RALSTON 
 
 PSALMQDfi 
 
I^TBR^RY 
 
 op THE 
 
 Theological Seminary, 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 <^"*^' Oi«s,on., BV. . 
 
 S'^^'f. S^cilu. 5f ^ 
 
 u ■ ./f^L. 
 
 Bookf 
 
 


/ » 4 it 
 
 .« 4 
 
 < i. » 
 
 *' ^ 
 
DEFENCE 
 
 AN INQUIRY INTO THE PROPRIETY OF USING AN 
 
 EVANGELICAL PSALMODY 
 
 IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD 
 
 AGAINST THE OBJECTIONS OF REV. JOHN T, PRESSIT, D. D, 
 
 SAMUEL RALSTON, D. D, 
 
 " Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching 
 and admonishing one another in Psalms, and hymns and spiritual 
 songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." — Col. 3 : 16. 
 
 PITTSBURGH : 
 
 PRINTED BY GEORGE PARKIN, FOURTH ST. 
 . 1844. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 There is no subject in the circle of Theology on which so much 
 has been written for the last fifty years, by mr-mbers of the difterent 
 branches of the Presbyterian Church, as that of Psalmody. The Rev. 
 JoHX Anderson, D. D., the Rev. Messrs. Gordon, Walker and 
 M'Masters, D. D., have written in favor of a restrictive Psalmody, 
 or that the Church, in her praises of God, should confine herself to the 
 book of Psalms : while, on the other hand, the Rev. Messrs. Black, 
 Latta, D. D., Freeman, Ruffner ancl Baird have written in 
 defence of what is usually called a Gospel Psalmody. The leader 
 may reasonably suppose that the subject must have been exhausted on 
 both sides, and may be ready to ask, wiiat necessity can there be for 
 another publication on the subject. The history of the present pub- 
 lication is this: The Rev. Mr. Reed, of the Associate Reformed 
 Church in Erie, some years ago published a treatise on the prophecies, 
 entitled, "The seven last Plagues," in which he tells us that one or 
 two of " the N-ials of the wrath of God " will be poured out on those 
 who have introduced what he calls " human inventions in the' worship 
 of God," and among which he classes singing what is usually called 
 hymns and spiritual songs. We deemed it a duty to notice tiiis inter- 
 pretation, in an "Inquiry into the propriety of using an Evangelical 
 Psalm )dy in the worship of God," appended to our little treatise on 
 the prophecies. Dr. Pressly, of the same church, and Professor in 
 her Theological Seminary, in the city tf Allegheny, reviewed this "In- 
 quiry," and the following observations are a reply to his " Review and 
 Remarks." 
 
 We would here apprise the reader, that he will find a considerable 
 repetition of the same ideas in the following pages. This was unavoid- 
 able on our part; for after Dr. P. had reviewed our "Inquiry," not 
 satisfied, as it would seem, with what he had done in his Review, he 
 went over the same ground a second and third time, in remarks on our 
 replies. As he was the assailant, and we the defendant, we were under 
 the necessitv of following him in whatever course he would take in 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 the discussion. But although the reader will meet with too many 
 repetitions, occasioned by the course which Dr. P. pursued, still he 
 may find some new ideas elicited by his "Remarks," and which may, 
 in some degi'ee, compensate him for reading a second or third time 
 what he has already read. We would further remark, that Dr. P. has 
 complained more than once, that we have endeavored by " sarcasm 
 and wit" to exhibit him to the public eye in a ridiculo is point of light; 
 and that our seventh number is not consistent with a chrisiian spirit. 
 To the first of these charges we would reply, that when a man offers as 
 argument what is absurd and ridiculous, we know of no other way of 
 answering it than by shewing that it is ridiculous and absurd. There 
 are, liowever, but a very few instances where we have resorted to that 
 justifiable and scriptural weapon of defence. 1 Kings, 18 : 27. 
 
 And as to the second ground of complaint, the i-eader will see that 
 we have offered him the fairest opportunity of relieving his character 
 from the serious charges brought against him as a writer, and if he 
 has not availed himself of that opportunity, it is surely not our default. 
 
 The reader will see that the argument for an Evangelical Psalmody 
 founded on scripture "pi'ecedents," is altogether new, as far as we 
 have seen and known. Indeed the argument was seen by ourself for 
 the first time while studying the Book of " the Revelation," some 
 years ago. He will also see that principles and practices of our oppo- 
 nents, not noticed nor analysed heretofore, were brought up in the course 
 of the discussion, and that they have a strong bearing and shed consid- 
 erable light on that side of the question which we have espoused. This 
 was brought about by the wide range which Dr. P. took in the discus- 
 sion, and, in fact, led to the intrinsic merits of the question in debate. 
 
 We will add only, that we had not the most distant idea of publish- 
 ing in a book what we would write on the subject of Psalmody, when 
 Dr. P. dragged us into the controversy. Had that been the case, per- 
 haps two or three sentences would have been omitted, or thrown into a 
 different form. But as Dr. P. had published his "Review" of our 
 "Inquiry," some of our judicious friends thought that our reply and 
 defence should be published also, and we have complied with their 
 wish. And now we say of this little volume, what we have said of that 
 which pi-eceded and gave rise to it, "We commit it to the guidance of 
 the great Head of the Church, for the promotion of whose declarative 
 glory it was written, praying that he will graciously forgive whatever is 
 wrong, or amiss, and guide the reader and writer into all necessary 
 truth." 
 

