Gibson Public Worship VI.

Page 81

CHAPTER VI.

Modern Hymn Books—How Introduced into Public Worship.

---

IF the principles we have previously laid down, and the facts we have adduced, can be successfully maintained, as we think they can, and have already been in the previous discussions, we might here end the controversy. But it will strengthen our argument if, on a brief review of some modern hymn books, we can make out that they are very unsatisfactory in every attribute that ought to characterise the matter of the praises of God. If so, they can never be lawfully received as substitutes, either in whole or in part, for the divinely inspired psalmody, whose authority and fitness have never been challenged by the true Catholic Church of Christ. Some individual men, it is true, have, as ignorantly as presumptuously, condemned it, or at least portions of it, as unfit for the worship of God, though these very portions have been quoted and applied by our Lord Himself, and by His apostles, as the proofs that He was the Messiah, the Christ of God, the crucified and now risen and exalted Saviour of men.

It will be admitted by all, that any psalmody which the authority of God will sanction must be characterised by what is strictly true in doctrine, just in religious sentiment and feeling, worthy of the Divine Majesty, as He is set forth in the sacred Scriptures—that the style should be characterised by majesty, sublimity, beauty, simplicity, without

Page 82

effort, or exaggeration, or straining at effect; the figures natural, intelligible by all, and devoid of all extravagance. Have we not a psalmody of this kind in the “Book of Psalms?” And have we it anywhere else, in any of the numerous hymn books now used in the public worship of God in certain sections of the Christian Church? Are they such as to warrant any church that has not yet sanctioned them to follow their example, and to that extent to set aside the Book of Psalms, which God himself has inspired and sanctioned in His own worship?

We shall endeavour, by examining some of them, to get the materials of an answer, though we might almost hold the stating of the question to contain its own answer, and the discussion of it to be somewhat presumptuous.

We shall begin with the second question.

We have before us a goodly number of such books, and of specimens selected from others, and shall take our examples from them in the order of dates of publication, so far as we can ascertain them.

We wish to remind our readers that our objection is neither to the writing, nor reading, nor singing of human hymns expressive of religious sentiment, more than to the writing or reading sermons. The difficulty and rare gift of writing religious poetry, suitable to the dignity and glory of the theme, are universally acknowledged. This doubtless arises in part from the intrinsic nature and grandeur of the subject, and the incomparable majesty of the style in which our knowledge of it is conveyed in Scripture, and with which Christian taste and sentiment are thus familiarised. In the department of Christian song our familiarity with the psalms of the Hebrew bard has deepened this feeling almost into an instinct. We suspect that, unconsciously to

Page 83

themselves, the feeling in such writers as Mathew Arnold, and others, is to be accounted for in this way rather than, as he says, by a want of the Celtic element in the breast of Saxons. Be that as it may, the Professor of Poetry in the University of Oxford writes as follows:—“Our German kinsmen and we are great people for hymns. The Germans are very proud of their hymns, and we are very proud of ours; but it is hard to say which of the two, the German hymn book or ours, has least poetical worth in itself, or does least to prove genuine poetical power in the people producing it. I have not a word to say against Sir Roundell Palmer’s choice and arrangement of materials for his Book of Praise; I am content to put them on a level (and that is giving them the highest possible rank) with Mr Palgrave’s choice and arrangement of materials for the Golden Treasury; but yet no sound critic can doubt that, so far as poetry is concerned, while the Golden Treasury is a monument of a nation’s strength, the Book of Praise is a monument of a nation’s weakness.” After much valuable remark to the same purpose, Professor Arnold adds:—“It is worth noticing that the masterpieces of the spiritual work of Indo-Europeans, taking the pure religious sentiment, and not the imaginative reason, for their basis, are works like the Imitation, the Dies Iræ, the Stabat Mater—works clothing themselves in the middle age Latin, the genuine native voice of no Indo-European nation. The perfection of their kind, but that kind not perfectly legitimate, as if to show that when mankind’s Semitic age is once passed, the age which produced the great incomparable monuments of the pure religious sentiment, the books of Job and Isaiah, the Psalms—works truly to be called inspired, because the same divine power which worked in those who produced them works no longer

Page 84

—as if to show us that, after the primitive age, we Indo-Europeans must feel these works without attempting to remake them; and that our poetry, if it tries to make itself simply the organ of the religious sentiment, leaves the true course, and must conceal this by not speaking a living language. The moment it speaks a living language, and still makes itself the organ of the religious sentiment only, as in the German and English hymns, it betrays its weakness—the weakness of all false tendency.”—Arnold’s Study of Celtic Literature, pp. 147-150.

