Of course, he did not object on the ground of principle; but there were grave questions of Christian expediency. He called at once for a revision and extension of our existing materials of praise, and not only so, but that it be remitted to a committee to prepare a hymn-book, or that which might be framed and matured into a hymn-book. He thought that was rather rapid progress for some of them who yet had no doubt about the principle of the motion. This great question had only been before the General Assembly once as yet. It was brought before last Assembly as a single overture, and was withdrawn without being pressed to a division. No doubt, they had a greater number of overtures this year, but had it not been for a certain movement in the Presbytery of Edinburgh, they would neither have so many in favour of this movement nor against it. (Hear, hear.) A great responsibility lay on men of influence in taking action in these matters-(hear, hear)—which he had no doubt they took into account. Then there could be no question whatever that many people of this Church were opposed to this movement, and these people in large numbers were the excellent of the earth. They might be prejudiced, but at the same time they were most thoroughly conscientious; and he was persuaded they were open to conviction, if they were only provided with grounds for arriving at a right conclusion. If they had in the long run to force on this movement in opposition to their brethren, he thought they would stand better before the world if they had shown some forbearance, and tried by all means in their power to carry them along with them. (Applause.) He had another consideration of very great weight. They were living in very perplexing times. There was a restlessness, an innovating spirit abroad, not only in the world, but to an alarming extent in the Church, and those innovations were taking the direction of worship. He believed the aims of those moving in our Church were far purer and higher, but there was great danger of a movement of this kind being confounded with that movement in other quarters. All he said was that it was a time for caution, and they should know well where they were to put down their foot before they lifted it up. The friends who were promoting this movement said that all they wanted was liberty for themselves, but they could not have that liberty without touching upon other people's liberty. There would be a minority in all their congregations; and was it no hardship that these people might be deprived of the privilege of taking part in the worship of God? (Applause.) He therefore thought it better to appoint a committee to look calmly at the whole subject, and come up to next Assembly telling them what, in their opinion, should be done; and if it was their opinion hymns should be introduced, that they should suggest how this might best be done.

Dr MURRAY MITCHELL said that the characteristic of their position was, that they were most anxious to conciliate and respect the feelings and convictions of every one in all things that did not touch principles. He then stated sundry objections which he felt to Mr Elder's and Dr Begg's motions, and said that while he objected to Dr Candlish's motion, he admired the exceedingly conciliatory terms of his speech. He did not think it consisted with the dignity of the Free Church to rush into any innovation. Within a very few years, he was persuaded, they would see eye to eye, so far as the principle was involved, of using psalms and paraphrases.

Mr NIXON, Montrose, was in favour of taking steps for the ejection from the paraphrases of at least one-half of the verses, and eliminating particular verses from the others; and for instituting an inquiry to ascertain if they could not get a sufficient number of stanzas to supply their place, so as to provide a set of scriptural songs that would be a credit to that Church, and enable them, in the language of the New Testament, to express the same sentiments in their praises, that they were accustomed to express in the language of the Old. He was not hostile to the revision and extension of the materials of praise. He believed that they were all anxious to hold the supremacy of the psalms of David in the Church, for they expressed every Christian truth, and they were adapted for all ages and classes; and while they cherished a vigorous piety wherever they were sung in spirit, without them even genuine piety would become a very sickly thing indeed. But then he did not think it was inconsistent with that, for him to hold that other portions of scripture might not, in one form or another, be properly employed in the worship of God. It would be a pity to drive the Assembly into any extreme position that evening. (Applause.) He thought that Mr Adam's motion was an unnecessary one. He agreed with Dr Candlish, and he thought that three-fourths of the Assembly would concur in his views, but they would not vote for his motion. He intended to vote for Dr Begg's motion, for he considered that for the satisfaction of many it would be proper to inquire whether there was any principle against the use of other sacred songs than the psalms of David, which he thought was not the case. (Applause.)

