HYMNAL DEBATE.
THE Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland began its proceedings on Monday, 1st June, in May Street, Belfast. The Moderator for this year was Rev. Dr. H. M. Williamson, Fisherwick Place Church, Belfast. The subject of hymns in public worship occupied a prominent place in the discussions of the Assembly. It was only last year that the Irish Presbyterian Church gave any authorisation of the use of hymns. Hymns in public worship are almost unknown in country congregations in Ireland, but in the towns they have been in use for some time. Even yet in some of the large Churches in Belfast the Psalms are alone used. The Hymn question came on on Friday. It was opened by the presenting of a memorial signed by 646 elders, the burden of which was that “neither instrumental music nor the singing of uninspired hymns was authorised in the Church when the memorialists were ordained to office and signed the Confession of Faith.” This memorial was supported by Messrs. Joseph Irwin, J.P., and James Harper. The latter began his speech by showing that it was the Purity Party who desired the peace of the Church. His references to the innovators, who profess unbounded affection for the Psalms, are worthy of quotation. “The most inconsistent part of all of these unrestful brethren is their professedly affectionate regard for the Psalms. (‘Hear, hear,’ and applause.) Those who sat in the House last year during the debate on this question could measure the regard that was entertained for the Psalms by the direct statements and inferences made relating to them. These statements were distinctly made by their professed friends, not on the spur of the moment or thoughtlessly, but after due consideration and careful preparation—first, that they were Jewish, and, by a series of arguments, Christless; second, that in times of revival or spiritual awakening they were unsuited to the needs of the people; third, that they were so ill adapted to the praise service of the Church they should not be sung at all—to my mind most audacious statements, and, as I hope to show afterwards, as incorrect as they are unbecoming. In this Assembly was the first place I ever heard a disparaging observation made about the Psalms. Where, then, is the friendly feeling on the part of the troublers of the Church who wish to drive out the Psalms? They may profess it, but they are destitute of it. Friendly, but yet more inspiration in “Rock of Ages” or “What’s the News” than the First Psalm. Friendly, and yet they are unsuited to the moral and spiritual wants of mankind. Friendly, and yet unsuited to the praise service of the Church. Away for ever with such friendship. (Applause.) Open enemies at any time before such cruel and unreliable friends. (Applause.) But, Mr. Moderator, they don’t stand or fall by the changing fashions of the age or the ingratitude and forgetfulness of those who should be true to them. They stand as the Word of the living God—impregnable, unmoved, and unassailable—amidst the fierce conflict of changing opinion and the endless demand for sensual, ornate, and semi-theatrical worship; and when “Rock of Ages” and “What’s the News” are buried and out of print, the Psalms, even the first, will have lost none of their pathos, beauty, or power. It’s only of late it has been found out that the Psalms were unsuited to the service of the Church and insufficient for the spiritual wants of man. How it is, Mr. Moderator, that the Psalms have come to be gloomy, obscure, and Jewish, tending to Judaize the Church, is hard to understand. The dishonour heaped on them and the sainted dead who have for many generations used them and never felt the need of any hymnal, is not creditable to this Church. Are they not full of spiritual life, giving expression to the liveliest Christian emotions and affections, adapted to all circumstances and situations of the Church of God, a source of light and life, quickening, refreshing, and invigorating the followers of the great King and Head of the Church, whose reign and rule and love they so vividly set forth. In a word, they are filled with Gospel truth, given by inspiration of God for the praise service or psalmody of His house. Let the enemies of the Psalms show themselves here to-day in their true colours, let them pour forth the vials of their disdain and personal vindictiveness on those who wish to give them the first and only place in the praises of His house.”
The next business of the Assembly was an overture on the subject of a hymnal. The burden of the overture was—”since the last Assembly declared that it was desirable for the guarding of the doctrinal purity of the Church and for the greater convenience of the members that a uniform hymn book be used, that the Assembly sanction such a hymnal.” After the adoption of this overture was moved and seconded Professor Petticrew rose to move the rejection of the overture. Professor Petticrew is not so well known in Scotland as he ought to be. He is Professor of Systematic Theology in the Presbyterian College, Londonderry. He is also the trusted and learned leader of the Purity Party in Ireland. His speech on this occasion was marked by all the ability and learning of its esteemed author. Rev. Dr. H. B. Wilson also moved the rejection of the overture in the interests of the Church’s peace. The Purity Party, however, are at a great disadvantage owing to the fact that paraphrases have always been allowed by the Church. At the Union in 1840 between the Presbyterian Synod of Ulster and the Secession Synod many ministers and members of the former Synod said, “We hold ourselves free to sing paraphrases.” This has weakened the efforts of the opposition against hymns. Rev. Dr. Brown, Limavady, reminded the Assembly that there was a body of feeling behind the elders who signed the memorial against hymns, and that these men would form associations in defence of the truth. When the vote was taken the overture in favour of the hymnal was carried by a majority. Dr. Petticrew entered his protest and reasons. So the Presbyterian Church of Ireland has departed from her historic ground and despised the heritage her fathers gave her. Her own illustrious son, Dr. Henry Cooke, said of the Psalms, “There are two things that confirmed my decision in favour of the exclusive use of inspired psalmody in public worship:—First, the Biblical Psalms being inspired by the Holy Ghost, in using them there can be no error. Secondly, though in uninspired sacred poetry I had discovered many beauties and other excellencies I never had discovered any compilations which I could pronounce free from serious doctrinal errors. This I perceived to be especially the case with not a few of the Paraphrases and Hymns authorised by the Church of Scotland. If a doctrinal error be at all times dangerous, how much more when it is stereotyped in the devotions of the sanctuary.”
THE NEW HYMNAL.
The report of the Committee on the hymnal to be adopted came before the House on Friday night. The draft hymnal of the Committee of the Scottish Churches—which has been adopted by the Free and U.P. Churches, but rejected by the Established Church—was adopted by an overwhelming majority subject to the condition that some hymns would be omitted. We shall watch with interest the development of this Hymn Question. There is still a strong body, especially among the people of the Irish Presbyterian Church, who stand by the old paths. May they have strength to contend earnestly against all unscriptural innovations and hold fast their precious heritage for ever.