We rejoice in seeing genius of any kind consecrated to the service of God, and its subjective musings and meditations expressed in verse suited to all tastes, ages, and classes of men, and especially suited to nurse the young and tender mind in the fear of God, and the love of our Redeemer. But for reasons already given, and many others that may or might be given, the substance of our opposition is to the right, duty, or safety of making human hymns anything like regular, fixed, or authorised portions of the worship and praises of God in the sanctuary; and what we wish now to do is to inquire if the books of human hymns so employed and sanctioned are such as to overthrow all the principles we have previously laid down and maintained. We need not express our belief that hymns most orthodox in doctrine, pious in sentiment and feeling, and worthy of perusal, and beautifully harmonising with the experience of the advanced and the aged Christian, and admirably fitted to instruct and interest the young, have been written; and a few of them, by such men as William Cowper and James Montgomery, exquisitely beautiful, and as well as others, written by Orthodox, Evangelical, and Calvinistic men. But that does not prevent the risk and danger of a false principle—viz.,

Page 85

that of introducing human hymns into the public worship of God,—a principle which renders it impossible to exclude heresy, sectarianism, and all the wild, and wayward, and ever-changing vagaries of enthusiasm and superstition into the public worship of God; which ought to rest on His own word and His own authority; which can alone be secured by God’s inspired psalmody; and which secures at once the unquestioning confidence of every Christian saint, “well instructed in the kingdom,” throughout the whole world.

With the view of illustrating this point a little more fully than we have yet done, it may be useful to give a few specimens, not a regular history, of the way in which Romanists, heretics, sectarians, and others have sought to gain their ends by superseding, or so completely overlaying the psalms of David by their huge compilations of human hymns, as almost, if not entirely, to bury them out of sight.

We have already adverted to the attempts made in the early ages of the Church. We have glanced at the history of the Reformation period, both among Lutherans and Calvinists. In modern times, the subject has been largely discussed among the Presbyterians of the United States, where principles and opinions in a wrong direction seem to run very rapidly to seed, as well as in Nova Scotia. In the writings of the Rev. W. Somerville, M.A., Nova Scotia, Dr Pressley, Dr Macmaster, and others, there is much very able criticism, and extensive statements of historical facts, all bearing out the views we have maintained. To save our own time, and the time of our readers, we shall avail ourselves of some portions of their writings.

The evils arising from the introduction of human hymns among Presbyterians had risen to a great height in America. In the “True Psalmody,” of which we shall yet avail our-

Page 86

selves, the compilers, in Appendix C, p. 183, under the head, “Hymn Writers,” say:—

“We cannot quote farther at length. But in the Appendix to the same most valuable little work, we have large proofs that some of these American hymn books ‘have freely used Catholic (Roman), Unitarian, Universalist, Swedenborgian, and other collections.’ A party charged with hymns selected from all sorts, such as ‘Burns, Miss Martineau, and others,’ replies, ‘What are the facts? We do not know a single evangelical collection of hymns which has not introduced the hymns of some or many of these authors. In the book of the General Association of Connecticut, hymns of Bryant, Pierpont, Bowring, Hemans, Martineau’s Collection, Pope, Sir Walter Scott, Tom Moore, are all found. In the New School Presbyterian Assembly’s book, Tom Moore holds an honourable place, as he does in the book of the Old School General Assembly, and Nettleton’s Village Hymns. When the General Assemblies join in giving to the church Tom Moore’s ‘Come, ye disconsolate, wherever ye languish,’ we think the Evangelist need not take the pains to sacrifice its candour and veracity in order to reproach the Plymouth Collection for having Tom Moore’s ‘Mock Piety.’ In the Baptist Collection may be found Mrs Follen, Bulfinch, hymns from Martineau’s Collection, Tom Moore, Mrs Hemans, Pope, and Willis. The Methodist Collection contains hymns of Moore, Bryant, Ware, G. P. Morris, Pierpont,” etc.

