Of the poems, 39 66 in suggestive thought. we would particularize "Man and the Bird," "The Hymn at Evening,' 'Modulations,' Truth,' “Winter,” and "Life," as full of fine feeling, quiet quaint thought, and pastoral beauty. We select, however, some stanzas from the "Hymn of Blessing," at the close of the volume, as affording a fine glimpse into the devotional as well as the poetical spirit of Theophilus : Be thou, Lord, by the cities blest, and our work, and our history, all have We had marked out other passages for quotation, but these must, meantime, serve as specimens of the kind and quality of the prose portion of the volume. Nature," "Meditation," "Morning Thoughts," "Meditative Hints concerning Pleasure and Sadness," "The Human Countenance," and a brief sermon on the text "Upon the top of the pillars was lily-work"-may also be noted as peculiarly interesting, and rich Full-peopled cities distant are, 'Thine ancient water-empire wide; Lift to the light, in darkness hide. The embellished earth, complete and fair ; Thy works appear in every clime. The hoary-headed winter old- Her seamless robe the heaven pure: Which he may darken or efface, THE ORGAN IN THE CHURCH. WE have read with unfeigned satisfaction of a movement in Glasgow towards the introduction of the organ into the house and service of God. We hail it as a movement in the right direction, and in harmony with the revived taste for architecture in our places of worship. It can scarcely be called in question that Protestants had learned to look at tasteful edifices and instrumental music as concomitants of popery, and that in the endeavour to avoid all appearance of sympathy and connection with "the Man of Sin," they reared houses like barns, and discarded all taste and science in the conducting of their psalmody. We now witness a praiseworthy endeavour to make the house of God as comfortable as our ordinary dwellings, so that in our solemn assemblings penance may find no place, and that from due attention to physical comfort we may celebrate our worship without distraction. We are firmly persuaded, that the judicious management of an organ would awaken and call forth sympathies which lie unreached and unmoved under our present system; and that so long as it is shut out from the service of the sanctuary, our psalmody will not exert that attractive and commanding influence which its peerless importance demands. It is not meanwhile our intention to argue for the use of instrumental aids in our songs of devotion. To that we pledge ourselves, should some creditable opponent stand forth and assign reasons which will admit of being argued against. So far as we can judge at present, we can think of nothing but purism or prejudice as rising to oppose the delightful and needed change. But how stands the case with the courts of the church? Will they tolerate this innovation upon stereotyped usages? We are inclined to question their right of interference in the case before us. Were a faction in a large congregation to originate a movement of this kind, and thereby sow the seeds of confusion and disorganization, we would at once recognize the province and obligations of Session, Presbytery, and Synod to interfere, and remove the occasion and cause of the disturbance. But there is no apprehension of evil in the case in question. A few leal-hearted and liberal members of our church purpose raising a chapel at Sandyford, Glasgow, to meet the wants of the population which is crowding to the west of the city, and they have agreed to proceed with said erection, upon the understanding that they shall be allowed the use of the organ in their worship. We call attention to the fact that there is a perfect oneness of sentiment among these friends, and therefore, so far as they are concerned, dissension is not to be dreaded. On completing their edifice, and being formed into a church, there is just as little room for painful apprehensions, for no private member of our Synod is compelled to join himself to that society, and no minister is under obligation to accept of a call to the pastorate, if the tones of that organ should be regarded by him as hideous, popish, or ungodly. But would not the toleration of an organ at Sandyford church be disrelished by the Synod generally, and possibly be the cause of disturbance in societies which are now enjoying peace? We confess to entire inability to discover any necessary connection betwixt Sandyford, and Shamrock Street, or Orkney. We had thought that each congregation was left to conduct its own affairs, and that all that our "standards" guarded was purity of doctrine and discipline. We would fain 'e pointed to any chapter in the Confession, or clause in the Catechisms, which denounces or even refers to instrumental music in the service of the sanctuary. Why is the exercise of liberty in one society to furnish ground of offence to another society, which has no right to pry into the internal workings of a neighbour's dwelling? Must we really suppose that there is, or can be perfect uniformity in our church, or in any church? Is it not better to have unity in essentials, the true badge of Protestantism, rather than uniformity in externals, the boast of the Papacy? Is not the platform of our united church broad enough to admit of a difference in opinion and practice upon a matter which cannot by possibility obstruct the salvation of sinners or the edification of the godly? With our views of the noble purposes to which this noble instrument might be turned, we could speak advisedly of the eleva tion of religious feeling, and the soothing influences of such music, but for reasons already advanced we meanwhile forbear. Look at the mutual forbearance so largely and Christianly exercised in our church upon matters not essential to salvation. There are a few ministers and people