Dr CANDLISH-Very well, Moderator, I stick to my motion. (Applause and laughter.)

Some discussion ensued as to whether Mr Adam should speak to his motion at this stage, or if Dr David Brown who had the right to open the debate, as having moved the adjournment, should do so.

Mr NIXON said it might be courtesy to Dr Brown to allow him to speak, but it would tend much to clearness if Mr Adam spoke to his motion

now.

Mr ADAM said Mr Nixon had not the slightest right to call upon him to introduce his motion now. He was simply using his right as a member of the House to introduce his motion at any time.

The Moderator said it was at the suggestion of Sir Henry Moncreiff that Mr Adam had submitted his motion. It was not his intention to do so at the time he did, but for that. His understanding was that the discussion was to be resumed by Dr Brown. (Hear, hear.)

Dr D. BROWN said Dr Begg had told them that this was the first time in the history of the Church on which it was proposed to introduce uninspired praise in worship.

Dr BEGG-I said it was the first time the General Assembly was asked formally to sanction it.

Dr BROWN said Dr Begg had stated, to his surprise, that now for the first time in the history of this Church it was proposed to introduce uninspired praise in worship.

Dr BEGG-I said it was the first time the Assembly was asked formally to sanction it.

Dr BROWN was quite willing to take that statement, but thought it a distinction without a difference. Had they not had uninspired compositions for a whole century in the form of paraphrases? That being so all that was now proposed was, that that which already existed should be improved that the collection of uninspired compositions which they had had for a century should be a little enlarged and elevated, with a due regard to the higher state of evangelical principle and feeling which now existed in the Church. A great deal had been said about the hardship they were imposing upon those who were opposed to them. But he could not see where the hardship was; on the contrary, he thought the hardship was imposed by themselves in resisting what was asked. If they were to make the singing of hymns compulsory, than it might be a hardship, but seeing they were only to be used as men chose, he could not see how any man's conscience could be aggrieved. He held they had the same reason to be aggrieved at the existence of the paraphrases, yet no one had come complaining of their use. Then, a great deal had been said as to their being confined to the psalter in their praise; but he thought the burden of proof lay on the other parties to show that they were not to celebrate the praises of redeeming love in words not found in the psalms. Much of the argumentation they had heard went to the effect that they could not go beyond the psalter. Yet it was admitted that they might sing other Scripture songs. Now, he held that to be fatal to the position taken up, which was that a certain form of worship was prescribed, which they could not go beyond. But admitting that they were to use this extra psalterial psalmody, how was it to be sung? They might turn the songs into metre and sing them to the ordinary tunes; they might chant them in prose; or they might adapt

them to anthem music. Now, with regard to the metre form, those who had studied the specimens of metrical versions in the English language, composed some two centuries ago, would not be very ready to propose the introduction of them now into the Church. They were wretched productions. They had no endurable translations of the Magnificat, the Benedictus, or the Gloria in Excelsis, and he did not expect to see any. Were they to try chanting ?-to that he had no objection-the very reverse— (applause) or were they to adopt anthem music? It might be a question whether one or other of these could be adapted to Presbyterian worship, but he was sure if they were to propose to introduce either there would be a hue and cry against them, as ritualistic innovations in the Church, which ought to be strenuously resisted, therefore he thought they might safely set aside that proposal. Coming now to the question, was there any principle on which they were to be precluded from singing evangelical hymns in public worship? Dr Begg, in one of the inferior courts, used an argument which he thought was a little peculiar. He said there was no passage in the New Testament enjoining the singing of hymns. He thought that was rather dangerous ground to take, for if they were to go on such a principle, he (Dr Brown) knew of no direct command in the New Testament enjoining infant baptism or the Sabba(Hisses and interruption.) He should read the words, and they could judge for themselves whether he was going beyond what Dr Begg said. In the inferior court Dr Begg was reported to have said— "Where is the passage in the Holy Scripture that prescribes the singing of uninspired composition? Where is the appointment?" Now, he held it to be unanswerable that, put in that particular form, they had no ground for the baptism of infants nor for the Sabbatical rest. (Renewed hissing and interruption.) It was very easy to hiss, but he would be glad to hear the statement he had made answered. (Applause.)

Dr BEGG-I am sure Dr Brown will forgive me, but if I heard the statement correctly, it is really a total misrepresentation of what I said. I admitted that, in addition to a direct appointment, there might be a just and necessary inference.

Dr BROWN-I am reading what was said in the inferior court.

Dr BEGG-I stated that this morning.