We need not wonder that in such a state of things godly men were aroused and alarmed. We have therefore prefixed to this little work the following note:

“The ministers and elders of the Reformed and United Presbyterian Churches of Philadelphia, believing that the times demand a full presentation of the subject herein discussed, held a meeting in the Cherry Street Church, August 16, 1858, at which Revs. J. M. Willson, J. T. Cooper, and Robert J. Black were appointed a committee to prepare, from existing treatises, a work in favour of the exclusive use of the Scripture psalmody as the matter of the church’s praise. Rev. William Sterret was subsequently added to the committee. At an adjourned meeting, having presented an outline of the work, the committee were unanimously authorised to proceed with its publication. The names of the ministers present are as follows:—Revs. J. M. Willson, S. O. Wylie, David M‘Kee, William Sterret, Robert

Page 87

J. Black, S. P. Herron, A. G. M‘Auley, Francis Church, J. B. Dales, D.D., J. T. Cooper, D.D., G. C. Arnold, Robert Armstrong, and T. H. Beveridge. Elders:—Robert Orr, John Evans, R. Skilton, William Blakely, Dr A. S. M‘Murray, Henry Floyd, William Crawford, William Brown, and others. Francis Church, Chairman. T. C. Arnold, Secretary.”

We have already noticed the introduction of hymns, especially in Germany, at the period of the Reformation; and their object, viz., to counteract the tendency of Popish and profane, ungodly songs. The able writer of the article “Hymn” in the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” says, “In striking contrast with the number of hymns elicited by the great religious awakening on the Continent, is their comparative scarceness in the early Protestant literature of England and Scotland. We know that in both countries religious canticles were adapted to old and favourite tunes, and widely diffused, but they were never so thoroughly assimilated with the religious life of the people, and incorporated with its ritual, as in Germany. The sublime poetry of the Bible satisfied the popular heart, while it nourished the intellect and imagination; and the Psalms of the Jewish temple were sung with clearer emphasis and fuller response in the Christian sanctuary. The hymnology of British Protestantism may be said to be the growth of the last century and a-half, before which period Germany possessed a classic literature of sacred song. The rude English version of the Psalms, by Sternhold and Hopkins, was superseded by that of Brady and Tate—a sacrifice of rugged strength to insipid smoothness and inflated verbosity. Milton’s attempts at translation only show that his strong arm could not bend the bow of Ulysses. The Scottish version, though in reality the work of an English Puritan, has, with all its roughness and dissonance, pre-

Page 88

served more of the vital spirit, the rich and pure aroma of the Hebrew original.”

As we have more than once indicated, our object is not to give a history of hymnology, but rather, as subsidiary to our Scriptural argument, to ascertain whether any support, of any weight, can be obtained by the advocates for introducing human hymns into the public worship of God, from the practice of the Primitive or Reformed Church. We have shown that no such argument can be found. The passage just quoted shows, that to whatever extent the practice exists in Great Britain, it is of comparatively modern date. It may be stated as a general fact, that the practice has crept into the British churches by slow degrees, if we may not say, by something like stealth, and individual presumption and persistency, and not by any solemn judgment of any Reformed Protestant Church, on the ground of Scriptural authority and obligation, for the glory of God in His public worship. Orthodox men, both lay and clerical, such as Cowper, Newton, Toplady, Doddridge, Montgomery, and others, wrote them as the expression of their own devotional sentiment, and for the nourishment of piety in the hearts of others. But their introduction into any of the churches has been generally the fruit of the same spirit, which, under the idea of aids to devotion, and the gratification of a supposed taste, we cannot say for the sublime, but for the beautiful and ornamental, if not for the sensuous, has sought the introduction of the instrumental and ritualistic in music and outward forms. No sober-minded Protestant can pretend that it has been dictated by the desire of conformity to the patterns held forth in the Word of God, or that the piety of hymn-singing congregations or churches, either in doctrine or

Page 89

practice, has been deeper or more exalted than of those who have devoutly adhered to the Psalms of David. As little can any one deny, in consistency with fact and the very nature of the case, that the effect has been, in too many instances, to push aside and to overwhelm the Book of Psalms by the multitude of human hymns.