who cannot travel beyond the inspired psalms in their worship, who cannot tolerate human compositions in their service of song, and would that their consistency were perfect, so as to dismiss the metrical version, and revert to the Hebrew poetry, for we are convinced that David's harp would be required to evoke the melody of the Hebrew muse. There are some churches who sing the paraphrases adopted by the General Assembly, but deny admission to the hymn-book authorized and issued by our own Synod. The vast majority of our churches sing psalms, paraphrases, and hymns; and a few in England sing Isaac Watt's collection. Look into our hymn book, and especially at its doxologies, and you will find all styles of metre, requiring every variety of tune. Some in that list are not metrical, in the ordinary acceptation of that term, and must be chaunted. Can all our churches bear chaunting? Would not some declare that the house of God was converted into a theatre or opera? But why do these doxologies appear in our hymn-book, unless they are to be used; why has the Synod set upon them its imprimatur, unless they are viewed as not only permissible, but as adding to the variety and richness of our praise? Some churches cannot even yet hear a repeating tune; some have adopted the music of some popular songs; and others sing doxologies, with every variety of hallelujah and amen. Some churches have a bona fide precentor, who acts the part of solo conductor; other churches have swept away the time-honoured desk, and placed the shadow of a man in the midst of a band who have superseded or usurped the precentor's office. In all these churches, we presume, that a pitchfork is used, and being neither flesh nor blood but base metal, why is this musical instrument tolerated? Why is the precentor or band allowed a benefit which is withheld from the body of the people? Is there more sin, or more unseemliness in an organ guiding the mass of worshippers throughout the tune, than in a pitchfork putting the precentor or band in possession of the key-note? We have surely, in reference to our psalmody, made out a fcase of existing variations, and yet of substantial and fraternal harmony. We have quite as much variety of opinion about non-essential dogmas, as of conduct about nonessential acts. The same freedom is more or less enjoyed by every branch of the Protestant Church. If we must have a rigid, ice-bound uniformity, we must seek for it within the pale of the papacy, whose unity of action is as commendable and as thoroughly mechanical as is that of the steam-engine. But what right have the Sandyford friends to disturb the peace and harmony of the churches? It is with the view of effecting better harmony in their own circle, that they contemplate the introduction of the organ, and if the result be according to their desires and convictions, this will be the issue, that instead of being a cause of contention, it will thenceforth prove the occasion of emulation, if not of envy. As for the peace of other churches being invaded by an organ in Sandyford Church, upon what principle, mechanical, mental, or moral, can this result be dreaded? An organ must indeed be a powerful instrument, if, whilst sounded in Glasgow, it strikes an influence into the far north, and wakes up feelings of animosity in the churches of those regions. Sympathy must surely have run to seed, from lack of culture, when it appears in such an emergency, and sighs over the deed of an individual congregation. Any display of such sympathy would argue a want of carefulness about the internal affairs of their own society; for, were they only to remain at home, instead of gadding abroad to inspect and supervise the domestic arrangement of their neighbours, they would find abundant scope for all their sympathies and activities. It is indeed most sad and pitiful when the peace of one dwelling is invaded by the isolated and independent action of a house in the neighbourhood or country. We have been conjuring up possible objections, and yet we feel as if we had been dealing with superficial and long exploded notions. Should objectors of these classes appear, we would gladly make a study of them as if they had just started from the sleep of a century, yet would calmly and kindly ask them concerning the reasonableness of what we are inclined to style mere crotchets. Well, good friends, suppose that during your autumnal recess you were to enter a Congregational or Methodist Chapel in the south, and that the boom of the organ should take the place of your, Scotch pitchfork, and strike out the key note, would you stuff your fingers into your ears, lest another instrumental note should fall upon your hallowed tympanum, and haste from the edifice lest you should be overtaken by some judgment, for countenancing the ungodly organ? Or, suppose that you had engaged to conduct the service of that day, would the sounds of the wicked and Popish instrument drive you from the pulpit, through the vestry, and right into the street, with barely time to gather up your ordinary habiliments? In either case, would you not be soothed and elevated by that music-would you not worship under a deeper solemnity of spirit? Would you not preach under a stronger than wonted impulse? We are convinced, from observation and personal feeling, that such would, without fail, be your experience, if you are blessed with an ear for music, or a heart for divine song. But supposing that you have not travelled so far even as into England, and this we would almost infer from your peculiar narrowness of mind, you may possibly have been in the Glasgow City Hall, or in the Edinburgh Music Hall, when the organist guided the psalm. Did you leave the house forthwith, or did you remain; and what were your feelings? It is quite true that the United Church was not there, but you, an objector, whether clerical or lay, were there, and if you actually engaged in that worship, with what show. of consistency can you object to the Sandyford people having the same liberty? You surely cannot speak of the difference betwixt a week-day and the Sabbath, for there is a higher question which settles that consideration; you were engaged in the worship of God, and in that view, all days are alike. Take yet another supposition; for we are most anxious either to convince or be convinced, either to command your assent or be claimed as your convert. Suppose that the writer was a minister of the United Church, and you a brother engaged in communion service, and that he had an organ and used it in your presence at family worship, and in a truly reverent spirit,—would you join in that service, or would you remonstrate and protest against the impious innovation? and after vainly expending your eloquence for his recovery to propriety, would you carry the case from court to court, in the hope of reclaiming your grievously offending brother? To be consistent, you must take every step that we have indicated, and whilst you thus acted, we would breathe the prayer that a gracious God would forgive your want of charity, and bring you to a frame of mind that would not unchurch many of the noblest spirits in our land. But allowing that you saw neither sin nor danger, but were sensible to an agreeable and healthful stimulus, pray, what is the difference in the light of Scripture and common sense betwixt the cases supposed? In both spheres worship is observed, and the church in the writer's house is as truly a church, and as much under the inspection of the Superior Courts, where sin is involved, as Sandyford with its public service. If it is sinful in the one case, it is so in the other; if it is expedient in the one case, it is equally so in the other. We must give up the old Jesuitical nostrum, "Sin and save appearances." So much for individual responsibility to take action, but shall the presbytery and synod wink at the innovation, and permit the quiet, or as it may be called, surreptitious introduction of the organ. The Sandyford nucleus have been sufficiently bold and honest in the avowal of their intentions, so that they are most fully entitled to the credit of open and honourable dealings. They have furnished time and space for objections crowding in from the extremities of the synod, and they have done so in the immediate prospect of a meeting of the Supreme Court, when the strong arm of power may demolish, by one fell stroke, their beautiful fabric. We cling to the belief that there is judgment in the Synod, sufficient to say that they have nothing whatever to do with the proceedings of an individual church, so long as the essentials of worship are preserved in all their entirety. The age of tyranny is dead. The time for haughty dictation has passed. Liberty is not libertinism, and as the philosophy upon which one creed is based teaches us, the fullest individual liberty, is perfectly compatible with the severest supreme necessity. Besides, there is no law, and therefore there cannot be trangression. The Sovereign has no right to enter a man's private dwelling, and insist upon the abandonment of practices which not only have no tendency to rebellion, but are highly favourable to loyalty. So is it with the Synod. So long as a church is sound in the faith, observant of Presbyterian order, and careful of all the essential parts of worship, the Synod has no right to scrutinize and legislate upon inferior and conventional arrangements, which have no bearing upon the general church. Should offences and divisions arise, the objectors to the exercise of liberty are the disturbers of the peace. Should some sanguine temperaments urge and secure the adoption of measures to fetter such healthful independence, we will vaunt no more of the broad and liberal canopy of the United church, and call upon them to show their consistency by securing uniformity in belief and practice on non-essential matters; to expunge the phrase Christian forbearance from our ecclesiastical vocabulary, and invest our supreme courts with the air and arrogance of the Popedom, and let them judge and ordain in the most trifling matters, so that the people may ignore the right of private judgment, and meekly bow and say Amen. To bury beyond the possibility of a resurrection all such movements, the Synod must issue an edict against the employment of organs in divine service, public, social, or private, and cease to fraternize with churches who employ the ungodly instruments, or send forth brotherly epistles teeming with counsel and admonition. To be consistent, the pitchfork must also be disallowed, and the conductors of the service must be left to the chance of striking the key-note; but the medley is unavoidable, and must be resorted to for the sake of genuine consistency. If it is bad to follow an instrumental guide, though itself is guided by a rational and religious man, it is surely bad to take even the key-note from a piece of metal, for the key-note is the origin of all the mischief. We have not entered upon the scrip tural aspect and historical claims of this question; for we regard this meanwhile as a work of supererogation. Should any honest objector produce against our view reasons which do not carry their own refutation, we promise to render him all requisite aid in effecting the overthrow of what he may dignify by the name of arguments. CONGREGATIONAL TITLE-DEEDS. MR. EDITOR,-In looking into the minutes of Synod for 1853, I met with an entry on Congregational Title-deeds to the following effect:-"That during the year the committee had prepared general directions for the guidance of congregations, in regard to title deeds and the election of trustees, which had |