 %^ 
 
 psalmody: 
 
 NO. I. 
 
 Question Stated — Misrepresentation — Nadab and 
 Abihu — Singing of Hymns — Strange Fire. 
 
 Mr. Annan : 
 
 I have lately seen in the "Missionary Advocate," 
 of your city, two numbers of a Review of my "Inquiry 
 into the propriety of using an evangelical Psalmody in 
 the worship of God," by Dr. Pressly of the Asso- 
 ciate Reformed Church. When I saw the first num- 
 ber, I intended, if a reply was deemed necessary, to 
 wait until he had furnished the whole promised series. 
 But as I know not how many are forthcoming, and 
 there was an interval of two months between the first 
 and second number, and which, I am informed, is to 
 be the case for the time to come ; and as my health 
 is very uncertain, and I cannot write in very warm 
 weather, I have therefore come to the conclusion to 
 reply to each number as it may appear, if a reply i^ 
 deemed necessary, and my state of health permits. 
 And, indeed, from some things thrown out in the 
 second number, a reply as soon as possible is indispen- 
 sably necessary — both on my account and on ac- 
 count of the cause which I advocate. For I am 
 charged in that number with holding doctrines which 
 I never beheved, never taught, and which I reject whh 
 my whole heart; but this is nothing new in the con- 
 troversy on Psalmody. 
 
 It must be obvious that I write under great disad- 
 
PSALMODY. 
 
 vantage, as I have not the whole series before me, 
 and at hberty to choose my own method of arranging 
 and discussing the subject, biU must follow the erratic 
 track of my opponent. For the reasons assigned, and 
 especially as it may be many months before Dr. 
 Pressly has finished his review, I request that you will 
 publish my replies to his first and second numbers, as 
 soon as it may suit your convenience. And as the sub- 
 ject is of importance in regard to the peace, unity, 
 and we believe the purity of the church ; and as an act 
 of common justice, it is here respectfully requested and 
 expected of the editor of the "Missionary Advocate," 
 that he will publish my replies, as they may appear in 
 your paper, from time to time. I would have been 
 pleased to have seen the " Review" in your Advo- 
 cate, had that been agreeable to Dr. Pressly and vour- 
 &elf. 
 
 SAMUEL RALSTON. 
 
 We fully agree with our opponent. Dr. Pressly, 
 that singing the praises of God is a required and in- 
 teresting part of divine worship ; and are pleased that 
 he has divested the subject of that extraneous matter 
 with which it is often encumbered, respecting differ- 
 ent versions of the Psalms, and reduced the discussion 
 io the simple question, whence, or frpin what part of 
 the Scriptures, are we to draw our songs of praise unto 
 God. Our reviewer informs us, that with regard to 
 his own opinion and practice on the subject, and he 
 adds of the Associate Reformed Church, we should 
 confine ourselves to the Book of Psalms, and to them 
 exclusively. Now, as it respects our own opinion and 
 practice, we think that we are privileged to use every 
 part of the Old or New Testaments, that is suited to 
 that part of divine worship. 
 
 Our opponent, however, endeavors to impress it 
 1* 
 
MISREPRESENTATIOX. 7 
 
 on his readers, that we are for excludlnf^ the book of 
 Psahiis from our songs of joraise, and drawing diem 
 wholly from the New Testament. This he infers from 
 our using the words — "Gospel Psalmody — evangelical 
 Psalmody" — and from our opinion, that the phrase 
 " The word of Christ," in Col. 3: IG, means the New 
 Testament scriptures that were extant when Paul 
 wrote those words. But a quotation from the Inquiry 
 by himself, should, we think, have led him to a differ- 
 ent conclusion. The quotation is this : " We think 
 we have precept and precedent for doing so, and that 
 our songs of praise are to be drawn from the New- 
 Testament in an especial manner." Surely the last 
 words in this quotation clearly imply that we are to 
 draw our songs of praise from other sources than from 
 the New Testament Scriptures. But if the preceding 
 words had not been sufficient to satisfy him on the 
 point, the following sentence, in page 206, might have 
 removed every doubt of our views on this subject : — 
 " Then the scene which John saw in heaven, or the 
 ' habitation of God, as recorded in the 5th chapter, is 
 another proof that we are to take our songs of praise 
 ' from the New, as well as from the Old Testament." 
 And that we consider much of the book of Psalms as 
 highly suited to the praises of God, even in the pre- 
 sent dispensation of grace, he might have known from 
 the following sentence in j^age 213 : " But when we 
 say that all that is typical and local in the Psalms is 
 not suited to Gospel worship and praise, we yet 
 cheerfully and unhesitatingly say, that whatever is 
 devotional and preceptive, is highly suited to the 
 praises of God, and has accordingly been used in all 
 ages of the church, and we are persuaded will be 
 used and relished to the end of time." 
 
 As it is certain that our review^er has read our book, 
 the reader may be ready to ask, how are we to account 
 for such a palpable misrepresentation. We know not, 
 unless that he foresaw that he could not manaofe his 
 
8 PSALMODY. 
 
 argument against us, but by placing us in the position 
 which he has attempted. But be that as it may, we 
 think we may say, that such an attempt at the outset 
 bodes not well for candor and fairness in the remain- 
 der of this discussion. 
 
