ART. III.-THE NEW HYMNAL-HYMNS AND MUSIC THE list of members of the Commission which compiled the Hymnal of 1878 contained my name as chairman of the New York section, consequently I could not fail to be especially interested in the new Hymnal adopted by the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

The history of the production of our successive Hymnals reveals the evolution of the denomination. In 1773 a Hymnal was published at Bristol, England, by John Wesley, divided into three books: first, "Hymns and Spiritual Songs;" second, "Psalms and Hymns;" third, "Redemption Hymns." Of this book the sixteenth edition was reprinted by Isaac Collins in Burlington, New Jersey, in 1784. The Methodist Episcopal Church, organized in that year, adopted Wesley's "Book of Common Prayer" slightly abridged and modified, and also the collection of Psalms and Hymns therewith bound up. The Book of Common Prayer not being generally received by American Methodists was soon laid aside, and with it the collection of Psalms and Hymns. A copy of The Pocket Hymn Book of the ninth edition, which was published in Philadelphia in 1788, is still accessible. It contains two hundred and fifty hymns, and it is generally assumed that the first edition was probably printed about eighteen months after the organization of the church. At that time the majority of the people of the congregations in many parts of the country had no hymn books; the hymns were read by the minister, line by line, and sung immediately after such reading. In 1802 Ezekiel Cooper, the head of the Book Concern, copyrighted an edition of this Hymnal, revised and improved, containing three hundred and twenty hymns. To this Bishop Asbury added a supplement in 1808, the supplement being larger than that to which it was added, for it contained three hundred and thirty-seven hymnns, and the whole was published in two books. In 1820 Nathan Bangs, the intellectual man-of-all-work of early American Methodism, revised the collection of 1808. Sixteen years later a supplement was added, and it was then "revised and improved," supplemented, and revised again and supplemented again in 1836. This is the

Hymn Book which the General Conference of 1848 appointed a Committee "to carefully revise and also to judiciously multiply the number of hymns therein." In order to make this the standard Hymn Book of Methodism it was approved by the Book Committee, the editors of the Book Concern, and finally by the bishops, who commended it to the church in May, 1849. Of all cautious compositions that this world ever saw, the recommendation of this book by the bishops is entitled to the palm: "Although we reluctantly part with some of the familiar hymns of the old book, and though, perhaps, in the judgment of some, they have not, in every instance, been substituted by hymns of greater merit, yet we can confidently approve this revised copy; and we do most cordially recommend it as a greatly improved and standard edition of the Methodist Hymn Book." The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, established in 1845, began with the Hymnal then in use; in 1896 this was revised and enlarged. The new Hymnal is the eighth to be used by the Methodist Episcopal Church. The book of 1849 superseded one which was used twenty-three years. The new Hymnal supersedes a collection which has been used twenty-seven years.

The production of a new Hymn Book is a work of equal delicacy and difficulty, although the difficulty is not wholly in the delicacy. The first problem is, "What hymns should be retained?" The answer to the first makes possible a correct answer to the second in importance, which is undoubtedly, "What hymns should be omitted?" One or more members of any commission might see no reason for retaining certain hymns much beloved by others, and would contend earnestly against the omitting of some valued lightly or greatly disliked by others. After this is settled, another problem of moment demands consideration: "What hymns are there in the book to be revised, which, though passable, may be spared if something better can be found to take their place?" The Commission which has compiled the new Hymnal had all these questions accentuated, not alone by the fact that the Hymnal to be created was to be much shorter, but by the fact that it must be satisfactory to two self-sufficient denominations. Of course the communications to the Committee were nearly double what they would have been had only one denomination been involved.

Probably that which took place in preparing the former Hymnal occurred in this body: debates arose and continued for hours on a single hymn or part of a hymn, not only as to whether it should remain, but whether a revision of the text should be made. The same is true of new hymns. These must be discussed with reference to their author, their previous use, or nonuse, and their relation to all other hymns which it is proposed either to retain or omit. So soon as the former Hymnal was put before the church it became a sign of contention. No opportunity was given to test the hymns by use or the tunes by hearing them before the dew of commendation and the hail of adverse criticism descended upon it. The great majority commended the book, but a minority always attacked it. Some said it was too "advanced," others affirmed that it admitted hymns written by Unitarians, Roman Catholics, etc., and a few pointed out that excellent tunes had been omitted and their place supplied with those that were not satisfactory. In every part of the church some hymns were popular that were not so elsewhere. The same was true of various tunes. The members of the Commission defended themselves to the best of their ability, but one at least determined that if he should see another revision and had any criticisms to offer he would defer them for at least four months after the Hymnal should be placed on sale. The present Hymnal has been received without serious published criticism in the denominational papers. By "common consent,' as is said in "parliamentary bodies," the book has either been praised without stint or described without criticism; in one instance it is said to "be the best the church has ever had." The present. writer considers that when a book is adopted by two denominations, so signal an event justifies its existence, and that every one who can comprehend the significance of such adoption should look upon the fact with gratitude to Almighty God, and upon the cause (the Hymnal) with genuine respect and affection.

The METHODIST REVIEW is preeminently qualified to place before the church a calm, though critical, estimate, without directing the attention of the majority of the members of the congregations at large to any strictures. It is read by several thousand pastors, and laymen who have the discrimination to subscribe

for it are presumably among the best qualified to place a proper estimate upon the Hymnal and upon any discussions to which it may give rise. The METHODIST REVIEW for September-October, besides very much matter of decided interest, contained two articles relating to the new Methodist Hymnal. The first was by Professor C. T. Winchester, chief of the department of English Literature in Wesleyan University. This dealt exclusively with the hymns; the second was by Professor Karl P. Harrington, of Wesleyan University, treating the music only. The author of the first article is an influential member of the Commission which prepared the Hymnal; the writer of the second, one of the two musical editors. In Professor Winchester's article are certain statements of universal and permanent interest and application, and others relating particularly to the new Hymnal. As I shall refer to some of them they are here quoted:

1. "It may, at least, be laid down as a rule that no hymn is deserving of admission to a church Hymnal unless it can stand on its own merits as poetry and bear the test of reading aloud without music. Nothing so surely detects limp, inane, or sentimental verse as to read it carefully aloud."

...

2. "A good hymn, though it ought to read well, must sing well; that is its first condition of existence."

3. "One is inclined to protest against the ruthless chopping down of hymns to suit the laziness of choir, congregation, or minister. If the hymn be a good one it will do the congregation no harm to sing, on occasion, six or even eight stanzas."

4. "The thought of any poetry that is to be sung must be either already familiar or so simple as to be immediately apprehended. It may be sublime; it cannot be abstruse or involved."

5. "It may be said with confidence that nothing merely commonplace or trivial has been admitted; nothing, it is believed, unworthy the usage of an evangelical church."

6. "But the most of the large number omitted were made up of pious pedestrian verse that had never made any strong appeal to the church or become endeared by frequent usage. We believe that few, if any, of them will be generally missed."

7. "Probably the verdict of an impartial critic will be that, both in what they have excluded and in what they have admitted, the Commission have been over cautious rather than over radical."

8. "When, some thirty years ago, the Hymnal of the Methodist Episcopal Church was revised, the editors inserted many hymns new to Methodist usage. It is significant that of these new hymns then adopted the two that have proved most popular-at least within the observation of the present writer-were written, the one by a devout Roman Catholic, Father Faber's

"Faith of our fathers, living still,"

and the other by a devout Quaker, the stanzas from Whittier's "Our Master," beginning,

9. "Doubtless, also, by the two-thirds vote of the Commission, some new ones were admitted that will not prove worthy, after the test of usage, of the place accorded them."

10. "This lyric [Crossing the Bar] is included in the new Hymnal; but it is very doubtful whether it has any right there. . . . A song may, as the proverb has it, turn out a sermon; but a sermon, though never so short, cannot turn out a song."

11. "Probably not a single member of the Commission is entirely content with the finished book."

Of the above list of the dicta of Professor Winchester I fully approve Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and shall use them in testing the Hymnal. As in No. 10 he has criticised the admission of 'Crossing the Bar," and in No. 11 he frankly states that probably not a single member of the Commission is entirely content with the finished book, he places any writer who shall come after him at his ease. Having felt a similar embarrassment, I fully sympathize with each member of the Commission. The same method, of requiring a vote of two-thirds to omit and the same vote to retain or admit, prevailed in the formation of the Hymnal of 1878. A number of hymns which I would have preferred to retain were omitted, and a larger number admitted which I endeavored to exclude; but the Commission consisted of men representing all parts of the church. In many cases the result was a compromise. Being familiar with both the old Hymnals, and having read every page of the new, I am glad to be able to say that, in my judgment, for the two churches, the new Hymnal is superior to any which might have been produced by one member of any Hymnal Commission or by any small committee. As a whole it is honorable to the editors and to the Commission, and needs no apology or defense; but there are some peculiarities which excite wonder, and in specifying them I shall hope to be regarded as puzzled rather than as seeking materials for animadversion.

Professor Winchester thinks that "Faith of our fathers" and "We may not climb the heavenly steeps" are the most popular, so