Dr BROWN-The thing has been in circulation for weeks. I am perfectly willing to withdraw it as not applicable to Dr Begg's speech, but I think it a hardship that this question should be prejudged by one particular line of argument for weeks together, and then that the argument should be withdrawn.

Dr BEGG, who rose amid cries of "Order, order," said-I should like to say that this is going a little too far, if I am to be held responsible for any report of a speech of mine. I never take the trouble to correct a report of any speech, unless there is something like a downright falsehood put into my mouth, and I hold that no brother is entitled to take up that in discussing a statement I made to-day.

Dr BROWN then proceeded to controvert Mr Mackenzie's interpretation of the meaning of the threefold expression, psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and said that instead of all the eminent commentators holding Mr Mackenzie's view, for every one he could produce who did so he (Dr Brown) would produce two, three, or four, who said the reverse. He

concluded by controverting a statement made by Dr Gibson last year, that hymns were not used in the primitive Church; and by reading the testimony of Jonathan Edwards as to the importance of the use of hymns in the worship of God.

Mr Adam and Dr Gibson rose at the same moment amid considerable stir and cries of "Mr Adam."

Dr GIBSON-I think it would be a very great injustice, after Dr Brown has made such pointed allusion to me, and has read, for the second time, a passage from Edwards, if I were not allowed to read another passage from Edwards. (Hear, hear.)

Dr CANDLISH-I cannot attach any importance to Dr Brown quoting a passage from Edwards. But it does not bear upon a point of order. Only, after the allusion made to Dr Gibson, Mr Adam may give way. Mr ADAM-I have not the least objection to allowing Dr Gibson to read a statement. But if he is to speak

Dr GIBSON-My wish is to be heard now. very long-so far as I can see at present. and "Order.")

I shall not keep the House (Much laughter, "Go on,"

Mr ADAM-I leave myself entirely in the discretion of the House. I have no wish to force myself upon it; but I think it is a somewhat strange proceeding. (Hear, and cries of" Adam, Adam.")

Dr GIBSON-Then anybody who hears my voice [Dr Gibson was speaking hoarsely] will at once conclude that I am not likely to make a very long speech. I have just only to say, in reference to what we heard from Dr Burns in the earlier part of the day, that we should have the historical question fully discussed and brought out in a subsequent stage of the proceedings, I am very much astonished that we have heard nothing more than we have heard three or four times over in Presbyteries and Synods--the story about Pliny's letter, and Paul of Samasota. I say this is perfect trifling with the common sense of this House. (“Oh, oh," and laughter.) To tell us, as Dr Burns did in the Court below, that Pliny wrote that letter as a State paper, and that letter of Pliny determined whether the song was a psalm or Christian hymn,-I said, and I repeat it again, though I may seem to use undignified language, that I believe Pliny no more concerned himself whether it was a psalm or hymn than the man in the moon. (Much laughter.) He knew there was something sung to one, as he has said, called Christ. But to look upon it as a psalm or hymn upon his authority is a mere absurdity. With regard to Paul of Samasota, it has been demonstrated that this Paul of Samasota excluded the psalm that he might get a hymn introduced in honour of himself. ("No, no.") Persons say no. If the House will allow me

or

Mr WALKER, Carnwath-If Dr Gibson will produce a translation, (Loud cries of "Order, order.")

But a

Dr GIBSON-As to reading, I am quite prepared to do so. great many assertions were made here this evening without a single passage being read to justify one of them. We have heard of critics and commentators; and I should be disposed to apply in this case the rule I laid down in connexion with the Popish controversy, namely, that when assertions are strongest, proofs are sparest. We have had enough of that this evening. (Much laughter, and cries of "Read.") Well, as to Paul of Samasota-(laughter)-I hope that this Assembly will possess

itself of a little book entitled "True Psalmody," which contains a report by a committee of the Old School Presbyterians in America; and where you will get discussed the whole question of the introduction of human hymns into Christian worship. There is a passage in it quoted from Dr Pressley, a very able writer on this subject. He speaks of the case of Paul of Samasota, and these words occur:- "There is a passage of history connected with the life of Paul of Samasota, which has sometimes been referred to, for the purpose of establishing the conclusion that hymns of human composition were in general use in the primitive age, in the Orthodox Church, and that it was through the influence of heretical teachers that the psalms of David were introduced. It will at once occur to the reflecting Christian, that it would be something strange if it were really so, that the enemies of the truth should manifest a partiality for a portion of the Word of God, which has always been peculiarly dear to the humble, practical Christian. But what are the facts in the case just referred to? Paul of Samasota, who rejected the doctrine of our Lord's divinity, has been represented as banishing from the Church in Antioch 'the old Church hymns that spake of Christ as the Incarnate Word,' and as introducing in their stead the psalms of David, as being better adapted to the promotion of his heresy."