 But our opponent asks us what we mean by an 
 evangelical Psalmody, and assures us "that the Asso- 
 ciate Reformed Church actually does not, and will 
 not use any other." How that is the fact may be seen 
 hereafter; but as it regards "the way of salvation," 
 we mean by it such a song as the Heavenly Host sung 
 after one of them had announced to the shepherds, 
 " that on that day, in the city of David, was born to 
 them, (and to us,) a Saviour, which is Christ the 
 Lord." And so sensible was the enraptured host of 
 the high importance of the event, that the burden of 
 their song was — " Glory to God in the highest, and on 
 earth peace, good will towards men." Luke ii. 9, 11. 
 And we mean by it such a song, as to the matter of it, 
 as John composed when he was about to pen the 
 Revelation. "Now unto him that loved us, and wash- 
 ed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made 
 us kings and priests unto God and his Father ; to him 
 be glory and dominion for ever and ever." And 
 when our reviewer will point out to us any Psalm that 
 speaks of Christ as having come into our world, and 
 bled and died for the sins, and risen again for the 
 justification of his people, we will receive and sing it 
 as an evangelical Psalm. For we have yet to learn 
 that a promise, and the fulfilment of that promise, are 
 identical ideas, however infallible the promiser may 
 be. Nor can we believe that this day, and a day 
 three or four thousand years ago, are to us the same 
 portion of time. 
 
 As to what remains of the first number of the Re- 
 view that deserves notice, we confess that we are at a 
 loss to give it an appropriate name. It may be con- 
 sidered as an argument for singing the book of Psalms 
 
NADAB AND ABIHU. 9 
 
 exclusively, in the worship of God, or as an objection 
 against singing hymns, understanding that word ii> its 
 modern acceptation or meaning. But whether an ar- 
 gument or objection, if true, it is the strongest of which 
 we can form any conception. It is appalhng and over- 
 whelming in the highest degree, and calculated to 
 produce the most powerful impression on every power 
 of the body and of the mind, unless "the conscience is 
 seared with a hot iron." The reader who may not 
 have seen the "Review," may be now ready to ask 
 w^ith some anxiety, What is it ? This — that singers 
 of hymns axe exposed to the danger, and hable to the 
 punishment of being consumed by fire sent by God 
 out of heaven, like Nadab and Abihu of old, who 
 were thus consumed for burning incense with "strange 
 fire," or common fire, and not with the sacred fire 
 from the altar, as is related in the 10th chapter of the 
 book of Leviticus. That our opponent considers 
 singing of hymns as this " strange fire," is apparent 
 from his telling us that when professing christians who 
 have embraced his views on the subject of Psalmody, 
 happen to be where hymns are sung, " however well 
 their hearts may be tuned, and however ardently they 
 may desire to engage in the exercise, they are com- 
 pelled to be silent, lest they should be chargeable 
 with offering strange fire before the Lord." And 
 that hymn-singers are liable to suffer the punishment 
 inflicted on Nadab and Abihu, is also apparent from 
 his saying: "And have we not reason to apprehend, 
 that the disregard to divine authority in the worship 
 of God, now subject the guilty to the displeasure of 
 heaven as' certainly as it did the presumptuous sons 
 of Aaron." And then he confirms the whole, as 
 he supposes, by that passage from Deut. iv. 24, "The 
 Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous 
 God." 
 
 Mr. Reed indeed says, that the fifth and sixth vials 
 of the wTath of God, mentioned in the sixteenth chap- 
 
10 PSALMODY. 
 
 ter of the Revelation, will be poured out on those 
 churches which introduced "human inventions" into 
 the worship of God, and of which singing of hymns is 
 one ; and here our reviewer intimates more than once, 
 that hymn-singers are liable to be devoured by fire sent 
 down from heaven for that purpose. This is not in- 
 deed a new argument, for we have seen it in other 
 writings on his side of the question, but we have never 
 before seen it so particularly pointed and applied. But 
 to have its designed effect there is a little proof want- 
 ing, and which it behooves our opponent to supply. 
 
 I. It should be clearly shewn, that the " strange 
 fire " ofi'ered by the unhappy sons of Aaron was sym- 
 bolical of hymn-singing. 
 
 II. As it is an historical fact that hymns were sung 
 in the christian church from near the age of the apos- 
 tles to the present day, and as Jehovah is no less jea- 
 lous of his glory now than he was in the days of 
 Nadab and Abihu, then our opponent is requested to 
 tell us how many assemblies or congregations have 
 been consumed by fire sent down from heaven, because 
 they were singing hymns or spiritual songs. For it is 
 not to be supposed that in the course of sixteen or sev- 
 enteen centuries there would not be some signal dis- 
 plays of divine vengeance against that heaven-daring 
 sin, as it seems to be in his view. A number, or even 
 a few well attested facts or mstances of such awful and 
 appalling burnings would have a salutary effect on a 
 great portion of the christian world, and would, more- 
 over, settle the question about Psalmody at once. 
 When this is produced, we will notice it as it may 
 deserve ; until which time we will leave the argument 
 where we found it, in "the Missionary Advocate of 
 March, 1842," over the signature of John T. Pressly. 
 
