CHOOSING A HYMNBOOK.

Otago Witness, Issue 3005, 18 October 1911, Page 5

CHOOSING A HYMNBOOK.

DISCUSSION IN PRESBYTERY. A VARIETY OF OPINIONS. A remit from the General Assembly asking the opinion of the Presbytery as to the most suitable book of praise for public worship gave' rise to considerable discussion in the Dunedin Presbyterv on the 3rd. The. Clerk of Presbytery (the Rev. A. M. Finlayson) stated that he had received some returns from sessions on this subject. These showed a division of opinion, some preferring the new Church Praise and some the Hymnary. The Rev. W. Gray Dixon moved—- " Whereas "the Church Hymnary is the book of praise compiled by a committee very fully representative. of the Mother Church in. Scotland, with a view to its adoption as the: Presbyterian hymn book of the Empire; whereas it has been adopted by the Church of Scotland, the United Free Church of Scotland, the Presbyterian Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church of Australia, and the Presbyterian Church of South Africa, and has been used extensively in the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand; whereas in keeping with its origin.it conserves the best traditions of our Church in maintaining the metrical Psalms intact and according them the unique place which is their due, and in likewise maintaining the Paraphrases; and whereas it has been more fully adapted to the taste of those accustomed to the old Church Praise by the addition of the supplement compiled by a oommititoei of the Pesbytenan Church of Australia; this Presbytery humbly request the venerable the General Assembly to declare the Church Hymnary to be the authorised book of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand." He said he thought Mi at if the history of the Church Hymnary was better understood there would not be the difference of opinion that now existed. The Hymnary had been adopted by all these great Presbyterian Churches, and had been approved by their own Assernblv. The Presbyterian Church of England was so enamoured of its own book, the Church Praise, that it refused to fall in with the other branches of the Presbyterian Church. Even if the new Church Praise were superior to the Hymnary, he would still support' the Hymnary, for the other was the production of only one small church, and it was, compiled : in somewhat of a spirit of dissent. . In standing by the Hymnary they were in the main stream of normal development. The two books were on precisely the same level of excellence; but there were faults which he considered absolutely blighted the new Church Praise. It had not the complete metrical psalter, and it had not the paraphrases. there was another flaw so fatal that he would absolutely ban the book. It numbered the Psalms consecu-

tively'with the hymns, thus taking away the unique character of the Psalms and ' making them merely a variety of hymn. If he wanted the Hundreth Psalm he had to: give out hymn 670, and he refused to. do that. This book was an English product, and owing to the influence of English Puritanism their Scottish ways had frequently been interfered with. The Rev. R. Fairmaid seconded the motion. The Rev. D. Dufcton said that his session was in favour "of the Hymnary. It was a mistake to lay such tremendous emphasis on the Scottish aspect of Presbyterianism. He did not think the tendency in England was towards Puritanism. It might be bettor if it was. The Rev. J. Aitken moved that the Presbytery request the Assembly to authorise both the New Church Praise and the Church Hymnary. It was absolute nonsense in a country like this where a considerable proportion of the people were New Zealand-born to dwell upon Scottish sentiment and prejudice so strongly as sias been done. The questions about the ' numbering of the Psalms and . the excision of Psalms seemed to him mere superfluities arid trivialities. Ho had two reasons for advocating that the Church Praise be recognised. The Hymnary was now getting out of date and the time waa coming when it would have to be revised and reissued.' His main reason was that both books wero already in the field and were being used. The Assembly had better just recognise that fact. The Rev. J. Erwin said he wished to stand by the principle adopted by the PTesbytery that the two books should be befor© the Church still and a choice

allowed. His preference was for the Hymnary, but he did not have strong reasons 'against the Church Praise. To [allow a choice would, he believed, be best for the Church. His idea of absolute ! unity was a moire figment. He seconded 1 Mr Aitken's amendment.. He agreed with Mr Dixon in his remarks about the compilation of the new Church Praise, but he was apart from him in what he said about the Psalms. It was a conviction of his that the inspiration of certain classic hymns was far greater than that of a number of . Ps.alms. The Rev. A. Whyte said he had been a member of the committee which recomi mended the giving of permission! to use j both books, and he was not prepared to depart from that attitude. He did not .think Mr Dixon's motion, however, barred permission being given to use the Church Praise. He 'spoke in high praise of the authoritative abbreviation of the Church Hymnary, which, he said, contained the 200 finest hymns ins the world. He suggested that the > motion express approval ; of the Hymnary, but allow also the use of the Church Praise. • ' . _ The Rev. A. Don said he was inclined J to move a further amendment asking the '" Assembly to approve of the Church Praise, I which he considered superior to the Hymnary. The Rev. J. Kilpatrick asked what was the position of congregations still using i the odd Church Praise and finding it quite adequate .to their needs. He would support the continuation of the Hymnary if any change was to be made. Dr Nicholson said the regard for the Psalms was not specially Scotch, and all credit was due to the Anglican Church for retaining the whole of them in its service. He suggested that Mr Dixon add such a clause as " While not forbidding the .Church Praise" to leave a kind of safety valve. He was thoroughly in favour of the Hymnary, especially with the Australian supplement. The Rev. J. Chisholm said there were differences of opinion which would undoubtedly continue among the congregations, aiiidi it would be disastrous to bring Assembly authority into conflict with corri gregational liberty _ j Mr Dixon declining to make the alterai tion suggested, Dr Nicholson. moved as a further amendment Mr Dixon's motion with the addition of a clause giving liberty to use the old or the now Church Praise, but declaring the Church Hymnary to be i the authorised book of praise. The Rev. D. Dufcton drew attention to ! the grave dangers arising from the Assembly , committing itself to decisions which con- \ gregationa would not loyally support. On the motion being put the voting was ' as follows: Mr Dixon's motion, 4; for Mr Aitken's, 15; for Dr Nicholson's, 6. Mr Aitken's motion was put, and carried i on the voices, Mr Dixon recording his disI gent. The Presbytery therefore" recommends the Assembly to authorise both the new t Church Praise and the Church Hymnary.