It cannot with any truth be affirmed that the introduction of human hymns into the public worship of any church, whatever may be the fact as to times of temporary excitement, has been the fruit of matured, solid, practical piety in the church of God. Even in the history of revivals in Scotland in remoter or comparatively recent times, at Shotts, Cambuslang, Kilsyth, Muthil, and various parts of the Highlands and Islands, the use of human hymns was totally unknown.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied that human hymns have been, and still are, largely made use of to promote the sectarian views of parties holding Arminian, Tractarian, and other heretical and unsound views. Even the partial and unsanctioned use both of paraphrases and hymns in the Church of Scotland, it is now universally confessed, and made evident by the attempts now being made by modern advocates of human hymns to purge them out, has produced the same result. But what is the proposed remedy? To substitute others of their own, for whose superiority or soundness in the faith there neither is, nor can be, any permanent security; and these, again, to be superseded when a new party springs up, in the march of real or supposed progress, in its own imagination more fitted to provide for the proper worship of God than all who have gone before them—nay, with reverence be it spoken, than the Spirit of God Himself, “speaking in

Page 90

psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs,” in His own inspired words!

The Arminian Methodists, under the leadership of the Wesleys, have largely availed themselves of this source of influence. In regard to the use of it by those who have been the most successful agents of the papacy in Great Britain, the writer last quoted, after specifying and characterising the chief writers of hymns in England, adds:—

“The Christian Year, by Keble, may be noticed as having contributed, equally with the Tracts for the Times, to the success of the Anglo-Catholic reaction in the Church of England. In these pensive, dreamy, soothing strains, we have the logic of the Oxford schools turned into rhetoric. The academic cloister and the Gothic aisle are the ‘haunt and main region’ of his song. The white Levitical vestment is his singing-robe, and you listen in the dim religious light to a music like the lulling chime of church-bells.”

To the same effect, and still further illustrating the dangerous and pernicious influence of admitting into any church the use of human hymns in public worship, we have the following statement in the first Essay of the second series of the work entitled, “The Church and the World: Essays on Questions of the day in 1867. By Various Writers. Edited by the Rev. Orby Shipley, A.M.” The essay is by no less a person than William J. E. Bennet, and is headed, “SOME RESULTS OF THE TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.” These are stated with no small air of triumph. At p. 13, Mr Bennet says:—

“But the Tract, No. 75, brought forward, though, of course, not without objection, the history of the Breviary, and suggested these devotions as a foundation for future books in the English Church:—‘It will be attempted to wrest a weapon out of the adversaries’ hands, who have in this, as well as many other

Page 91

instances, appropriated to themselves a treasure which was ours as much as theirs. . . . It may suggest character and matter for our private devotions, over and above what our Reformers have thought fit to adopt into our public services; a use of it, which will be but carrying out and completing what they have begun.’—(Tracts for the Times, No. 75.) In the Breviary, which this tract in great part translated, various hymns of ancient Catholic use are found, and from this source, thus opened out to the Church, arose that immense flood of devotional hymns which now form so popular a part of our services. The Christian Year, in 1827, had led the way; but even this may be justly set down as part of the Tract system, springing as it did from one of their authors; but now, in addition to this, throughout the Missal and the Breviary, many old Latin hymns were quickly selected and adopted for church use. Books of devotion also serving the same purpose were issued, as e.g., Avrillon’s Guide for Advent and Lent; Nouet’s Life of Christ in Glory; Pinart’s Nourishment for the Christian Soul; Horst’s Paradise of the Christian Soul; and many beautiful Litanies derived from ancient sources; the Lyra Apostolica also, and Lyra Innocentium; and subsequently the Lyra Eucharistica and Lyra Messianica; and other works which need not be specified. These and such like books, in prose and poetry, have helped forward the movement, by training, supporting, and advancing souls in thoughtfulness in meditation, in self-preparation for the kingdom of GOD.”

Again—

“Who can look at the services of the Church, when Tate and Brady held sway, varied by Sternhold and Hopkins, and not welcome with joy the cheering hymnody with which now the Church is full? Who will not look back at his schoolboy days, and the days of his university teaching, if haply they were before the year 1833, and remembering the many trials, temptations, and sins which he was compelled to bear without a guide, and without any friendly priest before whom he could open his grief, and not now rejoice to see the Church restored to the Catholic love, the faithful care, and the watchful direction which is everywhere manifested in her renovated priesthood?”

