1574 Dort (No Organs/xmas) to 1619 Dort?

[Catechist]

Who knows what happened between 1574, 1578, and the famous 1618-1619Synod of Dordrecht regarding these practices?

The National Synod of Dordrecht (1574) decided "concerning the playing of organs in the churches, it is held that is should be completely abolished according to the teachings of Paul, I Cor. 14:19".

In 1578, the Synod gave instructions to have the organs removed.

Consequently, the Synod of Middelburg (1581) repeated the decision and instructed the ministers to take it up with the magistrates, the church buildings and its furniture were the property of the cities.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

To the best of my knowledge, the Dutch Reformed churches did not use instruments until the 18th century at the earliest. There is no mention of instruments in the Church Order adopted as part of the post-Acta in 1619.

Some corruption of worship had crept in by 1619 and they moved toward reforming worship (semper Reformanda) according to the RPW.

rsc

 

[Catechist]

Dr. R.S. Clark,

Thank you for your reply.

Is it known which of the Dutch Reformed Churches first brought the instruments into their Church order, in the 18th century?

And as for festival days, quoting from an article by Maurice G. Hansen, The Reformed Church in the Netherlands (1884) "The [Dutch] Reformed churches had been in the habit of keeping Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide [Pentecost] as days of religious worship. The synod [Provincial Synod of Dordrecht, 1574] enjoined the churches to do this no longer, but to be satisfied with Sundays for divine service."

Yet the Famous synod of Dort (1618-1619) Article 67, allows for the practice, apart from just Sundays, to observe various days on the Christian calendar. A quick shift in a short time!! I'm not familiar why the change was allowed?

And while I have you on the line, are you aware of when the church order changed and adopted the practice of singing uninspired songs, hymns of human composition, as evidenced in various Dutch Reformed churches?

Please, pardon me in that I forgot to update my signature before my last post.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The following sources may be of interest:

Abraham Van de Velde (1614 - 1677), The Wonders of the Most High (A 125 Year History of the United Netherlands 1550-1675):

38 The Organ In The Worship Service And The Singing of Hymns

With one word, we judge this and other novelties in these carefree days a useless hindrance. This we also say of the introduction of new hymn-books, and present day ditties, which we do not find in God's Word; as also the playing and peeping of organs in the Worship service. The former are all against the decrees of our Synods. See about singing in the Church, the National Synod of Dordt held in 1578, art. 76; the National Synod held in Middelburg, 1581, art. 51; the National Synod held in the Hague, 1586, art. 62; at which gatherings hymns not found in Scripture are expressly forbidden. In a footnote, (those who would like to know more about singing of the Psalms, from the Old as well the New Testament, can read the learned treatise by S. Omius, called, 'Dissertation', the first book, chapter 5, cap. 3.)

It is known from Church history, that those who are after novelties by introducing man-made hymns and errors have corrupted the Congregation. Although these people have no wrong motives, it is nevertheless not advisable to follow in their steps, since we may receive from them copper instead of gold as the pious Peter Martyr witnessed about the time hymns were introduced into the Roman Church. See Peter Martyr on 1 Cor. 14: 26. The words of lord van Aldegonde in this respect are remarkable. In the introduction to his book of Psalms he says, "The experience of earlier days has taught us that it is often harmful to introduce something which is not based on the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments."

The Synods of Dordt, 1578, art. 77; of Middelburg, 1581; of Gelderland, 1640, art. 3, have all dealt with terminating, when determining the place of the organ in the Church. The statement made by the Synod of Dordt, 1574, art. 50, needs our special attention; we read, "Concerning the use of Organs in the Congregation, we hold that according to 1 Cor. 14: 19, it should not have a place in the Church; and where it is still used when people leave the church, it is of no use but to forget what was heard before".

They witness that it is nothing but frivolity. It is also remarkable that lord Rivet, contending against the papists, mentions several of their authors, who condemn the novelty of the Organ, and point out that it is without profit. Rivet, Cathol. Orthodox. tom. 1, pag. 561.

To know the reason why Organs should be kept out of the Church, read our learned theologians and their polemics about Organs against the Lutherans and Papists; see Faukee, about Psalm 45, pag. 20. Also Lodoc. Larenus, in cap. 12 Esa, pag. 47, where we find the story of the duty of Middelburg's consistory to do away with the Organ; Hoornbeek disput.2, de Psalmodia. thes 7; Rivet, in Exod. cap.15 vs 12. Imprimis Gisb. Voetii. Polit. Eccl. part. 1, pag. 548. Hospiniamus de Templis, pag. 309. It would be better if this and other novelties were not mentioned.

Res Judicata

Originally posted by Kaalvenist

As I understand it, the Dutch churches prior to the Great Synod of Dort (1618-19), with its Article 69 affirming the few other songs along with the 150 Psalms, actually held to exclusive psalmody.