 But it may be, that he will say that the case of Nadab 
 and Abihu' s death was designed rather as an illustra- 
 tion than an argument. Well, whether it was designed, 
 as an argument, objection, or illustration, one thing is 
 
STRANGE FIRE. 11 
 
 certain, that it was designed to have an effect in this 
 discussion ; and we have no doubt but that a powerful, 
 and perhaps proselyting effect was expected from it ; 
 if not, why was it introduced at all. Whatever may 
 have been our expectations from Mr. Reed, we con- 
 fess that we were not prepared to see such an argu- 
 ment, objection or illustration from the pen of Dr. 
 Pressly. And it may be, that in the course of the 
 next number something resulting from the system of 
 Psalmody for which he contends, may appear, that 
 looks as much like "the strange fire" of Nadab and 
 Abihu, as singing a modern hymn ; but we do not say 
 that it was symbolized by that fire, for we are not so 
 deeply skilled in symbolical lore as our reviewer seems 
 to be. 
 
 In closing this number we cannot help saying, that 
 it is truly pitiable to hear sinful mortals trying to 
 prove from obscure symbols, that other sinful mortals 
 are liable to be consumed by Jehovah's special ire, 
 because they differ from them in things not essential 
 to the salvation of the soul. Is it not saying, "stand 
 by thyself, come not near to we, for I am holier than 
 thou." And is it not disregarding those wholesome 
 sayings, " vengeance is mine, and I will repay, saith 
 the Lord," and "judge not, that ye be not judged." 
 It cannot relieve the case to say, such is our opinion 
 of the above passage ; for opinions fraught with such 
 awful and appalling consequences, ought to be founded 
 on premises as clear as noonday; but, that the "strange 
 fire " alluded to symbolized hymn-singing is not so 
 clear. And until this is proved, we hope for the 
 honor of religion, that it will never be so applied again. 
 In our next number we will examine our opponent's 
 strictures on the phrases " human inventions " and 
 "human composure," introduced into our "Inquiry." 
 
12 PSALMODY. 
 
 NO. 11. 
 
 Human Inventions^ and Human Composure. 
 
 In the second number of his review, our opponent, 
 Dr. Pressly, has confined himself to remarks on the 
 words "human inventions," and "human composure," 
 which are so much used by writers on his side of the 
 question, and which we have noticed in the first chap- 
 ter of our " Inquiry." We presume that the greatest 
 part of our readers know, that the writers alluded to, 
 are in the habit of stigmatising what are usually called 
 hymns, as " human inventions ;" we therefore deemed 
 it necessary to inquire into the real and proper meaning 
 of these hackneyed words, both for the purpose of 
 vindicating an evangelical Psalmody from an unfound- 
 ed charge, and to undeceive those who may have been 
 deceived by the mere sound of a word. We accord- 
 ingly observed, that " human inventions" have refer- 
 ence to discoveries, or inventions in the useful arts ; 
 and which is admitted by our opponent. " By hu- 
 man inventions," he says, " I suppose any person 
 acquainted with the English language, will under- 
 stand such things as have been found out by the wis- 
 dom of man." Now as hymns and spiritual songs 
 have a confessed reference to the plan of redemption 
 through Christ, it was observed " that as the invention 
 and apjilication of that glorious and gracious plan 
 was altogether divine, then nothing can ' be more 
 preposterous, than to call hymns which celebrate the 
 wisdom, love, mercy and grace of that plan, * human 
 inventions ;' and that nothing can be more uncandid 
 and unjust, than to charge those who sing such hymns 
 with using human inventions in the worship of God." 
 This he also admits in the following quotation : "And 
 now to apply these remarks to the subject under dis- 
 
HUMAN- INVENTIONS. 13 
 
 cussion, I would say, that if God has appointed the 
 use of evangeHcal hymns composed by uninspired 
 men, then it is manifestly improper to represent the 
 use of them as a ' human invention ;' " but this he 
 denies, and tells us more than once, " that we have 
 not proved it." We think, however, that we have 
 done what is equivalent, in the second chapter of our 
 Inquiry. Our opponent contends that the book of 
 Psalms, and nothing else, was designed to be a system 
 of Psalmody for the church to the end of time ; but 
 in that chapter we have shewn that there are, in the 
 book of the Revelation, three songs of praise to God, 
 two of which, in our opinion, have been sung in the 
 church, and the other will be sung, and none of which 
 are in the book of Psalms. And should that argu- 
 ment be overturned, or not deemed sufficiently clear 
 and strong, we will give him apostolic recommenda- 
 tion and injunction for an evangelical Psalmody. And 
 here, while on the subject of proof, we cannot but 
 observe, that we have never read any piece of writing 
 so lacking in scriptural proof, as the first and second 
 numbers of the review. He assumes it as an admit- 
 ted truth and fact, that the book of Psalms was de- 
 signed as an exclusive system of Psalmody for the 
 church, and argues from it accordingly ; whereas this 
 is the point at issue. One clear scriptural proof — 
 one, "Thus saith the Lord," in support of his as- 
 sumptions, would at the outset have settled the point 
 at once, and put an end to the controversy ; but he 
 has not given us a single iota of scriptural proof. He 
 has indeed given us a number of illustrations, but 
 illustrations are not proofs ; and here we would ask, 
 by the way, what analogy there is between a modern 
 hymn, and setting up "images and pictures" in the 
 church, or between sacrificing "a pig instead of a kid." 
 So much for " human inventions in the worship of 
 God;" and of which it is to be hoped we shall hear 
 nothing more, at least from Dr. Pressly. 
 2 
 
