had found various
| opinions, and back of those holding the
minority views was conscience, they
holding that it is not authorized by
God, and consequently prohibited. The
speaker delivered logical argument,
contending that the theory that what
is not prohibited had nothing whatever
to do with the question under discus
sion. 1t was true that doctrine was
taught in the Westminster Confession
of Faith, but it referred to the moral
law, and there could be no difference of
opinion in regard to that matter. He
then quoted another section of the
Westminster Confession. showing that
it was not opposed to music, and that
it was question which could not be
classed as prohibited. No one doubted
that under the old dispensation that
music was used. The Hebrews sung,
and the Scriptures when translated into
Greek and other tongues could not be
sung in the same manner as they were
in the Hebrews The Old dispensation
went down with the new Testament
dispensation. There was not word
of prohibition against the use ofinstru-
ments, and he challenged the produc-
ton of any phrase in Scripture which
prohibited the use of instruments.
There was none because it was not
deemed essential that regulations on
the subject of music should be made.
He had heard brother remark that the
prohibition had been established by the
unwritten laws of our fathers. He was
never more surprised than when he
heard DR.. Kennedy make use of that
expression. He wondered if he were
in Jerusalem, where the traditions of
| the fathers were handed down, and
| wondered if the brother believed the
fathers of the Church were the word of
| God.
NOTHING AGAINST 1T.
The speaker proceeded to review the
early forms of worship, argued that
there was not a single line against
music in tie Westminster Confession
of Faith although it was at time
when chorus and music were at their
height, and claimed that there was 40
rule against it in the Associate Church,
and in the Associate Reformed Church
the only deliverance was the declara-
tion that the use of instruments was
not authorized in the New Testament.
That was subsequently changed to read
that their use was not sanctioned in
the Bible, very different proposition.
Then it was made still stronger in the
United Presbyterian Church until it
was repealed. He then spoke against
the minority report. The General AS
sembly had no right to command any
congregation to do one thing or refrain
from doing another. They did just ex-
actly what they should do-they re-
pealed and they left churches at liberty
either to use the instrument or refrain.
On the question of forbearance he refer
red to Paul's action on the question of
circumcision. He performed the cere-
mony when the man was willing, but
under no condition would he allow it
to be forced upon any one. 1t is this
same kind of forbearance that should be
experienced in regard to music. Those
who want them should be allowed, but
no one should be forced to use them as
the minority contend. In regard to
conscience he said he was perfectly
willing to concede that the brethren
should have all the conscience they
could, but he did not desire his liberty
to be measured by that conscience. In
illustrating conscience he referred to
the custom of lining out the Psalm
which was introduced because a new
version of Psalms had been introduced
and many persons in the congregation
were unable to read For their accom-
modation the Psalms were lined out
In those days, however the lines were
fourteen syllables in length. When
smaller books were made the lines were
divided into two, and the custom oi
lining was so rigidly adhered to that
only one-half line of were given out
and the repeal of that custom caused