The Psalms of David, in the edition of Petrus Dathenus, shall be sung in the Christian meetings of the Netherlands Churches (as has been done until now), abandoning the hymns which are not found in Holy Scripture.--National Synod of Dort, 1578, Art. 76.

Only the Psalms of David shall be sung in the church, omitting the hymns which one cannot find in Holy Scripture.--National Synod of Middelburg, 1581, Art. 51.

The Psalms of David shall be sung in the churches, omitting the hymns which one does not find in Holy Scripture.--National Synod of Gravenhage, 1586, Art. 62.

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Also, see Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711), in The Christian's Reasonable Service (1700): 'The decision of the Dutch Synods has been very correct indeed, namely, that none other but the Psalms of David are to be used in the churches.' (Vol 4, ET 1995, pp. 34-35).

Henrik De C o c k (1801 - 1842), The So-Called Evangelical Hymns the Darling of the Enraptured and Misled Multitude in the Synodical Reformed Church and even by some of God's children from blindness, because they were drunk with the wine of her fornication, further tested, weighed and found wanting, Yes, in conflict with all our Forms of Unity and the Word of God (1835)

Joel Beeke, Gisbertus Voetius: Toward a Reformed Marriage of Knowledge and Piety:

Voetius' massive four-volume Politicae Ecclesiasticae, edited from his Saturday debates on church government, is divided into three major sections. The first section consists of debates relative to ecclesiastical matters and actions. Voetius wrestles with the nature of the instituted church, the concepts under which church government operates, and the character of church discipline. Under "actions" he discusses the church's handling of liturgy, psalmody, church organs, administration of the sacraments, catechesis, fasting, days of contrition and thanksgiving, marriages, and funerals. He also includes a treatise dealing with ecclesiastical liberty, church property, pastoral remuneration, and church administration.

John L. Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church:

Voetius, in his great work, the Ecclesiastical Polity, elaborately argues against the use of instrumental music in the Christian church, and among the arguments which he advances employs this: "Because it savors of Judaism, or a worship suited to a childish condition under the Old Testament economy; and there might with equal justice be introduced into the churches of the New Testament the bells of Aaron, the silver trumpets of the priests, the horns of the Jubilee, harps, psalteries and cymbals, with Levitical singers, and so the whole cultus of that economy, or the beggarly elements of the world, according to the words of the apostle in the fourth chapter of Galatians." [24]
...
Whatever may be the practice in recent times of the churches of Holland, the Synods of the Reformed Dutch Church, soon after the Reformation, pronounced very decidedly against the use of instrumental music in public worship. The National Synod at Middleburg, in 1581, declared against it, and the Synod of Holland and Zealand, in 1594, adopted this strong resolution: "That they would endeavor to obtain of the magistrate the laying aside of organs, and the singing with them in the churches, even out of the time of worship, either before or after sermons." The Provincial Synod of Dort also inveighed severely against their use.
...
Gisbertus Voetius argues at length against the use of instrumental music in churches in his Ecclesiastical Polity, a work which is held in high estimation among Presbyterians. [24] The argument is characterized by the great ability for which the author was noted, but it is too elaborate to be here cited.

Norma Kobald, The Psalms, the Organ, and Sweelinck:

A Popish instrument

Powerful and moving the psalms resounded in the purified church buildings. In "spirit and truth" the Dutch Calvinists sang their praise as "with one voice", but the organs were silent. Silent because the 16th century organ was incapable of accompanying congregational singing. Besides, congregational singing of this magnitude was new and the custom of supporting it with organ sounds was unknown.

The use of the organ in the Roman liturgy may be summarized as follows: 1. The organ played a prelude, 2. accompanied the choir, and alternated with the choir. This use was restricted to the small organ, the positiv. The large organ was a "concert" instrument, and had no liturgical function except on special occasions. [13] The playing of this instrument was considered public entertainment. [14]

The organ's use in the Roman liturgy made it suspect. It was a "popish instrument", "an invention of the prince of darkness", with "seductive siren voices", and "the same as iconalatry and idolatry".[15] The entertainment provided by the large organ drew the ire of Roman Catholics and Protestants alike. [16] They fought against the use of "scandalous, lewd, and vulgar" songs which---brought dishonour to the Art", and "were hated by intelligent people." [17] Erasmus found this king of music so disgusting that he refers to it in terms of the world's oldest profession. [18] "There can be more faith in a miller lad than in ... all the Popes and monks with their organs", Luther remarked. [19] And according to Calvin "the human voice ... is better than all the dead organs". [20]