Dr Pressley then gives the following extract from the Council of Antioch, which condemned the heresy of Paul, with the Latin translation of the learned Valerius. The original is in Harduin's Acta Conciliorum, tom. i., or in the History of Eusebius, lib. viii. cap. 30. I need not, I suppose, read the Greek or the Latin-but here is the English translation: Paul put a stop to the psalms, (psalmos,) in honour of our Lord Jesus Christ, as though (they had been) modern, and the compositions of modern men, and prepared women on the great day of Easter, in the midst of the Church, to sing psalms in honour of himself." Well, sir, I hope we shall hear little more about Pliny and Paul of Samasota. (Laughter.) Dr Gibson went on to say that they had the statement about Eusebius in the third century, but who did not know that before them the whole elements of the Papacy were in operation? Is this really the extent of the historical lore about which we have heard so much? He must object to the whole of this kind of argumentation in the line of what had been called the historical question, except in regard to the history of the Churches of the Reformation, and the Church of Scotland particularly; and it was beyond contradiction that the five hymns alluded to were never sanctioned, even for a single year, which was all the sanction the paraphrases ever had; and once open the door to the admission of the works of human imagination in the worship of God and they had no security against the admission of all the outward flummery and conglomeration of Popery. (Laughter.) Dr Brown had read one passage as to the opinion of Edwards. He would read another from the publication in his hand, where "the well-known testimony of the eminent Edwards" is given. Speaking of the psalms it is said, "Joyfully did this holy man sing of these great things of Christ's redemption that had been the hope and expectation of God's Church and people from the beginning. . . . Here Christ is spoken of in multitudes of songs, speaking of His incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension into heaven; His satisfaction, intercession; His prophetical, kingly, and priestly office; His glorious benefits in this life and that which is to

...

come. . . . All those things, and many more concerning Christ and His redemption are abundantly spoken of in the Book of Psalms." Edwards goes on to apply the words of Col. iii. 16 and Eph. v. 19 to the Psalms of David. He had now only to call the attention of the House to what they might expect if the twenty-five hymns, or some say fifty, are introduced. I have in my hand a publication of ninety-five hymns. I will read the title. "Hymns for Christian Worship, compiled by several Ministers of the Free Church in Glasgow." Now, I think, as regards our friends of the Presbytery of Glasgow, that we are entitled to know who they are. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I am a member of the Presbytery myself, but I daresay I do not run much risk of being suspected of being among the number. But the public should know their names and number. I will only now give you a specimen of the improved classical hymns, my co-presbyters being the selectors. Here is one specimen :—

(Much laughter.)

"To me the tomb

Is but a room,

Where I lie down on roses."

Mr T. SMITH-What is the date?

Dr GIBSON-The date is, "Glasgow, 1866." I will just read you one other passage. ("No, no.")

Mr NIXON-I think that is enough. (Laughter.)

Dr CANDLISH-Give us the other passage.

Dr GIBSON-Here is my last extract :

"No man from death could victory win:

O'er all mankind he reign'd;

Alas! it cometh of our sin,

There was not one unstain'd:

Wherefore death in triumph came,

And over us a right did claim;
He held us all in thraldom-

Hallelujah!"

(Loud laughter and applause, during which Dr Gibson resumed his seat.) Mr ADAM, Aberdeen, in speaking in support of the motion he had submitted at the forenoon sederunt, said that the views he entertained on this subject were shared by many fathers and brethren who were unable to acquiesce in any of the three motions before the House. With regard to the principle involved in the matter, he was thoroughly at one with those who saw no harm in using uninspired hymns in the public worship of God. The New Testament dispensation was surely a clearer, more simple, more spiritual dispensation than the Old, and it was unreasonable to suppose that in the particular of praise alone they should be confined for ever to the language of the Old Testament. Were they to sing to the end of the world only the predictions and promises, and never give God thanks for the actual fulfilment of these in the gospel? The genius of the whole New Testament dispensation was liberty, and if they were to make a distinction between praise and prayer, they must be shown the limitation. He decidedly objected to Mr Elder's and Dr Begg's motions, because he considered they were retrograde in their tendency. The proper position for them, with the sentiments they had expressed, was to move for the removal of the paraphrases altogether. On the other hand, he had most serious objections to Dr Candlish's motion.