which they feel themselves obliged to entertain upon the subject. They observe therefore, as their last and principal reason of dissent, That the opinion expressed by the Presbytery, not only proceeds farther than the case required, but asserts as facts, concerning the Law of the Land, and the Constitution of the Church what the Dissenters cannot perceive, and dare not, consistently with a good conscience affirm. No Law of the Church, nor of the Land, has been passed concerning Instrumental Music, and they know of no law existing, to which they can go the length of pronouncing that it is contrary. The Dissentients allow, that it is unauthorized, and they do not assert that authority for it should be given; but neither, on the other hand, can they assert that any law has yet determined the question. The question concerning the lawfulness, utility, or expediency of Instrumental Music in public worship, is open for the Church of Scotland to consider and determine. This being their opinion, they could still less proceed the length of declaring that it is contrary to the Law of the Land, and the very Constitution of the Church; and, by consequence, that it is not in the power of the Church of Scotland, even if willing, to take the subject under their consideration. The question, the Dissentients consider to be a question of utility and expedience, which the Church has it in its power at any time to consider and determine;

nor do they know any Law of the Land, or principle of the Constitution, which should prevent the Church from giving any determination, it shall, in its wisdom, judge right. The Act of Security, the Dissentients conceive,has been interpreted by the Presbytery with a strictness in this instance, which has never been applied to other subjects. And though they readily admit that the Barrier Act points out the mode, which, in the case of new practices and laws, must be followed, yet they conceive that the very design of the Act, in pointing out the mode which is to be pursued, plainly shews that the Church has the power of deciding upon new propositions or overtures, which interfere not with those general and leading principles on which its constitution is founded.

(Signed)

WILLIAM TAYLOR.

ALEXANDER RANKEN.
DAVID DAVIDSON.

STEVENSON MACGILL.

Dr. Portcous, Dr. Balfour, Mr. Lapslie, and Mr. M'Lean, are appointed a Committee to answer said Reasons of Dissent.

December 2d, 1807.

The committee appointed to draw up Answers to the Reasons of Dissent against the judgment of the Presbytery on the 7th of October last, respecting the

Organ, gave in said Answers, which were read.The Presbytery approve of said Answers, and appoint the same to be recorded. The tenor whereof follows. Reserving it to Dr. Ritchie, Dr. Taylor, jun. and Dr. Lockhart, to submit to the next Presbytery such explanations as they shall think proper.

concern.

The Committee appointed to prepare ANSWERS to REASONS of DISSENT from a judgment of the PRESBYTERY of GLASGOW, 7th October, 1807, in which they declare, "That the use of Organs in the "Public Worship of God, is contrary to "the Law of the Land, and to the Law "and Constitution of the Established "Church," &c. &c. beg leave to submit the following to the Reverend Presbytery.

THE Committee enter on this business with deep But when reasons of dissent are recorded, an appeal is made to posterity, which renders the recording of answers indispensably necessary. Unfortunately, in these reasons, the Presbytery is not only charged with having acted improperly, but › with having violated truth and justice. To repel so serious charge, it seems unavoidable for the Presbytery to furnish posterity with an account of their situation, and of the various extraordinary circumstances in which they were called to act. Should C

this give rise to strictures which seem severe, the responsibility must rest with those who have recorded reasons of dissent, and made it necessary for the Presbytery to vindicate themselves, as well as to defend the purity and uniformity of the national worship.

It is considerably more than two years since the public mind was agitated by the proposal of introducing an Organ into St. Andrew's church. During this long period, the Presbytery waited with patience, in the hope, that time and good sense, would dispose the authors and abettors of this proposal, to listen to wiser counsels.

About the end of August last, a communication was made to the Presbytery by the Lord Provost, with the approbation of the City Council, containing extracts, letters, and copies of letters, which, having been read by the Presbytery, they ordered a respectful letter of thanks to be written by the Moderator, and sent to the Lord Provost, acknowledging the receipt of these papers.

From this communication it appeared that an Organ had been introduced into St. Andrew's church, and employed on the Sabbath, in time of Divine service. St. Andrew's church belongs to the National Establishment, and is under the jurisdiction of the Presbytery of Glasgow.-It was certainly known, that Organs have never been used in the Presbyterian church of Scotland,—and that no minister of that church had ever presumed, before this,

to introduce them. It was certainly known that the people of Scotland are not given to changeespecially in matters connected with religion. And it might have been known, that Glasgow is not the place, and the present is not the time, for a business of this sort.

Without consulting the Presbytery, or seeming to think they had any concern in the matter, some persons describing themselves as the congregation of St. Andrew's church, sent a petition to the Honourable Magistrates and City Council, containing a proposal to have an Organ introduced under their patronage, or with their consent and approbation.

This petition was accompanied by a letter, no less extraordinary than the petition itself.

Before the City Council gave any deliverance, they consulted their Legal Assessor, who gave them a written opinion, which does him much honour. This opinion the Council adopted, and accordingly refused to sanction, authorize, or approve in any capacity, directly or indirectly, expressly or "tacitly," the introduction of an Organ into St. Andrew's church.

The applicants were certainly of opinion that the City Council had some right, or power, which they wished to be exercised in favour of an Organ: and yet the refusal of their request, did not hinder an Organ from being introduced into St. Andrew's church. It may therefore be doubted, whether greater respect has been shown to the Presbytery in