Mr FERGUSON, Dundee, (elder,) said that the motions before the House involved an issue which had reference to the sole part of public worship in which the laity had a positive and personal share. He would like a little information. He wanted to know what principle there was to regulate them in that matter. What was their metrical version of the psalms? They were the result of a laudable and well-meant attempt on the part of divers individuals to verify in lines of iambic structure the Psalms of David, for use in the house of God and elsewhere, and he supposed that those versifiers were glad to accept of such words and combinations of such words as could be subdued into the rythmical form. Now, they did not write these under a spiritual afflatus, but merely under the literary talents which belonged to them. Then, was he to consider them to be inspired compositions? Because it seemed to him that if that was the principle, then this very curious result would flow from the theory, that if he or any one else versified any of the psalms, would they be called inspired compositions? (Laughter.) Now, he was not saying whether that was right or wrong. (Renewed laughter.) But he put it as a very great difficulty which afflicted him-(a laugh)— and which he had not heard anything that day which could remove it. (Applause.) Then why should they inquire whether there was a principle to bind them not to use hymns? Now, if it was thought that those psalms were inspired(cries of "No, no.") He begged pardon, but he thought that a great part of the argument of Mr Elder and others was that they were inspired. (Laughter and applause.) He thought so, but he might be wrong. (Laughter and renewed applause.) But if he had not been wrong, he was about to say that his reverend friends on the other side could be put upon a plan for getting inspired

hymns for public worship. If an overture were laid on the table for that purpose, he felt persuaded there would be no more strenuous oppo. nents of that proposal than the reverend friends who stood out so valiantly for inspired compositions. (Applause.) Now, what kind of compositions ought to be used in worship? He was very anxious that no one should think that he wanted to supersede the psalms by hymns. (Applause.) He sat down after saying that he would vote for Dr Candlish's motion.

Mr STEWART, Pollokshaws, then read the following motion :-"That any committee to which, the subject under discussion may be remitted be instructed to consider whether the Church is fully availing herself in her service of praise of the materials furnished in Holy Scripture; and whether that service might not be improved by the use therein of some portions of the Psalter and other poetical parts both of the Old and New Testament as found in the present authorised version of our English Bible." Mr Stewart remarked that he had intended to propose that motion; but seeing the great length to which the discussion had extended, and the late hour of the evening, he declined to complicate further the debate and the vote, and would not detain them by putting his motion. (Applause.)

Mr ARNOT-Rising at midnight, I shall not trouble the House with a preliminary oration. I shall not make a speech at all; but I shall try to say one or two things on this question that still very much need to be said. On the other side we have been repeatedly adjured not to press this matter lest we should cause division. We have no choice. This flood has swollen, is swelling, and will overflow. It is not, shall we press it, but can you repress it? But I do not fear any injurious collision; why should not brethren of God's family speak out their minds freely, and even keenly on such a theme, without giving or taking offence? I shall not be deterred from a discussion of this question by the fear of possible strife; if strife should arise, let the responsibility rest with those who do wrong, whoever they may be. The point which I count the foundation in this argument, and from which I desire to start is, that praise and prayer are in respect of this question precisely parallel. They stand on the same footing. From the Scriptures as the source both streams flow to the Scriptures as the standard both must be brought back to be judged whenever a question of error is raised; but drawing from the Scriptures we are left free alike in preaching, praying, and praising. I challenge brethren on the other side to produce a ground either in Scripture or in reason for placing any bond on one from which the rest are free. If we are bound to praise only in the words of Scripture, we are bound also and equally to pray only in the words of Scripture. Men think they have a principle here when they have nothing but a prejudice. There is great confusion of ideas on this point. It has been pressed with great warmth in this debate, that although we may pray freely in our own language as the Spirit may help us, we are not permitted so to praise. I affirm that Dr Begg and Mr Elder transgress flagrantly their own rule every time they conduct prayer in public. Surely no man in this House will hold that the sin lies in singing the praise as distinguished from saying it. These brethren speak the praises of God, framing their expressions as best they can-they praise God in their own words, both for His glories in creation, and His wonderful