It is needless to prosecute this subject farther. It is impossible to read the ordinary papers of the day narrating the grotesque and puerile, but, withal, pernicious Romanis-

Page 92

ing exhibitions of the English Ritualists, without perceiving the important part that “hymnals” are made to play for this purpose in their church services. And we may state it as a great general fact that all parties who advocate, and have introduced, the use of human hymns, are either positive advocates, or non-opponents of the introduction of organs, harmoniums, etc., into the public worship of God.

Our space will not admit of more minute detail, else many other proofs might be furnished in the same direction.

We must now give two or three specimens of the way in which such innovators have succeeded. We have already seen how, by dint of perseverance, by the self-interest of printers, as well as by the labours of men neither remarkable for soundness in the faith nor practical piety or zeal in the Christian life, the matter was managed during the past century in Scotland, and though never receiving any authoritative sanction, some appearance of a tolerated, though partial, use and wont has been pleaded for innovation in our own psalmody in the present day.

The most distinct information as to the introduction of hymns into any Presbyterian Church is furnished by the following extract. At the time to which it refers the Relief were only a comparatively small body:—

“As the Church of Scotland had been very confined in her selection, admitting only what were strictly versions of particular portions of Scripture, and as the evangelical portion of the community did not relish some of the improvements of Logan and Blair, the Relief Church resolved to have a hymn book of its own. Messrs Stewart, Hutchison, and Dun took the lead in the matter, and, it must be confessed, in somewhat of an unpresbyterian way. They rather led than were guided by the Synod. Mr Stewart made a selection in 1792 of 180 hymns, which he printed and introduced into the worship of his church. The opposition was considerable. He had to appoint meetings, to reason the matter with his people. A few, rather than sing

Page 93

hymns of human composition, left the church. Hutchison and Dun followed speedily in the wake of Stewart, adding to his collection a considerable number of hymns, going over some of the same subjects again, and thus marring the kind of systematic order which had at first been observed. The ice having been broken, an overture was brought into the Synod in 1793 on the subject. It was ordered to be transmitted to the different Presbyteries, and the ministers were required to turn their attention to it, that they might be prepared for its discussion at next meeting of Synod. In 1794 the Court agreed to enlarge their psalmody by literal versions of particular portions of Scripture, and also by hymns agreeable to the tenor of the Word of God. A committee was appointed to select, collect, and prepare them, and submit them to the Synod for its adoption. Messrs Stewart, Hutchison, Dun, Struthers, etc., were appointed, and they found themselves, even at that meeting of Synod, prepared to report. To all appearance, this was barely keeping to the letter of the law, and manifestly breaking it in spirit. As might have been expected, and probably as was understood before their nomination, they recommended the adoption of Mr Stewart’s collection, with the additions of Messrs Hutchison and Dun, as being a good selection of hymns, and already in use. The Synod adopted their report, and recommended the ministers ‘to use the said selection in the praises of God, when they found that the same would answer the purposes of edification and peace.’

“This decision, and the hurried manner in which it was come to, met with very strenuous opposition from the Rev. Mr Bell of Dove Hill, Glasgow, who dissented, and gave in his reasons written out at considerable length. He considered paraphrases unnecessary—that the adopting of them opened up the way for endless additions, for if one was adopted, why not another? Besides, it was improper ‘to introduce hymns of human composure into the worship of God;’ and lastly, the matter had been gone into with too much precipitancy.

“The Synod allowed Mr Bell’s paper to be put on record, and proceeded with their measure, but knowing well his weight of character, and that similar sentiments were abroad in their churches, they found it necessary to prefix to their hymn book a preface which contains a very well written defence of the practice of singing hymns in the public worship of God. They acknowledged that the Book of Psalms should be preferred to every other, but maintained that there is no reason why Christians should not sing the songs of Isaiah, and of John, as well as those of David and Asaph. From Eph. v. 18, 19, and Col. iii. 16,

Page 94

they considered that countenance was given to the singing hymns and sacred songs, different from the Old Testament Psalms; and, say they, it is matter of history, that the first Christians ‘sang hymns to Christ as to God.’ If churches use passages of the New Testament in their prayers, why not in their praises? In the one case they even frame their addresses to God in their own words, keeping them in accordance with the Bible, and why not in the other? The greater the diversity of spiritual matter in songs of praise the better. It touches the different chords in the human bosom, and thereby promotes devotional feeling.

