A SERIES OF ARTICLES.

BY REV. THOMAS SMYTH, D. D., Pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church, Charleston, S. C.

Published in the Charleston Observer.

29-VOL. VI.

THE QUESTION OF PSALMODY.

No. I.

MR. EDITOR,—I was led to notice the subject of Psalmody previous to our last Synodical Assembly, in order to bring the subject before that body, in accordance wth the wishes of our brethren of the Associate Reformed Synod. A writer under the signature of "W. F." understood to be the Rev. Mr. Flanniken, having inserted a communication on the subject, I was then led to propose that our Seceding brethren either by a published discourse or through your paper, should present to us the grounds of their faith in this matter. We have no doubt as to the liberty, expediency, and propriety of singing proper and scriptural Hymns. They affirm that in so doing, we are wrong, and that the Psalms of David are the only ones which it is lawful to use in the worship of God. I therefore requested Mr. F. to give some proofs for this position, when if we could not give our answer for the reason of our conduct, we would acknowledge the truth of theirs. To this opening for a temperate and calm discussion, Mr. F. replied by declining to prove any thing in the premises, and by callng upon me to shew reason to a very small body of Christians, for the course pursued by ninety-nine hundredths of the whole Christian world, in every age.

Since that time, I have remained silent, and why! Because, as you Mr. Editor well know, the negotiation of the Synod on this subject was on hand, and it was thought inexpedient to arouse any controversial feeling on the subject, until the Synod had taken action upon the question. You, therefore, undertook to close your columns to any present controversy, and in your decision, I fully acquiesced, however awkwardly I might appear.

And why do I now break that silence? To this I answer. 1. The Synod has acted upon the subject. Its committee have also held conference. Now, our views in the case, are very partially known and entirely misconceived, and it is therefore, I believe, expedient publicly to notice the subject.

2. It is now a time to speak, because our silence is altogether misinterpreted to the injury of our cause, and to the destruction of any hopes of compromise or union. This will be evident from the fact, that in a letter to the chairman of our Synodical Committee, Mr. F. actually adduces this silence, and his own retreat, as a proof that our system is indefensible and that we can say nothing in its support.

"One of the Ministers of Charleston," he says, "came out in the Observer and pledged himself to give a reason for his hymning and singing, and then when asked to do so, he ingloriously retreated and in jockey phrase, 'backed out.' Now, the interpretation which we put on such conduct is, that "Charlestoniensis" could not give any scriptural authority for this part of his practice."

Was ever man so wise in his own conceit! Did he not himself decline, when kindly asked to do so, to give any reason of his custom and for manacling the free born church of Christ with the fetters of Judaism? And what right had he to call on us for reasons, until he had given some ground for impugning our course? Did not Mr. F. know that his brethren glory in being able to establish the exclusive authority of the Psalms of David? This is attempted in every defense I have seen. And in a conversation with the Chairman of the Secession Committee he fully acknowledged that I had a right to demand this proof, and that they certainly were bound to give it. Mr. F. therefore, had small grounds for triumph when he left the whole field and declined the combat. His victory is like some of the late Indian triumphs, where some scattered foes were seen at a distance, and the troops gallantly maintained their posts without a motion or a shot.

3. But thirdly, I have lately received, I suppose from the author, a discourse in defense of the opposite system, by the Rev. W. R. Hemphill, delivered before the Secession Synod and at Bethel Church, Laurens district. This is sent to me as "Charlestoniensis," and of course as a challenge to reply. I have also received one other copy of the same sermon, with an earnest request that I would review it in your columns.

These, then, are my reasons first for remaining silent so long, and for now breaking that silence.

With your leave, therefore, I will proceed in my next, to notice the arguments presented in this discourse, in which the author at once takes up the ground which Mr. F. abandoned, and acknowledges as their duty, what Mr. F. so "ingloriously" disavowed. CHARLESTONIENSIS.

No. II.

THE QUESTION AT ISSUE.

In order to understand the subject matter which divides the Presbyterians of the Secession Church from the great body of the Presbyterian Church, we must clearly ascertain the real question at issue. Our subsequent discussion will