14 PSALMODY. 
 
 As to the other hackneyed words m this contro- 
 versy — "human composure," we have said in our In- 
 quiry — " human composure," properly speaking, is 
 something in prose or in verse, composed by man, the 
 subject matter of which is, human views, wishes, con- 
 cerns, or interests. And for the reasons abeady as- 
 signed, it is not proper to call a poem, the ground 
 and substance of which is some doctrine, precept and 
 promise, &c. in the word of God, " a human com- 
 posure," as is often the case with many. To this 
 our opponent objects, by saying, "that if the latter 
 part of the definition were cut off, the remaining part 
 would express the truth plainly and simply. And as 
 we have also said, that it is not the circumstance of 
 a poem being arranged and written by man, that makes 
 it a human or divine composition, but what it con- 
 tains ; he " asks the honest reader, if this is not 
 equivalent to the declaration that it is not the cir- 
 cumstance of a poem being composed by man which 
 makes it man's composition." Now, we cannot help 
 saying here, that there is not only a quibble but an 
 unhandsome change of the state of the question in 
 the above statement and remarks. Cur opponent well 
 knew that our object was to shew the unfairness and 
 impropriety of applying the words "human compo- 
 sure" to a poem on divine subjects, and that too for 
 the purpose of exhibiting it in an unfavorable and 
 ridiculous point of light, as is not unusual with some 
 writers on his side of the question. And we are not 
 afraid to repeat, and submit to the decision of a dis- 
 cerning public, if it is not the subject-matter of any 
 composition that gives it its "distinctive character." 
 Nor are we afraid to say, that a poem on some impor- 
 tant doctrine, precept, or promise in the word of God, 
 is divine ; not indeed in the sense in which the scrip- 
 tures are so, but in contradistinction to a poem on hu- 
 man views, concerns, or interssts. This, our oppo- 
 nent thinks " such an abuse of language as elevates the 
 
HUMAN COMPOSURE. 15 
 
 compositions of men to a level with the woril of God," 
 and against it he "enters his solemn protest." But 
 how this follows, we cannot possibly see. It is not 
 s;iid, nor pretended, that such a poem is of itself a 
 divine revelation, — ^^Ahs'it hlasiihcmia,^^ let it be re- 
 jected, but only that it contains a portion of divine 
 revelation. And where, we would ask, is the danger 
 or impropriety of saying that a poem of this character 
 is divine, in contradistinction to a poem based on 
 human affairs and concerns only. And is there any 
 thing more common than to say that such a poem or 
 book is on a divine subject, and of another that it is 
 on a human subject, as politics, history, philosophy, 
 &c ■? And to this we would add, that if it was right 
 in the apostle Peter to say that true believers in Christ 
 are "partakers of the divine nature," although at the 
 same time, there remaineth in them much moral blind- 
 ness and depravity, 2 Ep. 1:4; was it wrong in us 
 to say that a song containing some of the precious and 
 saving truths of the gospel is a divine song, although 
 it may partake of some human weakness ? 
 
 Indeed, we cannot but suspect that there was a 
 disposition to cavil and find fault, wherever a cavil 
 could possibly be raised, when the above strictures 
 were written. Our suspicion is increased by what he 
 says in the paragraph where he enters his "protest," 
 that I did not choose to appear before the pubHc an 
 advocate for human composure in the worship of God ; 
 and to extricate himself from the difficulty, he has 
 invented a convenient definition for the phrase " hu- 
 man composure." Now he does not, could not know, 
 that we felt any difficulty in the case ; and have we 
 not advocated, and are w^e not now advocating what 
 he and others call " human composure in the worshiji 
 of God?" These words when predicated of hymns, 
 and introduced into the controversy on Psalmody, 
 are so insidiously stated, and spoken of so sneeringly 
 and contemptuously, as to convey to the indiscrimina- 
 
16 PSALMODY. 
 
 ting hearer or reader the idea that they originated 
 from the composers, and have nothing scriptural or 
 divine in them or about them, and this has made 
 hundreds of proselytes. Our object in the Inquiry 
 was to rescue the phrase from the unnatural and ille- 
 gitimate meaning affixed to it, and restoi^ it to its 
 natural and obvious meaning ; but little did we expect 
 that for this our words would have been distorted from 
 their obvious designed meaning, and doctrines im- 
 puted to us which our soul abhors. 
 
 We have also said, '* that if it is unlawful to use in 
 the worship of God, a hymn or song written by man, 
 provided it is founded upon and agreeable to his word, 
 then Mr. Reid's lectures, sermons and prayers are all 
 unlawful ; for although they may be agreeable to, and 
 founded on the word of God, yet the language and 
 arrangement are his ow^n. But not only in this case, 
 but every translation of the scriptures, is " human 
 composure," and consequently it is unlawful to use 
 or read them in the public worship of God. Our op- 
 ponent is ^'startled" at these propositions, and "in 
 the name of the Protestant Church of Christ, he pro- 
 tests against the principle which maintains that the 
 one [a hymn or song,] can with any propriety be 
 elevated to a level with the other, [the word of God."] 
 