“The opposition which at first appeared in various churches, in the course of a few years died away, and the Synod hymn book was very generally adopted.”—History of the Rise, Progress, and Principles of the Relief Church. By the Rev. Gavin Struthers, D.D. Glasgow: Fullarton & Co. 1843. Pp. 374-376.

The Free Church hymnologers are most ludicrously copying this example both in manner and in argument.

We have no definite information as to the way by which hymns were introduced into the United Secession. The only notices of the subject in Dr M‘Kerrow’s “HISTORY OF THE SECESSION CHURCH,” which we can find, are the following, vol. ii., p. 199:—“The Synod (April, 1748) being desirous to enlarge the psalmody, requested Mr Ralph Erskine to undertake a translation into metre of the songs in Scripture, with the exception of the Psalms of David.” This, it will be observed, did not contemplate the use of “hymns.” Again, p. 371, Dr M‘Kerrow tells us that a petition was presented by a London congregation to be allowed “to make a selection of spiritual songs and hymns to be used by their church in the praise of God along with the Psalms of David.” The matter was delayed till a future meeting. They resumed the matter in September, 1811, and the whole is so like the present proceedings of the hymn party in the Free Church, that we must give the extract entire:—“In September, 1811, this subject was re-

Page 95

sumed by them; and after some discussion, they were unanimously of opinion that the enlargement of the psalmody was ‘a most desirable and necessary object.’ The Synod then agreed that they would take into consideration at their next meeting whether permission might not be given to the congregations under their inspection to make use of the paraphrases and hymns published by the Assembly (?) of the Church of Scotland; and, in the meantime, they appointed a numerous committee to consider what corrections it might be necessary to make in these paraphrases and hymns, and whether it might not be proper to make additions to them. This committee reported to the Synod, at their meeting in spring in the following year, that they had particularly examined the paraphrases and hymns of the Church of Scotland (?), and they recommended the appointment of a special committee to make a selection from these and other paraphrases and hymns, for the use of the congregations under their inspection; and, until such a selection be made, that liberty be given to the ministers of the Synod to make use of such of the paraphrases of the Church of Scotland as might appear to them calculated to promote the ends of edification. This recommendation was adopted. A select committee was appointed for the object now specified. Whether the committee made any progress in the business intrusted to them I am unable to state. It does not appear that any report was ever presented by them to the Synod.”

Dr M‘Kerrow published his History in 1839, and as he could then give no further information on the subject, and the negotiations for union with the Relief Church having been begun before this, and the Atonement controversy having sprung up, and caused no small heats and dissen-

Page 96

sions, we may assume that nothing more was done in the matter of hymns till after the union of the two bodies in 1847; and it does not appear that it was then made a matter of difficulty or even of discussion. We have not ascertained the date of the first publication of the present “Hymn Book of the United Presbyterian Church.” We have before us a copy published by William Oliphant & Co., but without a date, and bearing to be “published by authority of the United Presbyterian Synod;” and recently, we believe, a new contract for the publication has been entered into for five years, so that, of course, if another contemplated union take place, the Free Church, as in the case, we presume, of the Relief Hymn Book with the Secession, must receive the United Presbyterian book of 468 hymns and 22 doxologies as an instalment.

We have also before us the “Hymn Book” of the “Presbyterian Church in England,” authorised in 1866 in the following terms:—“The Synod . . . appoint a committee of their number . . . . to complete the volume for publication, and authorise them to issue it for the use of the congregations within their bounds; and hereby strongly recommend that when hymns are employed in divine worship, this collection be adopted.” This is rather a singular minute, plainly implying that congregations have the matter in their own hands, and may use any sort of hymns they please, though these 521 in number are “strongly recommended.”

