they should be furnished with the very best material that our language affords. And where are we to look for more substantial matter to work up, than that contained in the volumes which your Board are publishing? Believe me, yours, very sincerely,

Oxford, Feb. 15th, 1844. W. S. ROGERS. To afford the reader some idea of the importance of the field open. ing up before our Board, and the prospects of doing good presented in it, allow me to state a few facts in relation to some of the mission stations as affording an index to the remaining ones.

The Scotch Mission, at Calcutta, was established before the recent secession from the Scotch Establishment. The missionaries, 5 in number, have all declared in favor of the Free Church and are now dependent upon it for support. They have a College, with about 1000 pupils, in which instruction is given in all the branches usually taught in European Institutions. Two of the natives, educated at this College, have been ordained to the ministry. Others are prosecuting their preparatory studies. As this mission has to be supported by the Free Church alone, and as her burdens are now very heavy in sustaining her home operations, donations of books for the use of this mission would be very useful as weil as acceptable.

General Assembly's Board of Missions in India, is composed of six stations, superintended by eighteen missionaries. They have four English Schools with upwards of 200 male pupils, and four Orphan Schools with the same number of pupils, male and female. The presbytery sent out to India by the Reformed Presbyterian church are connected with this mission.

The publications of our Board have the entire approbation of the Old School Presbyterians, and any donations for either the Scotch Mission or their own, can be safely and faithfully transmitted through the Assembly's Board of Foreign Missions.

The American Board have many missionaries in the field, who, we have no doubt, would consider it a great favor to receive the publications of our Board.

In calling attention to this subject, it is designed to bring two objects particularly before the public. First, the importance of supplying young men studying for the ministry, at the mission stations in heathen lands, with the same works which we place in the hands of our own students and children at home, and thus to secure uniformity in religious sentiment on both sides of the globe. Second, to point out to benevolent men a mode in which they may efficiently aid our Board in their important, but expensive undertaking.

Any one disposed to aid in this benevolent work can gain all the information he may desire by addressing REV. HUGH M'MILLAN, the Secretary of the Board, at Xenia, Green Co. Ohio, or myself at Oxford, Ohio. DAVID CHRIISTY, Agt. of Board.

[From the Charleston Observer.]

LETTER I.

PSALMODY-THE QUESTION.

My Christian Friends,-My opponent, "Charlestoniensis," has taken to himself a very long, out-of-the-way name. As there will be occasion often to use this name, I will abridge it down simply to that of Mr. C., meaning, of course, no disrespect; it is done for the sake of convenience.

In Mr. C's No. 1. there is not much that demands my attention, though its contents may elicit some remarks from Mr. W. F., should the brother think them entitled to his consideration. From a remark at the commencement of this No. 1, Mr. it appears, had attempted

F.,

to throw the burden of proof on the subject in dispute on Mr. C., which he, Mr. C. thinks was demanding quite too much. What! shall the representative of the "ninety-nine hundredths of the whole Chsistian world, in every age," be called upon to account to a very small body of Christians for the course which this great majority are said to have pursued in the case in question? The expression conveys the idea that truth and right must be with the majority; or, at least, that the majority are not to be called on to "define their position," or prove the correctness of their principles and practices first, it is enough for them to act on the defensive! It was not so in the days of Elijah. That distinguished Prophet demands of the majority to establish the correctness of their conduct and opinions first, and then he would advance proof in attestation that God, and truth, and right, were with him. They might have responded, What! shall 450 Prophets, with Ahab and Jezebel, and all Israel at their backs, account to one man for their opinions and practices?

Luther. at the commencement of the Reformation, was almost alone, and the truth was with him, and not with the "ninety-nine hundredths," who, in Psalmody, and in every thing élse, had depart ed from the living God.

Mr. C. received two copies of my Discourse, one of which he supposes, was from the author, and was sent as a challenge to a reply. A mistake, however; I sent it not. My friend wishes to make the impression that he is the challenged party, and that I am the challenger and agitator of this subject; and hence, in his concluding note of December 10, he says, "I shall listen to the teachings of one who has thought it necessary to agitate this subject, and to challenge and invite discussion." No great crime if I had invited discussion, but I think the invitation comes from another quarter. If I am not mistaken, my friend called for the Discourse several months before its publication, in a communication published in the Observer more than a year ago. If this be so, then he it is "who has thought it necessary to agitate this subject, and to challenge and invite discussion." We have "listened to his teachings" for several months, and pronounce them heterodox. A second copy of my Discourse was sent to brother C., by some friend, accompanied with an earnest request that he would review it in the Observer. He can contain himself no longer ---he begins to "wax valiant in fight"---he breaks the long and ominous "silence"---ominous of the coming storm, he enters upon the task of proving, not that the Psalms of inspiration should be used exclusively in the praise of God, but that the Psalms---God's own Word---should be excluded from His worship, and that a very poor imitation of that Word, accompanied by other human hymns, should be introduced, or more properly, should be continued in use, instead of the inspired Psalter! "Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph."

In his No. 2, my opponent proceeds to the discussion of the subject. He states the questton negatively, in five particulars, showing what it is not; then affirmitively, in two particulars, showing what it is; and at the close of the number, he presents a proposition embodying the question at issue, whieh proposition he proceeds in the next, and all succeeding numbers to discuss.

in No. 2, yet it is not In his statement of the each and every one of

This closing proposition is the best thing strictly correct---not sufficiently full and fair. subject negatively, I deny the correctness of his particulars. But before proceeding to notice these particulars, permit me to say, that the brother has not given a clear, and fair, and full statement of the main point in dispute. The matter before us is to be viewed according to the practice of the Church in this country. And what is that practice? Why it is, that while two or

three very small denominations of Christians use the Psalms of David exclusively, the remaining "ninety-nine hundredths" of the Christian Church exclude these divine songs from divine worship, and adopt in their stead mere human compositions. The question then is, shall we use, in the instituted worship of God, the Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual songs of the Holy Ghost, usually called the Psalms of David, or shall we use human compositions? Or, in other words, shall we sing in the praise of God his songs, or ours? This is the main question or point; and what is the spontaneous response to this question from every Christian heart? Certainly it is, that we should sing the Lord's songs. Why then does not Mr. C. state the question fully and fairly, and come up fearlessly and at once to its discussion? Why fill up some seven or eight numbers, in a good degree, attempting to prove that we have a right to sing other divine songs as well as those called David's, and then, in No. 8, attempt to slide gradually and imperceptibly into the defence of human compositions---stating (the monstrous doctrine) that what was proper for the primitive Christians to do under the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, may now be done by Christians under his ordinary influences; and that it is "quite as modest and Christian to sing our own hymns, as to offer our own prayers, or preach our own discourses!" Mr. C. knows that the principal point in dispute is not whether we ought to sing other divine songs in God's worship besides David's Psalms, but whether we should sing these Psalms or human songs? In stating the subject then, it was his duty to have brought this prominent point clearly into view, and in its discussion to have kept it constantly be fore the mind. This idea should have been embodied in the proposition which heads his numbers, and not kept on the back-ground, as though he were afraid to give it too great a prominence.

But let us notice the negative positions of our brother. In his first negative particular he says, "the question is not whether the Church is at liberty to sing any thing and every thing, or the compositions of any body and every body, without regard to the orthodoxy of the doctrine, the correctness of the sentiments, &c. Again he remarks, "we do not believe that the Psalmody of our Churches is a matter which ought to be left to their individual selection, or to the random choice of mere private opinion and judgment. We think the Church ought to take order, and exercise her most vigilant oversight in this matter."

Now I do maintain that what Mr. C. here denies to be the question, is the question, in part at least. It is, whethe Church shall sing "any thing and every thing, from rigid Calvinism

down to blank Arminianism," or be confined to the Psalms of David. This is the practical question; and experience has shewn that when we depart from this divine standard-the Psalms of David--there is no limit to the hymn-making business; and among the multitude of hymns that are in use there is Arminianism of the blankest kind, as well as other errors, set off too in all the charms of poetry, and rendered bewitching and ensnaring by being offered up in Christian assemblies as praise to God. Although the Presbyterian Church may have taken order to prevent such erroneous hymns from being introduced into her collection, yet she has never, as far as my knowledge extends, adopted any measures to prevent her members from singing such hymns in other Christian assemblies. No, on the contrary, we often read glowing accounts of great revivals in which the different hymn-singing denominations have participated, and without a doubt the hymn books of the different sects are employed on such occasions-books containing a variety of sentiments-and at such times, (the conclusion is inevitable,) the mingled throng of anxious, animated wor shippers, join in sweet concord, singing now "rigid Calvinism," and again pouring forth the "blank Arminianism," and all ascending as praise to God.

The Church should "take order" in the selection of her Psalmody, says our brother; and who, or what does he mean by "the Church?" Why, forsooth, he means the Old School Presbyterian Church-rather a presumptous claim-sufficiently arrogant for a Pope or a Prelate to advance. The Confession of Faith says, (ch xxv. 2,) "the visible Church, which is also Catholic, or universal under the Gospel, consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children," &c. For this Catholic Church there ought to be a standard of praise. But if every denomination of professing Christians, (in all of which there are some true members of the visible Catholic Church,) is allowed to "take order," and provide its own songs of praise, the consequence will be, as it is this day, that God's people will be constrained to sing "any thing and every thing," &c."

Throughout this discussion our Charleston friend has been very prompt in giving his authority for opinions advanced, but what authority does he give for the notion that "the Church" should "take order" in preparing a system of Psalmody for her use? None, save his own ipse dixit. The assumption is altogether gratuitous.

We deny that the Church as a whole, or in its parts, has any VOL. II-No. 3