and refused to walk in His law. "They remembered not his hand nor the day when he delivered them from the enemy" (Ps. lxxviii. 10). "They forgot God their Saviour which had done great things in Egypt" (Ps. cvi. 21).

Is it not to be feared that our nation has in like manner ungratefully forgotten the great things God has done for us?

Now, the question is often asked, Has this part of our creed been of any practical benefit? To this it may be replied that it has in a great measure preserved us from Voluntaryism; no man can consistently be a covenanter and a voluntary. If there are any such in our Church, I say they have yet to learn the very rudiments of the principles which they profess. It might be replied further, that our adherence to the covenants has given us a firmer faith in the Divine right of Presbytery, and a more wholesome dread of Popery and Prelacy, than is prevalent among the members of the larger Presbyterian bodies. In glancing over the Glasgow Herald the other day, I found it stated that three different ministers-one in the Established Church, the others in the Free Church—had attended meetings which were held in honour of Roman Catholic priests. Viewed in their private life, these priests may have been estimable men, but I I say it is most inconsistent in 'any Presbyterian minister to appear at such meetings. The multitude, judging from such conduct, may ere long come to think that there is little or no difference between us, and act accordingly!

66

In one of the magnificent galleries which adorn the City of Paris there hangs a large picture. A father has led his son to the altar of his country, and there makes him swear eternal hate to Rome." History tells how Hannibal kept that vow. The grim stern countenance of the man, and the confiding yet solemnised look of the boy show that that picture is the work of a master hand. In like manner, while yet in the loins of our fathers we have vowed hatred to that apostate and idolatrous Church, which the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of His coming (2 Thess. ii. 8).

Would to God that our nation and our Church would remember and pay their solemn vows!

Another reason why we cannot in my opinion join other Churches is that they are not maintaining that purity of worship to which they are bound both by Scripture and the Confession.

We object, for example, to the employment of organs in the house of God. Within late years, as you are aware, these have been in use in the Established and United Presbyterian Churches; and also in the English Presbyterian Church, with which the Free Church is in close communion.

I believe that our Church will do wisely to continue to offer the most determined opposition to this innovation. Many consider it a great improvement, while the bulk of people view it as a matter of indifference. In a treatise on purity of worship, by Dr. Begg, lately published, on the title-page he gives a quotation from Calvin, and another from Dr. Candlish. The first is, "In Popery they employed organs and many other such ludicrous things; by which the word and worship of God are exceedingly profaned."

The second quotation is, "I am persuaded that if the organ is admitted, there is no barrier in principle against the sacerdotal system in all its fulness." I ask you to remember and weigh well this latter quotation; and should you have occasion at any time to discuss this question, ask the individual who is in favour of organs to point out on what ground of principle he can (having introduced organs) object to any innovation however gross. I feel assured he will be unable to answer you. You, my friend, fancy that organs aid your devotions. I may imagine that incense would aid mine; others might wish for the same reason to employ crosses, paintings, relics, surplices, holy water, and so on, till by little and little our scriptural worship is defaced by all that black catalogue of strange vanities which we have abjured in our National Covenant, and by which the Church of Rome has provoked the Lord to anger, and profaned His name. Many ignorantly suppose that by introducing organs they are improving the plain worship of God as practised by our fathers, whilst in fact they are only reviving a piece of will worship, which our fathers wisely cast out of the Church at the Reformation. From Dr. Begg's work above referred to, we learn that organs were first used in the Church in the 7th or 8th century, but not in the Scottish Church till the 15th century. Our historian Calderwood, in comparing the Prelate and the Presbyter, says, "The bishop loveth organs: the pastor stoppeth his ears at instrumental music.”

We learn further from the historian Wodrow, that Archbishop Sharp, that Judas of the Scottish Church, was sent up to the Court at London at the time of the Restoration to further the interests of our Church. Instead of doing so, he secretly plotted its overthrow and hypocritically wrote to those in office here, praying God to prevent the sad consequences which may befall the Church, owing to certain innovations made by the King and his advisers, amongst which he enumerates the setting up of organs. Again we find Samuel Rutherford of pious memory saying in one of his letters, "I am certainly informed that the English Service, and the organs, and King James's Psalms are to be imposed on our Kirk. My heart is broken at the remembrance of it."

Not long ago, the newspapers chronicled the death of a man who had been an organist in one of our Presbyterian Churches in this city; and, in giving a short account of his life, it was said that he had at one time been an organist in an Episcopal Church, then in a Popish Church, and finally in a Presbyterian Church. As no mention was made of his conversion from Popery, I conclude that he was quite open for a re-engagement from that Church. I hold that the employment of such a man in the worship of God in any Presbyterian Church was an offence.