Some curious discussions and proceedings arose connected with the adoption of this hymn book, as brought out in an extensive series of letters, etc., by R. A. M‘Fie, Esq., of Liverpool (now M.P. for Leith), all tending to show what we have entered upon this historical résumé to prove, viz., that

Page 97

hymns have almost universally, and so far as we have been enabled to trace their history, been introduced into the Presbyterian Church, not from any settled and devout or Scriptural conviction of their religious necessity or importance for promoting the great end of public worship—viz., the GLORY OF GOD—but to gratify the tastes at first of individuals and small parties of persons, chiefly enthusiastic lovers of music, gradually acquiring strength, introducing the innovation on their own authority, and in the long run compelling the Church Courts to yield to their demands, or rend the Church by strifes and divisions. This is certainly the tendency of things by parties in the Free Church, as well as in England. Individuals and knots of individuals take upon themselves to introduce into congregations hymns of their own choosing, nay, print collections, and publish and circulate books of hymns without any authority, form a party, and then defy any Church authority to touch them. This course of conduct merits the strongest condemnation of all who respect Church order and authority. It may be proof of zeal of a certain kind, but is certainly not consistent with Presbyterianism, nor with Christian wisdom, or Christian love, nor with the respect due to the conscientious convictions of men fully as competent to judge, and certainly as honest and faithful as themselves.

We have before us “The Scottish Hymnal.” It has been prepared by a Committee of the Church of Scotland. We have not the means, without more trouble and loss of time than the benefit to be derived from the search would warrant, to trace the progress of the agitation that has led to the production of this Hymnal. We may safely say that parties, whether greater or smaller, that have succeeded by mere persistency in introducing organs into the public wor-

Page 98

ship of God, merely in obedience to popular clamour, at a time when she is afraid to meet such clamour with a firm hand, are not likely to want followers in the same musical line, in insisting on the indulgence of their taste for free scope in the singing of human hymns.

The “Report” prefixed to the 200 specimens of which the Hymnal consists, details the steps which have been taken in its production, brings out very clearly, in the view of all impartial men, the absurdity of expecting that any set of human hymns, selected by any party prevailing for the time being, can ever satisfy for any length of time any other party that springs up. “The idea,” the Report tells us, “of this Hymnal is, that it should represent fairly all lawful and healthy diversity of opinion, feeling, and taste in our national Church.” This witness is true, as it shows by selections from Milman, Keble, and others, Broad Church and High Church, or Tractarian. This is in reality the true spirit of hymn books—utterly sectarian under the pretence of Broad Church charity. The names of the committee, consisting of gentlemen of all shades of opinion, Ritualistic, Rationalistic, Æsthetic, and some Orthodox, are a guarantee that such is the nature of the “Scottish Hymnal,” but certainly no guarantee for its Scriptural soundness, and a very sad authority for ruling the public worship of God.

We may give, in illustration, the following extract from the report, descriptive in fact of the labours of all similar committees pulling down and patching up according to the taste of the times, but oh, how unlike the everlasting and unchanging fitness of the Psalms of David:—“First of all, two members of committee happened to be working on the subject independently. When their compilations were

Page 99

subsequently compared it was found that there was a very large measure of agreement. This ended in a preliminary volume, which was again and again gone over by the sub-committee in St Andrews, both before and after being put in type. Next, on the 23d March, a general meeting was held, when the hymns were gone over one by one, about forty rejected, twenty added, and a number of minor changes made. At two subsequent meetings of committee, a similar course was followed, but on a smaller scale, as it was seen that the work of the first meeting had brought the collection to represent very nearly the general opinion and taste. The committee have adhered to the principle of giving the text of the hymns, with a very few exceptions, as originally written. This plan implies great labour in point of research, but greatly facilitates agreement among the members of committee, and secures real literary permanency, as compared with the results of any system of arbitrary alterations.

“As to the number of hymns, probably about 200 will be found needful for any collection that is to embrace all, and only the best hymns. The last edition of ‘Hymns for Public Worship’ had 120 (of which 61 are here retained). That 200 is a very moderate number is plain from the following list of other books, which are some of the chief of those used in making the present collection:—Book of Praise, 447 hymns; Book of Praise Hymnal, 320; Lyra Britannica, 660; Our Own Hymn Book (Spurgeon), 909; The People’s Hymnal, 600; Tract Society’s Collection, 300; Congregational Union, 748; Supplement to do., 239; Hymns—Ancient and Modern, 273; The Year of Praise, 326; Chorale Book (Winkworth), 200; United Presby-

Page 100

terian Hymn Book, 468; Bunsen’s German Hymn Book, 440.”

Beautifully charitable, but beautifully sectarian—a “Hymnal” can be nothing else. It is human and not divine. No wonder that the pious Romaine said:—“I want a name for that man who should pretend that he could make better hymns than the Holy Ghost.”