 We did not know before we saw this, "that the 
 Protestant Church of Christ " had committed its or- 
 thodoxy and honor to our opponent's keeping. If 
 so, it may justify this extraordinary protest to some 
 extent ; if not so, then it must, and wdll be regarded as 
 a mere empty flash, either of assumed warmth, or 
 untempered zeal, and which cannot do any honor 
 either to himself or the important station which he 
 holds in the Associate Rejformed Church. In this 
 point of light we are persuaded it will be viewed by 
 every discerning reader, and more especially when 
 it is considered that its object was to call in question 
 his opponent's soundness in the faith, and to exhibit 
 
HUMAN COMPOSURE. 17 
 
 him to the pubhc in an unfavorable point of view, and 
 prejudice the pubhc mind against anytliing he might 
 say. Besides, it was akogether uncalled for; for h 
 so happens that the obnoxious propositions are not 
 expressive of our own views on theological subjects, 
 but inferences deducible from premises furnished by 
 himself and other writers on his side of the question, 
 and according to his own logic, " they may be logi- 
 cally true in one case, while they in the other do not 
 hold." For, if the circumstance of a hymn or song 
 containing scriptural doctrine and ideas, being com- 
 posed by uninspired men, divests it of its scriptural 
 ideas, and reduces it to the level of a mere human 
 composure on human affairs, as some seem to think, 
 and more than insinuate, then, both inferences are 
 logically sound and true. But if the circumstance 
 does not strip it of its scriptural character, then, the 
 inferences do not follow. And for any thing we see 
 to the contrary, such a hymn or song may be as 
 acceptable to God, and profitable to the singer, as 
 scriptural praying and preaching. We are aw' are that 
 our opponent may say, that he does not object to a 
 scriptural hymn or song, solely on the ground that it 
 is *' human composure," but that it is not a part of the 
 word of God, as is the book of Psalms. But this 
 point cannot be discussed now, nor until he produces 
 what he supposes to be a divine command to sing the 
 book of Psalms in the worship of God, and nothing 
 else. In a word, on this point, according to our views, 
 the scriptures are the rule, and the only rule of faith 
 and practice, and all parts of divine worship, preaching, 
 praying and singing, ought to be conformed to it ; but 
 the scriptures are one thing, and scriptural preaching, 
 praying and singing are another. So much for '' hu- 
 man composure in the worship of God." 
 
 Our opponent closes his review of the first chapter 
 of our Inquiry, by endeavoring to extricate himself 
 from, another consequence deducible from his doc- 
 2* 
 
IS PSALMODY. 
 
 trine and practice on Psalmody. We have asked in 
 our Inquiry, if Mr. Reid explains the Psalms to his 
 congregation before they begin to sing them, as has 
 been the case in the Associate Reformed Church, and 
 where he meets vv'ith a typical expression, tells them, 
 that '' to sing with the understanding," they must not 
 use that word in its literal but spiritual meaning ; do 
 not he and they virtually use what is called " human 
 composure" in the worship of God? To this our 
 opponent, as the substitute of Mr. Reid, " answers 
 emphatically and unequivocally, no ! " and expresses 
 "astonishment" at the obtuseness of our intellect, in 
 seeing any difficulty in the case. And what now is 
 his own account of the design of those explanations ? 
 " It is," he says, " a perfectly plain and simple case, 
 that the congregations of worshippers do not sing the 
 explanation of the Psalm which they may have heard," 
 but the explanations are given " for the purpose of 
 stirring up devotional feelings, and of preparing the 
 worshippers to engage in praising God with suitable 
 affections." Now, as the word explanation signifies 
 to render that more clear and intelligible, which was 
 previously somewhat dark and obscure, one would 
 think, that what is called exhortation, would be better 
 calculated to stir up devotional feelings. And again, 
 he says, " after a Psalm has been explained for the 
 edification of the worshipj^ers, they use the explanation 
 as a help to assist them in singing with the understand- 
 ing. But they do not sing the explanation which is 
 given by man. They sing literally and truly a Psalm 
 or song which God has provided for his church. And 
 in doing this, they neither virtually, nor in any other 
 sense, sing ' human composure.' " 
 
 Now whatever astonishment it may excite in our 
 opponent, we must confess, that so dull are our appre- 
 hensions and perceptions that we cannot see in " this 
 perfectly plain and simple case," as he says it is, any 
 thing but glaring inconsistencies, and palpable contra- 
 
HUMAN COMPOSURE. 19 
 
 dictions, and we do not see how it could be oth- 
 erwise. He tells us, " that the congregation of wor- 
 shippers do not sing the explanation of the Psalm 
 which they may have heard," and then" that they do 
 not sing the explanation given by man, and that " they 
 use the explanation as a help to assist them in singing 
 with the understanding," We would be glad to know 
 how his hearers understand it ; and if he tells them as 
 he ought to do in all honesty, to sing the Psalm liter- 
 ally and truly as it is in their Psalm book, without any 
 .regard to his explanations. 
 