We are indebted to the treatise which I have just referred to for the following excellent description of the worship of God as it has been, and we think should still be, practised in the Scottish Churches:-"We celebrate the goodness of God who carried our Reformation to such a high pitch of perfection with respect to our government and worship, and delivered them from all that vain pomp which darkened the glory of the gospel service. We have no magnificence or splendour of devotion to dazzle the eye, nor harmony of instrumental music to enliven our worship and soothe the ears of the assembly. Pomp and show and ceremony are entirely strangers in our Churches, and we have little in common with that apostate Church whose yoke we threw off at the Reformation." A few years ago the late Dr. Lee of Greyfriars published a book entitled, The Reform of the Church of Scotland in Worship. He advocates a strange kind of Reformation-Deformation, I think, would better express his views. According to this leader of the Church, who was really a ringleader in all manner of innovations— organs which he first introduced, stained glass windows with pictures of our Saviour, and such like things are a great improvement. He would have read prayers. He would save labour by having a few wise men in the ministry (himself, no doubt, among the number) to compose sermons every week for the whole country, instead of each minister for himself. Our ordinary psalm tunes, he says, are as much human inventions as the organ. Every man can judge how transparently absurd this statement is. He asks for a correct definition of spirituality of worship, and avers that singing a psalm to a simple tune is not a more spiritual act of worship than an anthem with an organ. Our solemn services at communion seasons, refreshing as these have been to the people of God, are in his estimation—and, I use his own words" insufferably tedious, and an affliction to the Church; a grievous intolerable burden; irrational, unedifying, and preposterous.” Fencing of tables, he says, has been long a scandal and offence to sincere and enlightened members of the Church. He would abolish fast and thanksgiving days, and observe Christmas and Good Friday. He plainly sees and condemns the defects and Popish leanings of

Prelacy, and yet seems bent on leading the Church in that very direction. In fine, all who presume to differ from such extraordinary views, are, to use again his own language, "distinguished by gross ignorance or wild enthusiasm—prejudiced-indulging in weak scrupulosities, factious and intolerant, vulgar, fostering and flattering the narrow-minded bigotries, which have descended to us from rude, illiterate, and fanatical times."

Let us charitably hope that there are few men in the Church of Scotland who will endorse such statements. Anent read prayers, which some in our day think would improve our worship, I heartily agree with Samuel Rutherford, when he says "I could never see precept, promise, or practice for them in God's word; our Church never allowed them; but men took them up at their own choice. I had never faith to think well of them; in my weak judgment it were good they were out of the service of God." We are also told by the Westminster Divines, that they resolved to lay aside the former liturgy, having found it to be a great means "to make and increase an idle and unedifying ministry, which contented itself with set forms made to their own hands by others, without putting forth themselves to exercise the gift of prayer, with which our Lord Jesus Christ pleaseth to furnish all His servants whom He calls to that office."

We must now glance at the question of psalms versus hymns. in the case of organs, many suppose, that by introducing hymns into the service of God in our churches, they are making a great improvement which only weak-minded people would object to. To prove, however, that the discussion of this question is nothing new in the Christian Church, I need only refer you to the instructive fact mentioned by Dr. M'Crie in his Reformation in Spain (page 11). He there says, "The first Council of Braga, held in the year 561, forbade the use of uninspired hymns, which came afterwards to be tolerated, and were ultimately enjoined under the highest penalties." We are also informed, just in the previous sentence, that in the fourth century a national council forbade the worship of images and the use of pictures in churches. We thus see that in early times, the Church of Spain was more anxious than we are to preserve purity of worship. What now is the condition of that Church? A wise man will be able to draw a moral from the contrast, to which we would do well to take heed. The remarks on this subject in our Testimony, commencing at page 154, are most excellent, and well worthy of your careful perusal. Notwithstanding the rapid progress which the use of hymns in our churches has been making in our day, I am strongly of opinion that our wisest and most scriptural course is to adhere to the good old way of singing the Psalms

only. I object to hymns, 1st, because having an inspired psalter we have no need of them. The Lord's people in our land, for ages past, have felt that the Psalms were sufficient to express all their spiritual necessities in praise: Is our faith stronger—is our zeal more ardent that we require additional words? I trow not. I object to hymns, 2ndly, because they have been made the vehicles of false doctrine. In illustration of this, I need only refer you to the third hymn printed at the end of our own Psalm books. Further, the selection of hymns suitable for the service of the sanctuary, appears to be a work of very great difficulty. I had almost said an insurmountable barrier to their use-if not, why this perpetual altering and tinkering at their hymn books, which we see going on in all the Churches ? The following quotation is from Dr. Lee's book, to which I have already referred. To me it seems to reprove his own public conduct. He says "To express my own opinion freely, I do not see any necessity or much advantage in going beyond the Scriptures themselves for our psalms and hymns. If we only know how to adopt and use them, the contents of the Old and New Testament are abundantly sufficient for expressing every feeling of faith, hope, love, patience, submission, and every holy aspiration which we should seek to express and cherish in our songs of praise. No words are so appropriate, so solemn, so beautiful, or so touching, as the words of Holy Writ. Even if other expressions, equally good and suitable in themselves, could be found, none other can ever possess the same power to move our hearts, for none other can ever come to us charged with the same associations. For the use of public worship, I doubt if the most diligent search could discover a score of really excellent modern hymns in the English language." I think all of us will be able to say amen to these opinions.

A few years ago, I chanced to be in the U.P. Synod, when a discussion was going on as to the necessity for a new hymn book. Dr. Taylor, now secretary to the Board of Education, in the course of a few remarks he made on the question, said, in effect, that in their hymn book, there were many very beautiful hymns, whilst others, as everybody knew, were the veriest rubbish. I inwardly said-My friend, have you and your Church, for the last quarter of a century or more, been praising (rod with the veriest rubbish, then I am deeply thankful that we in our humble way have been praising Him with something very different. After considerable labour, the U.P. Church has lately published a new hymn book. In my judgment it is no improvement on its predecessor, and without setting up for a prophet, I predict for it a shorter life. I have heard people argue that hymns in general were much more easily understood by children