and which they have promised to obey. The simple wish of a Congregation might be an argument to influence the Minister of English Independents, or Scotch Seceders; but in our Established Presbyterian Church, where the direction and superintendence of the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, are committed to Ministers and Elders, the office-bearers of our Church, acting in their legislative and judicial capacity, such an argument seems improper, and is most certainly unconstitutional. For our Brother, therefore, to have so unprecedentedly given ear to the wishes of his Congregation, and hastened to obtain for them their favourite object, without even consulting the Presbytery of Glasgow in their official capacity, we do not trespass the rules of charity and politeness, when we say, was, on his part at least, bordering upon something like unconstitutional conduct. Had the Rev. Presbytery of Glasgow carried their opinion no higher than the Dissentients did, on the 7th of October last, who declared the introduction of Instrumental Music unauthorized and inexpedient, your Committee would still be justified in saying what they have now said, relative to the conduct of our Brother, when he talks of having yielded to the wish of his Congregation. Your Committee are afraid, that this strong desire to please his Congregation, may have imperceptibly warped our Brother's better judgment, and induced him to view that opposition which he has met with from the

Presbytery of Glasgow to his favourite measure, as an opposition founded merely in prejudice, and to affirm such things in vindication of himself and his Congregation, in that Statement which he gave in, and is now upon record, which fair logical reasoning will not support.

Considering the polite and candid manner in which the Presbytery of Glasgow accepted at once of the declaration of our Brother, that he would not again use the Organ without the authority of the Church, and the indulgent spirit which they manifested, in granting him liberty to give in an explanation after the matter was decided, and even recording the whole of his argument in behalf of his opinion, your Committee did not expect to have heard of such expressions as these, «The discussion "was hurried on with such a storm of zeal.-Such «insinuations against the people and the minister "of St. Andrew's Church, I can express by no "other terms, than that they are a total perversion "of the meaning of words, utterly confounding the "nature of things.-Not free from the influence of "this mistake, I am disposed to presume, the Re"spondents" (he must mean the Rev. Presbytery, because they had adopted the paper of the Respondents, prior to the giving in of his Statement) "seem "never to have inquired what was done in St. An"drew's Church; they conjure up to themselves "some horrid prostitution of sacred things, and then fight against it, as, pro aris et focis, wielding their

107670

"arms against a shadow."-Your Committee are disposed to forgive irritation even in a liberal, philosophical, and Christian mind, when disappointed in a favourite measure; even the best of human characters are not free from imperfections, and to the imperfections incident to humanity, they are disposed to ascribe the unguarded language used by the Minister of St. Andrew's Church, in his Statement. Perhaps your Committee would be justified in saying, that in point of form, our Brother had no legal title to have uttered one syllable after our sentence was pronounced. He declined voting in the cause. He dissented not from the judgment, of the harshness of which he now complains. And therefore, had the Presbytery adhered strictly to Ecclesiastical form, our Brother could not have been indulged in having recorded his laboured defence of his favourite opinion: nor would we, your Committee, have now been called upon to answer a voluminous statement, comprehending in some parts of it, rather an attack upon the judgment of the Presbytery, than merely an indulged explanation of his own conduct upon the twentythird of August last.

The world, to which our Brother appeals, shall judge between us.

We find some difficulty in ascertaining exactly the arrangement adopted by our Brother in this. Statement, but after the most attentive consideration on our part, we are inclined to believe that it resolves

itself into the five following heads, which we shall analyze and answer in order.

1. "That the use of Instrumental Music in Pub"lic Worship is not forbidden by the word of "God, but, on the contrary, is expressly encour"aged, perhaps enjoined, in the Old Testament, ❝and is clearly authorized by the New."

In his reasoning to support this his first conclusion, our Brother sets out by observing, that "there "is but one fixed and infallible standard for all "that regards Public Worship. Whatever is not "agreeable to, or founded on the word of God,

ought to have no place in the Worship of Christ"ians." To this position we most heartily assent. It is with particular pleasure that we observe this great Protestant principle, the foundation of our Reformation from Popery, and by which the door is for ever shut against all the will-worship and superstitious rites of the Church of Rome, recognized and gloried in by the Author of the Statement.

With respect to his reasoning adjected to this fundamental principle, namely, that before the giving of the Law, Instrumental Music was employed by the twelve tribes of Israel, and that when we look " into the covenant of peculiarity introduced by the "ministry of Moses, no mention is made of Instru"mental Music among the ritual observances of the "Law;"-we dare not give such positive assent. For a great variety of opinions has been entertained by learned men, as to the precise period when In

1

strumental Music was introduced into the Jewish Church, in the Public Worship of God. Some have conceived, that it had no existence prior to David, who, having a great genius for Music, and being himself a masterly performer, incorporated it with the Tabernacle service. Others suppose, from a passage in the lxxxist. Psalm, and from another in Exod. xv. 21. that Instrumental Music in the Worship of God was practised by the Israelites, prior to the giving of the Law, "Sing aloud unto God our "strength, make a joyful noise unto the God of "Jacob. Take a psalm, bring hither the timbrel, "the pleasant harp, with psaltery. This he ordain❝ed in Joseph for a testimony, when he went out "through the land of Egypt." "And Miriam the "prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel ❝ in her hand, and all the women went out after her "with timbrels and with dances." While there are others, who are of opinion, and perhaps with equal good reason, that Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of God, was chiefly instituted by Moses, and that it forms an enactment of the Ceremonial Law. Thus Num. x. 10. « Also in the ❝day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, "and in the beginning of your months, ye shall "blow with the trumpets over your burnt-offerings ❝and over your peace-offerings; that they may "be to you for a memorial before your God: I am "the Lord your God." Of which last opinion is Calvin; for in his Commentary upon Psalm xxxii.