 There is an old Latin maxim, '-'- excmjila cloccnt,'''' 
 or examples teach — and we will now test our oppo- 
 nent's theory, and as he tells us, his hearers practice, 
 by a portion of the sixty-sixth Psalm, and which we 
 ijitroduced into our Inquiry, but which he has passed 
 over without the least notice, for what reason is best 
 known to himself. The portion alluded to is — " I 
 will go into thy house with burnt offerings ; I will pay 
 thee my vows — I wdll offer unto thee burnt sacrifices 
 of fatlings, with the incense of rams ; I will offer bul- 
 locks with goats." Now, when he is explaining 
 these words, he will at least tell them, that all the Jew- 
 ish sacrifices were typical of, and had reference to the 
 " one sacrifice for sins," which Christ offered up of 
 himself, for removing the guilt of his people ; but in 
 accordance with the above statement and theory, they 
 must not sing that explanation, for that would be sing- 
 ing oral '' human composure," — but banish it from 
 their minds. And should any of them ask him : how 
 are we to sing those and similar words in our Psalm 
 book — we don't mean, nor design "to offer burnt 
 offerings of fathngs ;" and although it was right in the 
 Jews to say and do so, yet you yourself have often told 
 us that these with every other Jewish rite expired with 
 the death of Christ. The only answer that can be 
 given, in consistence with his theory and statement is, 
 that they are to sing them " literally " as one of the 
 
20 PSALMODY. 
 
 songs of Zion, without attaching any meaning to them 
 at all. 
 
 And we would ask here by the way, if singing a 
 Psalm in this manner, is not as much like the " strange 
 fire " which Nadab and Abihu offered of old, as the 
 singing of a modern hymn. We have thought that 
 every divine ordinance, under every dispensation, was 
 designed and calculated to produce an enlightening 
 influence in the understanding, and a purifying effect 
 in the heart; but according to our ojDponent's own 
 statements, here is a divine ordinance, that in several, 
 cases, cannot in the nature of things, produce' any 
 saving effect whatever. But we cannot think that the 
 intelligent and serious part of his hearers believe on 
 this subject as he does, or that they practice on his 
 principles. We think and trust, that when called upon 
 to sing a Psalm that speaks of the Jewish sacrifices, 
 they try to have the eye of the mind, and the eye of 
 faith directed to that blood which they typified, and 
 which when received by faith, "cleanseth from all 
 sin." The truth is, and no sophistry, however ingen- 
 geniously framed, can conceal it, that while Presbyte- 
 rians sing what are called Watt's Psalms, and are much 
 blamed for it by some, our opponent's hearers sing 
 Pressly's Psalms or explanation of the Psalms, and 
 Mr. Reid's hearers sing Reid's Psalms. As they 
 are both explanations, they both come under the cate- 
 gory of what he calls " human composure ;" with this 
 difference, that theirs is mental, while that of the 
 Presbyterian church is written ; and which of them is 
 safest, as it regards orthodoxy and the true meaning 
 of the Psalm, the reader may judge. 
 
HISTORY. 21 
 
 NO. III. 
 
 History of Psalmody under both the Jewish and Chris- 
 tian Church, 
 
 As a terrifying and deleterious atmosphere has been 
 thrown around the subject of Psahnody, by our oppo- 
 nent and others, by the words, " human inventions — 
 human composure, and the compositions of uninspired 
 men;" we have thought that a short history of Psal- 
 mody might be of use, both for the purpose of dissi- 
 pating that atmosphere, and that the reader might have 
 the subject more fully and fairly before him, than we 
 have yet seen it presented as far as w^e remember. 
 
 For this purpose we w^ould observe, that it is evident 
 from sacred history, that the church of God was in the 
 habit from the earliest ages, of singing songs of praise 
 to him, and which have not formed any part of the book 
 of Psalms ; and the fair presumption is, that thay were 
 the productions of pious but uninspired men. Thus 
 we are told in Gen. 4 : 2(S, " that to Seth there was 
 born a son, and he called his name Enos, then men 
 began to call on the name of the Lord." The words, 
 " to call on the name of the Lord," are indeed used to 
 denote prayer ; but they are also used to denote praise, 
 or praise connected with prayer. Psalms 105 : 1, 2. 
 " O give thanks unto the Lord, call upon his name; 
 make known his deeds among the people. Sing unto 
 him, sing Psalms unto him, talk ye of all his won- 
 drous works." The song of Moses, and of the rescued 
 Israelites at the Red Sea, was an inspired song, and 
 comes not within the sphere of Inquiry at present, but 
 we would remark, that although referred to in the book 
 of Psalms, it is not in that collection as recorded in the 
 fifteenth chapter of Exodus ; perhaps our opponent can 
 tell tlie reason, for we cannot. '* The feast of the 
 
22 PSALMODY. 
 
 Lord," mentioned in the twenty-first chapter of Judges, 
 seems to have been celebrated with rehgious songs, 
 which we are told accompanied the dance. This w^ill 
 be evident from the next case which w^e shall select — 
 the relio-ious sonars suns; on occasion of David's victory 
 over Goliah, and which were uninspired, unless all 
 tlie women of Israel were inspired; but founded on a 
 a deep sense of Jehovah's protection of his church in 
 the people of Israel, against those wdio were constantly 
 seeking her destruction. 1 Sam. IS : 26 — " The wo- 
 men came out of all the cities of Israel, with singing 
 and dancing, to meet king Saul with joy and instru- 
 ments of music ;" and let it be remembered, that dan- 
 cing accompanied with the song was a religious rite in 
 those days. From this period, inspired songs were 
 composed by David, Asaph, and others, and wdiich 
 'now constitute tlie book of Psalms, and are a part of 
 divine revelation; but who collected and arranged 
 them in their present form, we do not positively know. 
 These, also, come not within the sphere of our present 
 Inqulcy ; but we would remark, that according to our 
 view of the subject, they were designed and given for 
 dlfi:erent good and gracious purposes. They were 
 given as specimens, and practical examples of all that 
 is deep and solemn, or highly Impassioned in devotion; 
 and of all that is truly sublime in sacred poesy. They 
 were also given as an excellent fund whence the church 
 might. In future ages, draw much of the material of 
 her songs of praise. And w^e cannot but think, that 
 they were further designed as a model or pattern for 
 framing those songs : as the Lord's prayer was given 
 as a pattern for prayer and supplication. And to this 
 we would add, that a number of them are so construct- 
 ed, and expressed, as to shew evidently, that those 
 parts of them, at least, were designed as a system of 
 Psalmody for the Jewish dispensation only ; while all 
 that is doctrinal, preceptive, or expressive of the experi- 
 ence, or of tli€ joys or sorrovrs of true believers in 
 