A Perilous Thing

Originally there was little or no opposition to organs and organ playing in the Netherlands, the Organ was "dead". The influx of Huguenot refugees, who were aghast on hearing the frivolous organ sounds within the sacred confines of the church, changed all that. Complaints to church officials slowly brought about a change in attitude.[21] The "needless ornament" began to be viewed as "unlawful". Neither the convent of Wezel (1568) nor the Synod of Embden (1571) had anything to say about organs and organ playing. The National Synod of Dordrecht (1574) decided "concerning the playing of organs in the churches, it is held that it should be completely abolished according to the teaching of Paul, I Cor. 14:19". Nothing happened, for four years later the same synod under the chairmanship of Petrus Dathenus decided "that organs, which were tolerated for a time, should be removed on the earliest possible date", Still nothing happened, consequently the Synod of Middelburg (1581) repeated its decision and instructed the ministers to take up the matter with the magistrates.[22]

The City's Honour

Fortunately the Synod did not have the needed authority to implement its decision. With the Reformation the church buildings and its furniture had become the properties of the cities. The removal of costly organs, according to the city fathers, was absolutely out of the question. They, on the contrary, sought ways and means to make proper and profitable use of the fine organs in their care. In earlier times the city councils had employed town musicians, who at certain occasions entertained the "good burghers". Now that the organs were in their possession, they appointed organists who were instructed to play after the church services on Sundays and to give "recitals" during the week. These recitals were given for the amusement of the visitors to the church, and they were many. City fathers, on their daily constitutional, discussed the current affairs; lovers strolled hand in hand; merchant men praised their wares, children played; dogs romped, and occasionally dice were rolled in the dark corners. One has only to look at old paintings of church interiors to get a good impression of the goings on in a typical city church. In this easy, rather cosy, traffic one thought to heighten the general atmosphere by muffling the hubbub with organ music. The Sweelinck scholar vanSigtenhorst Meyer wrote, "precisely because of Calvinism, singing psalms, recitals in the churches became a possibility. " [23]

A Sweet Sound

Under such benign conditions, freed from ecclesiastical tyranny, organ building developed into an art in the Netherlands. It became famous far beyond its boundaries, a fact acknowledged by Michael Praetorius.[24] The Dutch organ historian Havingha wrote that "the Dutch have exerted themselves to have a purer organ sound then anywhere else ... and to pass the Dutch inventions on to other nations. [25] A rapid succession of inventions made an unparalleled evolution, almost a revolution, in organ building possible. The most important of these inventions were the improvements and popularizing of the spring and slider-chest, the application of full length reeds, the use of an extended, wide-scaled chorus, the invention of string stops, a separate chest for "het bovenwerk", the enrichment of the pedal with high cantus-firmus stops, and the addition of non-musical stops such as tremulant, drums, and bird whistles. The result of these innovations was the magnificent Dutch organ of the late 16th century. It was an anthropocentric designed, [26] democratic organ [27] in which the individual voices blended into a magnificent whole, a feast for the ear and eye. An organ which made the Dutch minister- poet exclaim: "The organ is a picture of life lived here below the pipes, each with its place and tone, stand neatly in a row.[28]

A Minor Matter

The Synod of 1574 forbade organ playing and the one of 1578 even gave instructions to have the organs removed. The Synod of 1638, however, considered organs and organ playing "a minor matter left in the freedom of each church." Between 1574 and 1638 fall the development of the popular organ recital and the art of organ building, or rather the meeting of the recital and the organ in the Genevan Psalter. In 1598 the consistory of Dordrecht struck the right balance between religion and art by instructing its organist "to begin playing the psalms and to pursue them 5 or 6 times right after the service.[29] In other words he had to improvise psalm variations to instruct and edify the congregation.

 

[Catechist]

Thanks Andrew, I had a few of these at my disposal and the others sure are helpful.

I wonder how those who hold quatenus subscription might apply the above?

I do not see where the organ (musical instruments) are positively placed within the Dutch standards?

However, it is quite noticable, within their standards, where the organ should not be placed. Many Dutch ministers make the case that the organs are circumstances in worship. If it was once a confessional standard and not positively stated otherwise, can it be maintained that the organs are circumstantial?

Do ministers who subscribe the 3FU generally take exceptions to the confessional standard, or should they?

 

[Arch2k]

Can the 1574 Synod of Dort be found online anywhere?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Can the 1574 Synod of Dort be found online anywhere?

I haven't found the whole record of the Acts of the 1574 Provincial Synod of Dordrecht online but select acts can be found here (see also this thread). Acta van de Nederlandsche synoden der zestiende eeuw (see chapter on De acta der Provinciale Synode te Dordrecht, 15-28 Juni 1574) is accessible via Google books but it is in Dutch.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia gives this broad description of the 1574 Synod:

In June, 1574, a provincial synod was held at Dort with Gaspar van der Heyden, pastor at Middelburg, as presiding officer. This synod, which was practically national, was convened by the three provinces which had expelled the Spaniards, South Holland, North Holland, and Zealand. The rulings of the Synod of Emden were, in general, approved, though it was determined that henceforth subscription should be made only to the Belgic Confession, and that the Heidelberg Catechism alone should be used and taught. No national synod was held until 1578.

 

[Arch2k]

Thanks Andrew!