work of grace. They obey the Scriptural injunction, "In everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God." They mingle praise with prayer, using their own words in both. Is it innocent to speak praise in human words, and sinful to sing it? Is it lawful to frame your own language in praise as long as your tone is in G flat, but wrong whenever it rises to D sharp? For that matter I have heard a good minister singing praise, and prayer, and sermon too, in a delightful warbling sort of music. I affirm, moderator, that brethren on the other side notoriously break their own rule; they have no principle on which to ground their distinction. Another distinction without a difference has been much insisted on in this debate. The other side concede with one voice the lawfulness of hymns in Sabbath-schools, and in prayer-meetings. I advise them to go home to their studies, and sit down and try to define the distinction between private and public worship, and bring up their definition to this House to-morrow. They cannot tell what constitutes public worship. It does not depend on numbers; for where two or three meet in their closet, their Lord is present; and whatever reverence is due in an assembly of thousands, is due there to the Lord. It does not depend on place. A Church in the house is a Church, as well as one that assembles in a gothic temple. I challenge brethren opposite to show what is a private meeting and what a public, to the effect of making it right to sing praise in human language in the one, but wrong in the other. To bear out their case, they need a mighty wall of distinction between the two, as sheer and sharp, as that which separates righteousness from sin. But they have no line of separation at all. All the argument that goes to prove the excellence of the psalms, and it has bulked largely in this debate, is manifestly irrelevant. When Mr Elder comes rushing on, warm and eloquent, with his demonstration that the psalms excel all human compositions, I am like a passenger sitting in a carriage on the line, and seeing an engine coming forward with an infinitude of fire and The poor passenger supposes he will be crushed to powder; but, lo, it whisks past and does not touch him. It is on another line of rails. Mr Elder's argument ought to have met and struck me; but it did not. I agree with all he says of the superior excellence of the psalms, and still maintain my own position against him. He tells you, sir, that two of the psalms which he named are worth more than all the hymn-books. They are; but it is nothing to the point. His heart is warm; but his argument is weak. I affirm that the Fifty-first Psalm is worth more than all the prayers that Mr Elder ever offered in the course of his ministry. Do I therefore disparage Mr Elder's prayers? No, sir. It is an absolute delight to me to abandon myself to Mr Elder's guidance, when he gets an entrance through the veil to the mercy seat. The fallacy lies in comparing things between which there lies no comparison. Compare the praises that men frame, not to the inspired Scriptures, but to the prayers that men utter. Praise, in order to be sung by the congregation, is ordinarily printed, but this is an accident. The parallel and counterpart of the hymns is to be found in the prayers, and not in the Scriptures, the common fountain of both theories. On the question of the existing paraphrases and hymns, it has been energetically denied that they were ever sanctioned by the Church. I do not intend to maintain an argument on either side. I shall be very accommodating.

steam.

Either they are sanctioned or they are not. If they are sanctioned there is an end of the dispute regarding them; if they are not sanctioned, then congregations of this Church are permitted without challenge to take up at their own hand hymns that were never sanctioned by the ecclesiastical judicatories, and use them in public worship. Take either horn you like, but one of them you must take, for these hymns are in use, and in the words of a version much praised, "there's no evasion for you." Mr Elder has referred to a work of Dr Hamilton's on this subject, that has been circulated among members of the Assembly. His notice, although I do not agree with him, was fair and honourable. Since it has not been considered out of order to make that reference, I venture to make another of similar import. A periodical, published in this city, advocating on this question the views of brethren opposite, has been handed into our house, for nothing; for certainly I would not have paid for it. And I find in the last number the broad, unqualified accusation that Dr Hamilton has tried "to banter us out of the Word of God." That is an outrageous libel on a good and eminent man. Moderator, I have a very great wish, but I do not say my hope is equally great, that the whole band of the contributors to that periodical may, during their natural lives, do as much as Dr Hamilton has done to commend the Word of God to all the English-speaking populations of the world.

Mr ELDER replied. In the course of his remarks he recalled to the House that he did not ask them to commit themselves to the principles advocated in his speech, he only asked them to support his motion. With regard to the remarks on Dr Hamilton, he had as great respect for him as any member of the House had, and deeply regretted that Mr Arnot had brought his name before the House, which he certainly should not have done. He was his own son in the ministry-he had the honour of ordaining him-and he would not willingly say one word disrespectful of him. But great and good as Dr Hamilton was, he would say to him with all affection if he were here, that he thought he had spoken unadvisedly in that pamphlet. He stood to what he said—as to the idea expressed in the pamphlet, of an unconverted Jew, a Unitarian, and a Mohammedan coming into our worshipping Assemblies being able to sing every word of what they were singing, and the thankfulness expressed, that so many were comprehended by our manual of praise, &c.—that such a view of the existing psalmody should be gravely set forth, was utterly incomprehensible to his mind. He disclaimed having made any such reference as Mr Arnot spoke of, as if he were prepared to approve of the use of hymns in private meetings and not in the public worship of God. What he said was, that he would not sanction the idea of preventing people from using hymns for their own private edification and on their own personal responsibility, but he repeated he would not sanction the use of hymns in the public worship of God. He then referred to his former argument as to the essential difference between the ordinances of prayer and praise, which he believed had not been disproved, and briefly replied to Mr Ferguson and other speakers. In concluding, he said he preferred Dr Begg's motion to Mr Adam's, as it asked for inquiry as to whether there was a principle involved. He would therefore vote for Dr Begg's motion in the first division, and for his own in the second.

A vote was then taken between Dr Begg's motion and that proposed by Mr Adam, with the following result: