FROM THE LIBRARY OF 
 REV. LOUIS FITZGERALD BENSON. D. D. 
 
 BEQUEATHED BY HIM TO 
 
 THE LIBRARY OF 
 
 PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
^At ^^/vu>^ 'h^u^ii. •Z.^^TTf; 
 
 U>/t-(>U^ 
 
 4 
 
 
r^^ CHURCH MUSIC -QUESTION. ( \^r\l^^, 1032 
 
 Catholic Pkksbytekian, March, 1SS3.] \"_x ^ 
 
 THE CHURCH MUSIC QUESTION.* ^--^^^^^^^^Li^L^^ 
 
 IT is a strong proof of the vitality of religious feeling in the Presby- 
 terian Church that so keen a contest rages over the forms and 
 methods of worship. If the champions of use and wont were content 
 with a feeble and passive protest against innovations ; if the younger 
 and reforming spirits were satisfied to hint at reforms which they had 
 not zeal enough to carry through, then we might indeed say that reli- 
 gion was in a bad way. Life, though it brings conflict sometimes, is 
 better than deadness, and universal agreement in details is a thing not 
 at all to be desired. 
 
 What is, however, most earnestly to be desired is that we should 
 approach this question of worship-music in a large and devout spirit, 
 scorning littlenesses and repartee, striving to rise to high ground, and 
 to discover the ultimate principles on which the application of music to 
 worship rests. 
 
 It has been said, for example, that Presbyterians ought to make 
 their services more artistic and musical, because the young people in 
 the towns are going off to the Episcopal churches, where they can get 
 these things. This seems to me a very poor argument. If, as I believe, 
 it is right that we should freely admit art in so far as it serves the ends 
 of worship, then let us advocate its introduction upon the distinct basis 
 of principle, and not because we fear a stampede. 
 
 Again, I have read that organs ought to be allowed in churches 
 because David played the harp ; and I have seen especial stress laid upon 
 the fact that one of the earliest Scottish psalters has on its title-page 
 a picture of the Psalmist outraging Presbyterian tradition by giving 
 the Psalms with instrumental accompaniment. All this seems to me 
 mere trifling. If organs are lawful and expedient, it is not because 
 their counterparts were used in the Temple, but because they help to 
 kindle heart and voice in God's praise. If they are unlawful and inex- 
 pedient, it is not because Presbyterian tradition is against them, but 
 because they are not found to aid our worship. 
 
 What is the real apology and justification for the use of music in 
 worship ? This brings us face to face with the two great divergent 
 theories of worship — the Ritual and the Puritan. The Ritual appeals 
 to the senses, the Puritan to the soul. In the one you have the sight 
 of a gorgeous building, and an altar blazing with light ; the sound of 
 bewitching music ; the smell of incense ; the touch of holy water ; the 
 taste of the wafer. In the other, in its purest form, you have the 
 senses completely ignored, the forms of worship, such as they are, 
 appealing straight to the intellect and the soul. The Ritualist treats 
 
 * [The author of this paper touches here and there debateable ground ; but -we are sure 
 all our readers will be glad to know the views of one who has given so much attention 
 to the subject, and whose authority is so high. As usual, we are ready to receive 
 remarks on the whole subject, or on any part of it. — Ed.] 
 
18G THE CHURCH MUSIC QUESTION. 
 
 [CATHOLIC Presbyterian, March, 18S3. 
 
 man as if he were an animal ; the Puritan treats him as if he were an 
 angel. Unfortunately for the theories of each, man is neither : he is a 
 mixture of both. The fact that we cannot escape the influence of the 
 senses ought to be accepted frankly by the Puritan ; while the Ritualist 
 ought to recognise the debasing effect of the sensual method. The 
 movement in the Puritan churches, both in Scotland and England, 
 during the last thirty years, has led to the discovery that the senses 
 must at least be conciliated if the soul is to be free for higher flights. 
 
 The ultimate principle on which the use of music in worship rests 
 seems therefore to me to be in the hi<?hest sense Utilitarian. Does it 
 quicken and deepen religious feeling, and aid in its expression ? That 
 is the question. It is right that our esthetic sense should be satisfied ; 
 but this is not enough. Nay, if any style of music, vocal or instru- 
 mental, tends to lull us into the passive enjoyment of sweet sounds, it 
 is dangerous to worship. Music must help worship, and indeed can 
 help it, but music must never be a substitute for worship. 
 
 So much by way of clearing the ground. What, at present, is the 
 Church music question in the Presbyterian Church ? 
 
 That the singing should be congregational is universally conceded. 
 Wherever I speak on this subject, in England or elsewhere, among 
 Churchmen or Nonconformists, I find a hearty and even enthusiastic 
 assent to my assertion that in Divine worship the people ought to sing 
 themselves. The rise of musical taste, and the cheapening of good con- 
 certs, will tend to emphasise rather than to weaken the desire of the 
 congregations for plain, rich, and general common praise in Divine 
 service. We do not want on Sunday in God's house a feeble attempt 
 to compete with the concert-rooms where we have been in the week. 
 Congregational singing has a charm which is quite distinct from that of 
 artistic music, and does not conflict with it in the least. It is like the 
 sound of many waters, the hum that rises from a busy town, the strange 
 murmur of the forest — perhaps but half musical, in the strict sense of the 
 word, yet touching our hearts with a feeling that we cannot express but 
 cannot resist. 
 
 We talk of attracting people to church by musical performances, but 
 in my experience there is nothing so attractive as really good congrega- 
 tional singing. People, I believe, would rather sing themselves than be 
 sung to. 
 
 Unfortunately, congregational singing is difficult to get, and almost as 
 difficult to keep when you have got it. The elements of which it is 
 built are perpetually decaying, and must be constantly renewed. The 
 end is, however, worth the trouble. W^ho has not felt his spirit thrilled 
 and melted by a psalm or hymn sung from the heart by a great congre- 
 gation ? Who has not felt his spirit checked and chilled when, after an 
 inspiring sermon, the praise has fallen flat and coldly upon his ears ? 
 Why is not the latent power of song that exists in every company of 
 worshippers more strongly realised ? If we could but feel what a dcvo- 
 
CHANTING AND CHOIRS. 187 
 
 Catholic Presbyterian, March, 18S3. 
 
 tional force lies idle or is imperfectly developed in our congregations, 
 we should spare neither time nor money to awaken it ! 
 
 The battle of psalms versus hymns is pretty well over — ^in Scotland at 
 least. What we shall sing is fairly agreed upon : there remains, how- 
 ever, much diversity of opinion as to how we shall sing, and what musical 
 aids to our worship shall be allowed. 
 
 First, a word as to prose chanting. I say nothing about singing a 
 hymn to a chant, which is a favourite practice in Scotland, because 
 this is not chanting at all. Chanting is unmetrical, and herein lies the 
 difficulty. 
 
 Why did the Reformers, who were so anxious to popularise the 
 Bible, abolish chanting ? Surely, one would think, the combined 
 recitation of the very words of Scripture would have been their favourite 
 exercise in public worship. Yet they sacrificed this, and put the 
 Psalms into diluted verse. The reasons were probably two. First, 
 the chanting of the Romish Church before the Reformation was no 
 doubt irreverent in the extreme, and' it was easier to suppress it than 
 to reform it. Second, the Reformers had felt the power of song, and 
 song implies metre. The Reformers knew what they were doing. Just 
 as the Bible was translated into English that the people might under- 
 stand it, so the Psalms were put into verse that the people might sing 
 them. Properly speaking, chanting is not singing ; it is musical 
 elocution. Regular rhythmical pulsation, which helps a congregation 
 to keep together in hymn-tune or anthem, is wanting in the chant. 
 Chanting, therefore, must always be more difficult than singing, and if 
 it is really desired that the congregation, and not the choir only, shall 
 join in the exercise, only a few psalms or other Scripture passages and 
 only a few chants must be used, so that the people may know the 
 words and the pointing by heart. Good congregational chanting is 
 seldom or never to be heard. Choirs chant, but not often the people 
 themselves. Moreover, nearly all the choir-chanting we hear is a dis- 
 graceful helter-skelter. These undoubted facts are enough to make us 
 pause in adopting the practice of prose chanting. It is a thing 
 delightful in theory, but far from delightful in practice. 
 
 Next, as to the question of choir and congregation. The growth and 
 the improvement of church choirs is the most striking feature of the 
 last thirty years in the history of psalmody. Mr. AV. H. Monk, the 
 editor of " Hymns, Ancient and Modern," once made this remark to me 
 in conversation : " The better the choir-singing in any church, the 
 worse wiU be the congregational singing." I was at first disposed to 
 dispute this assertion, but reflection and observation have convinced 
 me, very unwillingly, of its truth. 
 
 One is reluctant to say a word that might damp the unselfish 
 devotion of so many organists, choir-masters, precentors, and choir 
 members. How much taste, skill, and time is spent in preparing choirs 
 for the psalms, hymns, tunes, and anthems of Divine service ! This 
 
188 THE CHURCH MUSIC QUESTION. 
 
 [Catholic Pkesbvterian, March, 1883. 
 
 earnestness is the very life and \io^q of psalmody, if only it can be so 
 manipulated as to j^romote the singing of the congregation and not to 
 supersede it. We all feel the importance of training a choir well — 
 expression to enforce the words, pronunciation to let them be heard, 
 voice culture to secure a smooth and blended effect, so that we may 
 give our best to God. Yet what is the common result of securing these 
 excellences in a choir ? The common result is that the people cease to 
 sing. I myself, when I am in a church where there is a fine choir, 
 feel my voice arrested. Others are silent round me, and it seems pro- 
 fane to disturb the balance of voice, and the part-song-like finish of 
 the music. I stand and listen, or am content with a gentle hum that 
 satisfies my conscience without disturbing my neighbours. 
 
 This is all very undesirable, and it is an undoubted fact that the 
 musical revival of to-day has often taken a wrong direction, a direction 
 that is injurious to congregational singing. We do not want in our 
 services a Sunday concert. We want a full and general chorus from 
 the congregation. Can we so use choirs as to help us to get this ? May 
 they be so organised as to stir the congregation, and not to lull it to 
 sleep ? 
 
 I regard a choir as indispensable. The ideal of the advocate of con- 
 gregational singing is, of course, that the congregation should be the 
 choir. But even in churches which approach most nearly to this ideal, 
 the singing must always be led by an earnest musical minority who 
 need rehearsing, and this is still the virtual choir. The question of 
 where this earnest minority is to sit during service is a separate and 
 very important one. I know one church in England where the choir 
 is entirely dispersed among the congregation, and where, as a conse- 
 quence, the sound of four-part harmony comes from every side in a way 
 that is most inspiring and contagious. Directly you begin to concen- 
 trate the best singers at one end of the church, the congregation begin 
 to shift their responsibility. Few churches I suppose wiU adopt such a 
 radical plan as dispersing the whole of the choir among the congrega- 
 tion. If this cannot be done, then let the majority of the choir be dis- 
 persed, and the larger the majority the better wiU be the singing. A 
 choir, using the word in this larger sense, is the very life of congrega- 
 tional singing. And the life of the choir is the elementary music class. 
 This is as important as fresh fuel to a steam-engine, and no church 
 should be without one. 
 
 If people will not have a dispersed choir, but prefer the ordinary 
 plan of a well-drilled musical body distinct from the congregation, then 
 how can such a body be used so as least to hinder the congregational 
 voice ? The best way, I think, is to have one piece in each service 
 sung by the choir alone, the congregation devoutly listening. This will 
 satisfy the musical ambition of the choir, and we may then demand that 
 the rest of the service music shall be thoroughly plain and congregational. 
 This separation of the service music into two kinds is carried out in 
 
EMPLOYMENT OF ORGANS. 189 
 
 Catholic Pkksbytekian, March, 1883.] 
 
 America. It gives the choir work to do, and keeps them together. I 
 do not recommend it, except as an escape from a greater evil, a sort of 
 safety valve which will preserve the congregational singing from entire 
 destruction. 
 
 I am very glad that precentors are coming down from their pulpits 
 and turning themselves into choir-masters. They can do much better 
 work in that way for congregational singing. The sound of a tenor 
 voice prominently singing the air an octave below pitch is not to my 
 taste, and if the choir be trained to lead it is not necessary. Increased 
 attention is being paid to the mating of tune and hymn ; the utterance 
 of religious sentiment through musical expression is being more studied ; 
 and pronunciation is being attended to. These reforms have come 
 none too quickly, for congregations advance rapidly in musical taste. 
 Let us remember that culture in music, divorced from the devotional 
 spirit, is not only a mockery but a failure. Expression can only be 
 musically true and satisfying, if it is inspired by and naturally springs 
 out of the thoughts that are being uttered. Let our psalmody leaders 
 try to feel deeply if they would rise to a higher musical level. 
 
 The church music question of greatest magnitude at the present day 
 relates to the organ. At the very mention of the word the mildest 
 reader becomes a partisan, so that a dispassionate study of the pros and 
 cons of the matter is exceedingly difficult. The opponents of organs 
 have entrenched themselves in a citadel, and they seem to be of opinion 
 that if their citadel falls, the whole order of Presbyterian worship falls 
 too. Meanwhile, the besiegers — armed, I suppose, with organ pipes 
 instead of trumpets — are doing their best to bring down the walls. The 
 capitulation is only a question of time. 
 
 Yet, though we may smile at the heat and exaggeration which this 
 controversy excites, there can be no doubt that the change from 
 unaccompanied to accompanied singing is a serious and considerable 
 one, involving great possibilities of harm to what we all so earnestly 
 desire — congregational singing. Let us discuss the matter on practical 
 grounds, setting aside arguments about lawfulness which even religious 
 men feel to be out of harmony with the spirit of the times. 
 
 What is the effect of an organ upon congregational singing ? I 
 think it makes the act of singing easier, especially if you are trying to 
 sing a part. The notes you want are in the atmosphere. Even though 
 the instrument be so softly played as not to be heard, it is felt in the 
 support it gives to the voices. I do not think it can be said to prevent 
 flattening. Most of us have had painful experience that a congregation 
 will flatten in spite of an organ, and will go on, verse after verse, at its 
 own flat pitch against the instrument in a way that tortures the ear. 
 Flattening is not so frequent with an organ as without, but the organ 
 does not cure the evil. 
 
 It is this function of bearing up the voices that an organ should 
 perform. It should never attempt to lead. Many people seem to be 
 
190 THE CHURCH MUSIC QUESTION. 
 
 [Catholic Presbyterian, March, 1888. 
 
 of opinion that if an organ is introduced to a church the singing will 
 at once improve, and need never trouble them again. What folly ! 
 As well might they expect to increase the piety of a congregation by 
 building a tall steeple. Just as much pains must be taken with the 
 vocal praise with an organ as without. There must be choir-practices 
 and elementary singing-classes and never-ceasing work if a full and 
 harmonious offering of praise is to be maintained. 
 
 So far we have spoken of organs as they should be used. But how 
 are they commonly used in England, where they are universal and long 
 established ? They are often played so loudly that the choir and con- 
 gregation chirp like birds in a thunderstorm. Moreover, the organ is 
 a very noble instrument, which engrosses all the energies and sym- 
 pathies of the player. The organist, in ninety-nine cases out of a 
 hundred, is the choir-master, and does whatever other musical work is 
 done in the congregation. He is absorbed in his instrument, and, in 
 consequence, choir training is neglected, and congregational training 
 never thought of. Singing becomes shouting, the words are drowned 
 in a muddy sea of organ tone, and the general result is noise, not music. 
 
 The organ is a good servant, but a bad master, and the temper of 
 many of the intelligent opponents of organs is this — Let us bear the 
 ills we have rather than fly to others that we know not of. I can 
 assure you that the example of what has happened in England is 
 enough to make me feel much sympathy with this position.* 
 
 One word to the opponents of organs. A mere negative attitude is 
 not enough. You must have a positive policy, and show people that 
 you can produce an unaccompanied service which satisfies the ear and 
 the devotional feeling richly and deeply, falling like the echoes of a 
 purer worship upon the weary and distracted spirit. 
 
 The work necessary to create and sustain a service of this kind is far 
 greater than for one which is accompanied. But it is work in aid of 
 devotion, and if your opposition to organs springs really from your zeal 
 for purity of worship, here is your opportunity of proving it. 
 
 There are three chief forces that go to make or mar the service of 
 praise — minister, people, and precentor. The ministers have frequent 
 opportunity of expressing their views on psalmody ; the opinions of the 
 congregation are echoed in the newspapers and in general conversation; 
 but the precentors have but few opportunities of making themselves 
 heard. Yet they have a practical acquaintance with the subject which 
 no others have ; they are at the front as workers ; they know only too 
 well how the ideal differs from the real, and what struggles and disap- 
 pointments beset the path of the psalmody worker. I enjoy the friend- 
 ship of many Presbyterian precentors, and I have thought that it would 
 make this paper practical and straight-hitting if I could persuade some 
 of them to contribute their opinions as to the hindrances they meet. 
 
 * For a fuller discussion of the Organ question, see " Studies in Worship Music," 
 by J. Spencer Curwen. 
 
VIEWS OF PRECENTORS. 191 
 
 Cathouc Presbvterian, MaifU, 1883.] 
 
 I have succeeded well, and shall give you some passages from the 
 letters that have come in answer to my appeal. 
 
 A precentor of an important church in a Scottish city writes : — 
 
 " First as to ministers. For nearly thirteen years I have been leader of 
 psalmody in this church. During five of these years we had two ministers ; during 
 the rest of the time, one. We have a meeting for the practice of psalmody every 
 Friday evening (holidays excepted), besides an elementary class every year, and 
 extra meetings before our annual recital or concert. In all these years we have 
 only been visited twice by a minister at our ordinary meetings. My last elemen- 
 tary class met at seven o'clock on Fridays, an hour fixed to suit young people 
 attending school. Our minister in announcing the class, spoke of the benefits to 
 be derived, and urged parents to send their children. He has a family of young 
 people himself, but not one of them ever appeared. Nearly every Sunday, prayer 
 is ofiered up for preachers. Sabbath-school teachers, tract distributors, sessions, 
 and Christian workers. Though I have been a precentor for over twenty -five 
 years altogether, I have only twice heard the precentor prayed for. From their 
 practice, I have been forced to the conclusion that most ministers regard psalmody 
 as something that may be used or left out as occasion requires. If the sermon is 
 short, we are sure to have a lot of singing ; if it is protracted, the last psalm or 
 hymn is shortened or left out. The duty of sending a list of the Sunday's psalms 
 and hymns to the weekly practice is also frequently neglected. Of late we have 
 often been called to sing tunes at first sight in church." 
 
 After noticing that elders and managers keep aloof from the associa- 
 tion, my friend mentions that his Psalmody Association has seldom 
 numbered less than 100 members, though with a congregation of 1200 
 members, besides adherents, he does not think this a fair proportion. 
 He proceeds : — . 
 
 " With such an example from those in authority, it is hardly to be expected 
 that the congregation as a whole will be much interested in psalmody. Few con- 
 gregations, I believe, could muster a greater number of sight-singers than we, and 
 yet I am sorry to say the congregational voice is neither so strong nor so hearty 
 as it once was, and should be. The fashion of having an organ and choir to ' do ' 
 the singing seems to be killing all sense of responsibility in this matter. How 
 else can we account for so many whom we know to be capable, standing listless 
 and idle during praise] 
 
 " The introduction of so many new tunes has also injured congregational 
 interest very much. During 1882 I conducted the psalmody at 99 regular 
 church services, and in these 133 tunes and 18 pieces (or sentences) were made 
 use of — too many for any congregation to keep in full song. The manner in 
 which our hymn book is got up — every tune having its o^vn hymn — compels the 
 use of a great many tunes. The style of tune now generally advocated is another 
 hindrance. Most of them are so bold, so void of melody, so wooden that it is 
 little wonder that people don't take to them readily. 
 
 " Professor Macfarren says that ' all lightness, all gi-ace, all freedom in melody, 
 result from a judicious use of passing notes ; ' but passing notes have been 
 tabooed by the editors of our collections of tunes. The alteration of harmonies 
 has also hindered us considerably. When an old and standard tune like 'St. Paul's' 
 or ' Martyrdom ' is sung with new harmony, the efiect is like the twenty pipera 
 playing each his favourite tune at the same time and in the same room, for the 
 elder people sing the old harmonies, and the younger ones the new." 
 
 Another precentor, who confesses that he is suffering from an attack 
 of melancholy, writes ; — 
 
192 THE CHURCH MUSIC QUESTION. 
 
 [Cathouc Prksbytekian, March, 18S8. 
 "If managers, deacons, and elders of churches were to expend upon choirs 
 what they seem happy to lay out upon organs, what an overwhelming change 
 would there be in the service of praise in the house of the Lord ! Is it not a fact 
 that such perishable things as preaching and praying seem, in a large number of 
 Scotch churches, to be considered the loorship of God ; whilst the praise of God, 
 which is everlasting, which is the connecting link between time and eternity, is 
 left out in the cold — miserably perishing for lack of sustenance." 
 
 A third precentor ^vrites : — 
 
 " In choosing organists and conductors of psalmody, too little attention is paid, 
 in my opinion, to teaching power. The question of teaching is, indeed, rarely 
 mentioned. I think that playing or singing should be a secondary matter to the 
 power to teach and to attract young people." 
 
 Here we have a new hindrance brought forward by a fourth pre- 
 centor : — 
 
 " The chief thing that I have to complain of is the pride of some of our people 
 in Scotland. A great many people, in country districts especially, if they occupy 
 a social position a very little above the working classes, think themselves much 
 superior, and will not associate with them. You have no idea what a hindrance 
 this is to the improvement of psalmody in Scotland. Surely we should all be in the 
 same spirit of humbleness when we meet in church to worship the same God ! " 
 
 Speaking of a tune-book recently issued by the section of the Presby- 
 terian Church to which he belongs, the same writer says : — 
 
 " I do not care for the arrangements. In a great number of the tunes the 
 basses are far too low to be effective, and dissonances and double dissonances are 
 too frequently used for congi-egational singing. In the whole, the work of the 
 organist is more apparent than that of the choir-master. I think it is also a mis- 
 take to set a tune to each hymn in all cases. There are a great many of the 
 tunes, set to good hymns, which will never be sung, for the reason that they are 
 not worth the singing. Why not have the leaves of the hymnal cut, so that the 
 choice of tune may be free ? " 
 
 A fifth precentor writes : — 
 
 " Some of the ministers are very careless in the selection of hymns. It is not 
 unusual for ministers who come to our church to preach to leave the precentor to 
 choose the hymns, saying, ' Take any you like.' When this is said to me, I 
 venture to ask the subject of the discourse, so that there may be some unity in 
 the service. Many of the Psalms I regard as unfit for singing. Our service of 
 praise would be impi-oved if only Psalms of praise, of penitence, or such as contain 
 some expression of feeling, were used in singing. It is the habit of our minister 
 to begin at tlie fii'st Psalm and go straight on in regular order, no matter what 
 the text may be. Thus we sometimes get a mournful sermon and a joyful Psalm, 
 and vice versa. 
 
 " As to the congregation, I find they will not respond to the invitations given 
 from week to week to attend a psalmody class. If anything is to be done, it must 
 bo with junior classes. I have great faith in training the young, but find it difficult 
 to make the work such as will draw them. If a few pounds were spent every 
 year on prizes for regular attendance and for sight-singing, it would bring them 
 out. Kirk-sessions, however, don't care to spend much money on the musical 
 training of the congregation. They think they have discharged their duty when 
 they have paid the precentor's salary. I myself gave prizes one winter, consisting 
 of the Psalms, hymns, and tune-book which we use ; but I could not afford to 
 continue them." 
 
ENCOURAGEMENT OF CHOIRS. 193 
 
 Cathouc Presbyterian, March, 1S83.] 
 
 In opposition to what I have read about new tune books, a sixth 
 precentor says : — 
 
 " I find that a large book with plenty of variety and good tunes is a great help 
 to sustaining of interest in the psalmody. The choir sings with more life and 
 feeling, and this in turn is caught by the congregation." 
 
 My last correspondent writes with much energy and freshness. He 
 says : — • 
 
 " A much greater interest is now taken by ministers in the service of praise 
 than formerly, and it is a common thing to find them visiting the practice meet- 
 ings and giving a word of encouragement. This has a greater effect in stimulating 
 the young than some are aware of. 
 
 " Less progress has, I think, been made by sessions than by ministers in recog- 
 nising the importance of good congregational singing. Instead of encouraging 
 their precentors and choirs, they seem to think that one of their special duties is 
 to keep a watchful eye over them, and to miss no opportunity of putting their 
 foot upon them. This, I believe, along with the natural youthful unreasonable- 
 ness of choirs, is one fruitful source of what are termed choir ' rows.' 
 
 " For example, some matter of detail has to be arranged about choir seats, 
 change of practising night, a soiree, or some other minor affair. The matter is 
 referred to at a meeting of session, and after conversation the clerk is requested 
 to drop the precentor a note, asking him to do so and so. The clerk then writes 
 a letter, using the most irritating phraseology which accident or design could 
 have suggested to him. The precentor feels the edge of the censorial knife, and 
 at the next meeting of the choir reads the letter with a tone of injured innocence. 
 This letter is hai-dly finished when several members are on their feet, bursting 
 with eloquence, and in the space of five minutes the explosive powers of the 
 choir are fully developed. A strike is at once agreed upon, but as several 
 members are absent, they must be seen and prevented from going to the choir 
 seats on Sabbath. This necessitates a recapitulation of the affair with ' inter- 
 lude ' and ' episode.' On Sabbath there is no choir. On Monday the minister 
 calls them together and lectures them. Some eloquent member replies, giving 
 his version, but the story has taken such dimensions, like the snowball that 
 gathers with i-oUing, that the minister can scarcely recognise it, though he 
 presided at the meeting where it originated. The tangled skein takes a long 
 time to unravel, and some of the knots are so obstinate as to require cutting. 
 The almost invariable result of these affairs is that a torrent of wrath descends 
 on the head of the precentor from all sides, and he is made the scapegoat who 
 has to carry the troubles, or swallow them as he pleases. If members of session 
 would only remember that they themselves were once guilty of the offence of 
 being young, many troubles would be avoided. 
 
 "The greatest complaint against congregations is, I believe, apathy. They 
 want stirring up. This can be done in endless ways. Your lectures, for 
 instance, stir up from the centre outward, acting on those to whom you speak. 
 They, in turn, stir up their pupils and the outside world. Ministers interested 
 in the service of praise may in like manner stir up their elders, and the elders 
 the people. Personally I hold a somewhat different theory, and practise it. It 
 may be called stirring up from the outside inward. I try to gain the hearts of 
 the children and young people, believing that they rule the mothers, that the 
 mothers rule the fathers, and the fathers the Church. A plan at present on 
 trial in the church to which I belong is to have occasional joint-meetings of the 
 Psalmody Association, Literary Association, and Bible Class. This really 
 includes all the young of the congregation above Sabbath-school age. The first 
 combined meeting is a lecture on Musical History, with illustrations. This jjlan 
 will act and react. The Psalmody Association will confer pleasure and profit on 
 the others, and will draw sympathy from them. 
 
 VOL. IX. NO. LI. O 
 
194 PROGRESS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 [Catholic rRESBYTERUN, March, 1883. 
 
 " One complaint against congregations is that they consider precentors their 
 special property, and imagine they have a right to criticise them musically, men- 
 tally, socially, (fee. A chapter on this might be amusing, but I do not know that 
 it would bear much upon the ' Church Music Question.' 
 
 " A few months ago the Psalmody Committee of the General Assembly of our 
 Church issued a circular to ministers containing a number of questions with the 
 object of guiding them in the issue of a new psalter. Our minister asked me to 
 reply in his name, which I did. I also took tha liberty of writing to the Com- 
 mittee that a rich mine of musical experience and knowledge was neglected by 
 them when they took no counsel of their precentors. This is a subject on which 
 many able precentors have just cause of complaint. 
 
 " The want of uniformity in the tune-books of the Presbyterian Churches is 
 very much to be deplored. I remember when the ' Scottish Psalmody ' was used 
 in all the Presbyterian Churches. One edition, the most in use, costing only six- 
 pence, was virtually a pocket-book. Scores of young men can-ied it in their 
 pockets all the year round, and used it on all kinds of occasions. To do the 
 same thing now, one would have to carry a wallet. 
 
 " Finally : let ministers acquaint themselves as thoroughly as possible with the 
 subject. Let church sessions endeavour to look at the subject in a reasonable 
 way, and act kindly and judiciously towards the young. Let members of choirs 
 control their impetuosity when their seniors differ from them. Let precentors 
 leave no stone unturned to make themselves masters of their work, so that they 
 may stand head and shoulders above their classes. And let us all be of one mind 
 in remembering that the work is the Lord's." 
 
 I adopt tiiis practical summary as my own, and close this article 
 with a hearty " Amen " to its words. 
 
 J. Spencer Curwen. 
 
 SsmpDstum, 
 
 PROGRESS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 No. III. 
 
 IN previous articles for this symposium, Principal Tulloch has argued 
 the possibility of progress in theology from the nature of human 
 knowledge, whatever the subject-matter of knowledge may be ; and Dr. 
 Hodge admits that theology, in a general sense, as the sum-total of all 
 that at any time may be known of God, is a progressive loiowledge ; 
 but he affirms that theology, in the narrower sense of the essential 
 Christian doctrines, has already been substantially determined. " Theo- 
 logy, in the sense of the sum of saving doctrines common to the 
 Reformation and modern Evangelical Churches, will not make progress 
 in the future." 
 
 The phrase " sum of saving doctrines " indicates a conception of 
 Christianity from which theology might make progress in the future. 
 For this phrase " saving doctrines " is one of several common expres- 
 
INDIA. 315 
 
 Catholic Presbyterian, April, 1883.] 
 The class referred to, now very numerous, it seems hai-d to reach. Separated to 
 some extent from their own people, and yet kept at arm's length by Europeans, 
 they are not in a position likely to minister to sweetness of temper. One remark 
 painfully struck us. It was said or hinted that these people were not expected 
 to make their appearance in the English Churches. There are other castes 
 besides those of Hindoos. The Baboos of the smaller towns — where, as well as 
 in the presidential capitals, they are numerous — are very accessible to Christian 
 influence. 
 
 3. Another subject was the " Self-support and Self-propagation of the Native 
 Church." Things are greatly more advanced in this respect than many 
 have any notion of. Twenty years ago the Tinnevelly Mission was carried on 
 by sixteen European missionaries. Now it has only four Europeans, one of 
 them the bishop, and the other three engaged in educational work. The 
 pastoral work is in the hands of natives, and the native contributions 
 amount to £2500 a-year. " Our Tamil Missions," said a native C. M. 
 pastor, " have made much progress in self-rule and some advance in Church 
 extension. The native council is bona fide — the chairman, secretary, and 
 members all being natives." The C. M. S. Santhal converts build their 
 own chapels and pay more than half the stipends of the native clergy. We 
 have seen that the Gossner Mission is largely wrought by native pastors and 
 catechists ; they get half their support from the native congregations. " My 
 first mission field," said the Rev. M. Timpany of the Canadian Baptist Mission, 
 " was Nellore. At the end of six years there were between 700 and 800 com- 
 municants ; and ten village school-house chapels were completed, and twelve • 
 more were a-building. The only outside help the people got was from the 
 central church, which gave to each erection a door, a window, and five rupees." 
 " I know," said Mr. Timpany, " that Indian Christians will give out of their 
 poverty." In Ceylon, the American Board of Foreign Missions has thirteen 
 native churches, all but three of them self-supporting. Their 1000 members 
 not merely support their own ministers in a suitable manner, but they contribute 
 £70 a year for native missions. A native Ceylonese having a humble Govern- 
 ment appointment, will contribute an annual sum, at the thought of which a 
 broad-acred laird would not long ago have grown pale, and which would have 
 startled even a stiff well-to-do Seceder accustomed to put his hand in his pocket. 
 
 We shall briefly allude to the papers on Wovian^s Work in the Indian Mission- 
 field. These — all by ladies — were not the least notable. The Eurasian and 
 Foreign Female Mission agents have increased by more than a fourth, and the 
 Zenana pupils have grown from 2000 to 9000. More remarkable still, a thousand 
 more native Christian females are in the Mission-field in 1881 than in 1871. 
 Everything indicates still greater progress in the coming years. 
 
 It was said at the close of the Conference that the harvest time in India 
 is near. It may be so. Certainly the progress made is full of encourage- 
 ment. If it be the case, as is maintained, that Hinduism, instead of tottering 
 to its fall, is actively and successfully propagandist, that may only mean 
 dread of Christianity, or it may be the result of that vitalising influence 
 which Christianity communicates even to its enemies. If 300,000 of 
 the converts are in the south of India, and the great movements are not 
 in the great centres of Brahminism, this may signify that, as of old, it is 
 God's purpose, by the things which are not, to bring to nought the things 
 which are ; not that the weak are stronger than the strong, but that 
 the weak are more recipient of the mightiest of all forces which have 
 entered into human history. 
 
 J. 
 
316 OPEF COUNCIL. 
 
 [CATHOUC Pkesb^terian, April, 1883. 
 
 ©pen Council 
 
 CHURCH MUSIC QUESTION. 
 
 To the Editor of " The Catholic Presbyterian." 
 
 Sir, — In your note on Mr. Curwen's paper, " the Church Music Question," you 
 express a " readiness to receive remarks on any part of the subject." 
 
 We do not question Mr. Curwen's high authority, or the importance of most of 
 his statements ; but he overlooks the cause of " the contest," among Presbyterians, 
 about " Church music." The contest does not regard the utility of instruments, 
 but their lawfulness. " The ultimate principle " with them is not utilitarian, but 
 Biblical — the question is not so much whether instruments are helpful as whether 
 they are Scriptural in the present dispensation. 
 
 The Presbyterial "principle" is that the worship of God should be "pure." 
 It forbids " the approving of any religious worship not instituted by God," 
 though " under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any 
 other pretence whatsoever." Such being the " principle," the first question must 
 be, is instrumental help in praise "instituted by God" — is it "agreeable to His 
 will " as revealed in His Word ] 
 
 It is said " organs help to kindle heart and voice in God's praise." Some, 
 however, take a dijHferent view. It is said that "even i-eligious men feel the 
 argument about lawfulness to be out of harmony with the spirit of the times." 
 The reply is "the spirit of the times, the spirit of the world, or of the age, is the 
 spirit of the natural mind at enmity with God" — " the wisdom of the world is 
 foolishness with God " — and " because the world by wisdom knew not God." He 
 has given us a revelation of His will resting upon sheer authority. From this 
 there can be no appeal. 
 
 The Presbyterians of the second Reformation, Puritans and Covenanters, did 
 not consider " praise-worship " with the same thoroughness of care as they did 
 "the doctrine, discipline, and government" of the Church; and as instrumental 
 music had been abused by Popery and Prelacy, and is not mentioned in connec- 
 tion with New Testament worship, they laid the organ aside altogether. 
 
 We long held the traditional view of the non-lawfulness of organs in New 
 Testament worship, and therefore we sympathise with those who still hold it. 
 Many years ago, however, we were led to examine what the Word says on infant 
 Church membership, and the result of our inquiry led to a change of stand-point 
 from which to view "the Church music question." 
 
 Our position is that the Church of God is one Church, though having passed 
 through different dispensations ; that the Word of God is one book, though in two 
 volumes ; and that everything not Levitical or National in the one dispensation 
 is lawful in the other, unless the Word declare that it is abolished. 
 
 What time instruments wei-e first used in the worship of God we do not deter- 
 mine. We know that " the harp and organ " were known as instruments of 
 music long before the Flood ; though, in the brief sketch by Moses, we do not 
 read that they were then used in leading the praise-worship of God. We read in 
 Job of " the harp and the organ " as instruments of music, but we do not read that 
 they were used by him in praise-worship of God. We do, however, know that 
 instruments were used in leading the praise of God on the -wilderness side of the 
 Red Sea, when Moses and the children of Israel " sang a song" of pr4ise " to the 
 Lord ;" and " Miriam took a timbrel in her hand, and all the women went out 
 after her with timbrels . . . and answered, sing ye to the Lord for He hath 
 triumphed gloriously." God accepted this worship of His people. It was non- 
 Levitical, being prior to the call of Aaron. 
 
CHURCH MUSIC QUESTION. 317 
 
 CATHOLIC Presbyterian, April, 18S3.] 
 
 The jjraise-worship of those whom Saul met, going up to Bethel, " prophesying" 
 — praising God in song — " with the psaltery, the tabret, the pipe, and the harp," 
 was not connected with the Levitical ceremonial, but was " a service of song " 
 common to all ages of the Church. The psalmody of David was non-Levitical. 
 " The psalteries, harps, and cymbals " were for the service of song in the house 
 of the Lord — not connected with sacrifice, but praise. " They prophesied with 
 the harp " — they praised God in song with the hai'p. The New Testament says 
 nothing leading us to suppose that instruments are unlawful under the present 
 dispensation ; and as the Church is one and the Word one, the silence of the 
 New Testament does not set them aside. 
 
 Taking our stand on the principle of the oneness of the Church under all 
 dispensations, and the oneness of the "Word, though of many parts, and in two 
 volumes, we can maintain the ordinances of the Sabbath, of degrees for marriage, 
 of infant Church membership, of the tenth of substance for the treasury, of 
 magistracy, and of instrumental help in the praise-worship of God. On no other 
 principle can we fully maintain any of these ; but holding this principle we can 
 maintain them all and then accept all the instruction that Mr. Curwen gives us 
 on " the Church Music Question." 
 
 Joseph Fisher, D.D. 
 
 37 West Square, London, S.E. 
 
 Sir, — It was with much satisfaction that I read the paper of Mr. Curwen in 
 your last number. The question has many aspects ; but perhaps no more pleasing 
 one could have been chosen than that in which it has been introduced 
 to your readers. The topic to which he has specially addressed himself he 
 terms "the application of music to worship," or more shortly, " worship-music," 
 and beyond this theme he merely "touches" what may be called " debateable 
 ground." It is proper that this should be kept in view, for otherwise there 
 might have been complaint that in the discussion of this great question there 
 should be no reference to Divine revelation, or specially to that worship of which 
 praise is but the expression, and music a mere accident or circumstance. 
 
 Taking into consideration, therefore, the low platform from which the ques- 
 tion has been approached, Mr. Curwen's paper cannot be regarded otherwise than 
 as interesting and instructive. He states the case as between the Ritualist and 
 the Puritan with so much fairness and geniality, and altogether manifests so 
 much of the in\partial%nusical critic, that, save for an occasional expression of 
 his own belief, it would be difficult to make out to which side his arguments, 
 if not his sympathies, lean. For example, he scouts the idea of retaining the 
 young people of the Presbyterian Church in their communion by making the 
 "services more artistic and musical," without its being shown that "it is right 
 freely to admit art in so far as it serves the ends of worship." And, again, that 
 organs must be considered " lawful and expedient, not because their counterparts 
 were used in the Temple, but because they help to kindle heart and voice in God's 
 praise." Speaking of " the two great divergent theories of worship — the Ritual 
 and the Puritan," he says, " the Ritual appeals to the senses, the Puritan to the 
 soul." And no one at all interested in this discussion could wish for a better 
 description of the rival theories than he gives. " In the one you have the sight of 
 a gorgeous building and an altar blazing with light, the sowkc? of bewitching music, 
 the smell of incense, the touch of holy water, the taste of the wafer. In the other, in 
 its purest form, you have the senses completely ignored, the forms of worship, such 
 as they are, appealing straight to the intellect and the soul." This utterance of 
 Mr. Curwen is, in my opinion, pre-eminently instructive. It not only describes 
 the two opposite theories, but it depicts the two systems in their practical 
 operation. Undesignedly it may be, but all the more forcibly, he exhibits not 
 the nature only but the tendency of Ritualism, and he would be a prophet 
 indeed who could say lohen the excesses of the one system could be checked and 
 
318 OPEN COUNCIL. 
 
 (CATHOtic Pkesbvterian, April, 1883. 
 kept within bounds were tbe principle of the other system abandoned. " It needs 
 but a little," says Mr. Spurgeon, "to degrade the Christian into a Ritualist, and 
 still less to turn the Ritualist into a Romanist." 
 
 This leads me to speak of principles. Mr. Curwen again and again uses the 
 word, either in the singular or the plural number. He speaks of the desirable- 
 ness of " striving to discover the ultimate principles on which the application of 
 music to worship rests," of " advocating the introduction of art," in so far as 
 it serves the ends of worship, " upon the distinct basis of principle." And, 
 again, " the ultimate principle on which the use of music in worship rests 
 seems ... to be in the highest sense utilitarian." On reading this conclusion, 
 we bad to remind ourselves of the precise topic which Mr. Curwen under- 
 took to discuss ; but, in its wider issues, the question must be discussed with 
 respect primarily to the revealed will of God, in the interpretation of which 
 there ought to be no such thing as a *' utilitarian principle." " God," says 
 Calvin, " in vindicating His own right, first proclaims that He is a jealous God, 
 and will be a stern avenger if He is confounded with any false god ; and there- 
 after defines what due worship is, in order that the human race may be kept in 
 obedience." And regarding the necessity for the revelation of God's will, Isaac 
 Taylor remarks — " It is just the relation of the infinite to the finite that must be 
 expected to form the peculiar topics of Divine revelation." The discussion 
 therefore should embrace such points as these — the nature of Divine worship ; 
 the parts or divisions of it ; the Divine appointment of those parts, and the 
 changes therein sanctioned in the Scriptures ; more especially the subject of 
 Divine praise, its nature, the medium of it, and the efiect upon that medium 
 consequent on the change of dispensation. 
 
 Mr. Curwen has "touched" some of this " higher ground," and I would use 
 the space yet available to me in discussing one or two of the points to which he 
 refers. A large question is opened up by an expression he uses more than once, 
 " the ends of worship." He gives no distinct statement as to what he considers 
 these " ends " to be, but we may gather this, inferentially at least, from some of 
 his expressions. He says, for instance, that the use of instruments may " help 
 to kindle heart and voice in God's praise." Also that music in worship, to be 
 right and useful, " must quicken and deepen religious feeling, and aid in its expres- 
 sion ; " further, that " any style of music, vocal or instrumental, which tends to 
 lull us into the passive enjoyment of sweet sounds, is dangerous to worship." 
 " Music," he adds, " must help worship, and indeed can belp it, but music must 
 never be a substitute for worship." The same point is touched in a reference he 
 makes to the effect of bad congregational singing. " Who has not felt his spirit 
 checked," doubtless in the "higher flights" of the soul, of which he had 
 previously spoken, "and chilled 'when, after an inspiring sermon, the praise has 
 fallen flat and coldly upon his ears ? " And in another connection he says, " Let 
 us remember that culture in music, divorced from the devotional spirit, is not only 
 a mockery, but a failure." 
 
 From all this, an idea may be formed of what Mr. Curwen means by "the ends of 
 worship," presuming that he had chiefly in view that part of it which is called praise. 
 It were well, however, that in discussing the question in hand, there should be 
 no dubiety in this respect. Theologians, I find, in treating of praise, always 
 regard it as a part of prayer ; partaking more or less of adoration, confession (in 
 the sense of acknowledging God's dealings both in providence and in. grace), and 
 thanksgiving. Reference is made to the Psalms and other Scripture tributes of 
 praise as combining all these elements. This aspect of praise should throw no 
 little light upon the discussion of the present question. If praise be a part of 
 prayer in its wider sense, then whatever may be predicated of the one exercise, in 
 its one phase, may be predicated of the other. We attach to the exercise of 
 prayer, holy awe or reverence, humility, devotion, a consciousness of dealing with 
 Him who is expressly designated the hearer of prayer, and into whose presence 
 we have immediate access through the mediation of Christ, and in praying we are 
 
CHURCH MUSIC QUESTION. 319 
 
 Catholic Presbyterian, April, 1883.] 
 taught and helped by the Holy Spirit. It is no begging of the question, therefore, 
 to assert that until praise can be shown to differ essentially from prayer, no greater 
 freedom can be allowed in I'egard to the exercise of the one duty than of the 
 other. Prayer is a transaction of the soul with God ; so is praise. Prayer must 
 be exercised under the influence of the Holy Spirit ; so ought praise. Prayer is 
 accepted only in and through the Great Mediator, so is praise. As, in prayer, 
 there can be no worshipping of God through the medium of images and pictures ; 
 so in praise, no other medium is admissible than that of "heart and voice." 
 
 Mr. Curwen refers again and again to " the influence of the senses," a point 
 intimately connected with that just noticed. Here, too, there is a lack of 
 precision. Speaking of the Ritualist and the Puritan forms of worship, he describes 
 the one as ai)pealing to "the senses," and the other to " the soul." Both forms 
 it seems are defective, but defective only because each is extreme ; for " the 
 senses must at least be conciliated, if the soul is to be set free for higher flights." 
 Of good congregational singing he says, " It is like the sound of many waters, the 
 hum that rises from a busy town, the strange murmur of the forest, perhaps but 
 half musical, yet touching our hearts with a feeling that we cannot express but 
 cannot resist." There is much more to the same effect — all, or mostly all, of the 
 subjective kind. We miss any reference, or have but slight reference, to the 
 objective aspect of praise worship. In other words, while we have a good deal 
 said about the senses and the sensuous, we miss any direct allusion to that faith 
 " without which it is impossible to please God." This is surely an oversight, even 
 in discussing the minor point of " music-worship." Some more direct reference 
 might have been made to this indispensable accompaniment of all acceptable 
 worship — faith. Now, with our apprehension of what faith in such a connection 
 is, we cannot conceive how the soul can be " set free for higher flights " — which we 
 take to mean for communion with God, the gi'eat object of all true worship — " by 
 the senses being conciliated." This result we believe to be produced by the 
 exercise of faith ; but here it is ascribed to the effect of music operating upon the 
 senses — faith giving place to sense instead of triumphing over it. The music that 
 effects this important result must be of the instrumental kind ; for we are told 
 that "the discovery" has been made "during the last thirty years." In 
 conti-ast to this teaching, let us listen to the testimony of the Puritan Owen. " It 
 is admitted that the exercise of saving faith — of that faith which is the fruit of 
 the Spirit, and produces regeneration — is attended by feelings appropriate to its 
 object ; but this is to be referred to the nature of the object. If we believe a 
 good report, the effect is joy ; the perception of beauty produces delight, — of moral 
 excellence, a glow of approbation ; of spii-itual things, in many cases a joy 
 unspeakable and full of glory." It seems to have been John Owen's opinion that 
 it is the exercise of faith that sets " the soul free for higher flights." But he did 
 not ignore the senses. In another place he says, " the truths of revelation, 
 though not the ground of our faith, do powerfully and rightly affect our feelings." 
 We had marked off for quotation some passages in Canon Liddon's Elements of 
 Religion, in which the relations of faith to feeling, and generally the emotional 
 in religion, are discussed ; but we can only refer to the volume. 
 
 Another point touched by Mr. Curwen, and whicli more immediately concerns 
 his special topic, is that of "freely admitting art" into public worship; or, as he 
 otherwise puts it, "satisfying our aesthetic sense." This we take to refer to the 
 highest development of vocal music by the aid of instrumental accompaniments. 
 Addressing the opponents of organs in churches, he says, "A negative attitude is 
 not enough. You must have a positive policy, and show people that you can 
 produce an unaccompanied service which satisfies the ear and the devotional 
 feeling richly and deeply, fal'ing like the echoes of a purer worship upon the 
 weary and distracted spii'it." This is the well-expressed utterance of a musical 
 critic, but certainly the criticism of music apart from worship ; and it induces the 
 query, if it is not a mistake and a misnomer to speak thus of worship-music % In 
 so far as Divine worship is concerned, the exercise referred to is praise — a word 
 
320 OPEN COUNCIL. 
 
 [Cathouc Presbyterux, April, 188S. 
 which Mr. Curwen seldom uses, always preferring that of " music." Now, it need 
 scarcely be remarked that the terms are by no means synonymous. Praise, like 
 prayer, may be " uttered or unexpressed," and, in the light of revelation, we may 
 conclude that music, apart from the heart-worship, cannot be acceptable to God, 
 however artistically offered. And this brings us face to face with the question as 
 to whether the high ideal in church music set before us here is practically attain- 
 able ; and if attainable, is it desirable ] It may be taken for granted, that upon 
 every Christian congregation rests the obligation to praise the Lord " skilfully." 
 But considering the component and ever-varying parts of an ordinary congrega- 
 tion — consisting of young and old, cultured and uncultured, those who are joyful 
 and others who are sad — can more be expected than that an honest and persistent 
 effort be made to harmonise generally, voices and expressed emotions so varied % 
 This, we think, is all that in the light of revelation seems to be obligatory. Not 
 only so, but we think that the introduction of so-called "art" in public worship 
 is not only unwarranted by Scripture, but likely, so far from aiding devotion, 
 seriously to interfere with it. "The worship of God," says Owen, "is, or ought 
 to be, the same at all times, in all places and amongst all people, in all nations ; 
 and the order of it is fixed and determined in all particulars that belong to it." 
 He adds, " And let not man pretend the contrary until he can give an instance 
 of any such defect in the institutions of Christ, as that the worship of God can- 
 not be carried on without an addition of something of their own for the supply 
 thereof." 
 
 Mr. Curwen's taste, however, is discriminating, and he gives us clearly to 
 understand that the improvement of congregational singing is what he mainly 
 seeks. His testimony to the very general desire for vocal praise throughout the 
 country is of great importance. " That the singing should be congregational," he 
 says, " is universally conceded. Wherever I speak on this subject, in England 
 or elsewhere, among Churchmen or Nonconformists, I find a hearty and even 
 enthusiastic assent to my assertion that in Divine worship the people ought them- 
 selves to sing." Choirs and organs he considers but as means to an end ; that 
 end being the best possible congregational singing. Good congregational singing 
 he regards as far more likely to attract people to church than " musical perform- 
 ances." But it seems congregational singing is "difficult to get, and almost as 
 difficult to keep when got," and so far from the organ necessarily improving the 
 singing, he owns that it has often the opposite effect, and that the opposition of 
 many to the introduction of the organ is quite reasonable, as they would rather 
 bear the ills they have than fly to others that they know not of ! This is a frank 
 and valuable testimony. Mr. Curwen permits us to look behind the scenes, and 
 we acknowledge to have got from him a clearer idea than we had before, of the 
 immense labour required in order that " a full and harmonious offering of praise 
 be maintained." 
 
 The effect of Mr. Curwen's paper upon my own mind has been to confirm my 
 preference for unaided, that is unaccompanied, congregational singing. I could 
 not but appreciate his keen and intelligent interest in the subject he discusses, 
 and my sympathies go with him in a desire for increased and sustained improve- 
 ment in the singing. But I stop far short of his ideal of excellence. As I have 
 said, I believe it to be neither desirable nor attainable ; and not desirable because 
 of the injurious influence it would have on congregational devotion. Had he 
 given more prominence to the theology of the question, I am convinced he would 
 have done more justice to it. There are some who would make us believe that 
 " the Church music question " is beyond discussion — that it is foreclosed. Mr. 
 Curwen has come too much into contact with church life to share this conceit. 
 He writes as one who knows that it is still a living, and with very many, a most 
 important question, though, as we have seen, he regards the discussion not so 
 much as it affects "worship-praise" as "worship-music." 
 
 M. S. Tait. 
 
 Glasgow.