HISTORY. 23 
 
 Christ, are highly suited to the Psahiiody of the church 
 to the end of time. 
 
 As it respects the present dispensation, Mr. Baird, 
 in the fourth chapter of his " Inquiry," has adduced 
 the testimony of Ignatius, the friend of the apostles ; 
 of Caius, a presbyter of Rome; of Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus, and Pliny's letter to the emperor Trajan, that 
 hymns of human composition were sung in the chris- 
 tian congregations in the second century : — of Origen, 
 Tertulhan, Nepos, Prudentius, and the facts connected 
 with Paul of Samosata, that this was the case in the 
 third ; — and of Augustine, Ambrose, Flavian, and 
 Chrysostom, that this was the case in the fourth cen- 
 tury. IMr. Baird has also shewn in the fifth chapter of 
 his book, that the Lollards in the eleventh, and the 
 Waldenses in the fourteenth century, both contenders 
 for the truth in the worst ages of Popery, were singers 
 of hymns composed by uninspired men. And that in 
 the same century, John Huss, and Jerome of Prague, 
 sung them when tied to the stake, and consuming in 
 the flames. That Luther composed hymns for public 
 worship, some of which are sung in the Lutheran 
 churches iintil this day. And to this he adds, "that 
 this subject came before the General Assembly of the 
 Scottish church, in 1647, 164S, 16S6, and the Asso- 
 ciate, (Burgher) Synod in 1747 ; and that these bodies 
 appear to have admitted the lawfulness of. using in 
 Psalmody any scripture song." And such is the array 
 of testimony on this point produced by Mr. Baird, that 
 we think there is no person who has read, or will read 
 his book, but must be satisfied that the christian church 
 has been in the habit from near the anostolic aire to the 
 present time, of singing hymns composed by uninspired 
 men. 
 
 But although it is evident from sacred and ecclesi- 
 astical history, that the church in all her dispensations 
 possessed, and used in the worship of God, songs 
 composed by persons not inspired, yet it should be 
 
24 PSALMODY. 
 
 kept in mind, that all these songs were founded, or 
 thought to be founded, on a divine revelation of one 
 kind or other ; nor are we to suppose, that if not thus 
 founded, they would, or could be acceptable to Him, 
 *' who will not give his glory to another, nor his praise 
 to graven images." In the patriarchal age they were 
 founded on some revelation given to some of the 
 patriarchs by an audible voice from heaven, or in 
 dreams, or in visions of the night, and handed down by 
 them to their posterity. These revelations had refer- 
 ence to the character and perfections of Jehovah as the 
 only true God, the only true object of all feligious 
 worship, and of the obedience due to him from man ;" 
 "for the Lord," said Moses, "is my strength and my 
 song." From the time of Abraham to Christ, Jeho- 
 vah was pleased to give farther revelations of his char- 
 acter and will, not only by voices, dreams, and visions, 
 but by a plenary inspiration to the prophets, which they 
 committed to writing, and of whom Moses was the first. 
 And as has been seen, songs in honor of Jehovah, 
 and celebrating his goodness and mercy, and grace to 
 his people, but not composed by inspired men, but 
 founded on those revelations, were not unfrequent in 
 the church : and one would think, that som.e of the 
 1005 songs of Solomon, one of which only formed a 
 part of written revelation, were of this number. After 
 Christ came into the world, God was pleased to give 
 an additional revelation of his character and will in the 
 New Testament scriptures ; and we have also seen, 
 that songs composed by uninspired men, but founded 
 on those scriptures, celebrating " the glory of his 
 grace in Christ," have been sung in the christian 
 church in her purest times from near the age of 
 the apostles, to the present day. These, we repeat 
 it, were not human but divine songs, in the sense 
 in which we have explained the words ; and in thou- 
 sands of instances, have been blessed to the edifica- 
 tion and comfort of the people of God, as they them- 
 
HISTORY. 2-5 
 
 selves have confessed. For as already observed, we 
 have no reason to believe that God will bless any 
 worship, preaching, praying, and singing, that is not 
 founded on his own word, the only rule of faith and 
 practice: "to the law and to the testimony; if they 
 speak not according to this word, it is because there is 
 no light in them." And it may be necessary to observe, 
 that the question is not, were all these spiritual songs 
 founded on some divine revelation. It may be admit- 
 ted that some of them were only remotely or obscurely 
 so ; but that they were all of this character, is what no 
 man will venture to affirm. And where it has been, 
 or will be shown, that any of them are not agreeable to 
 that rule, no man will go further than the writer of this, 
 in repudiating and lifting up the voice against them. 
 On this point, the church judicatories, to whom it 
 belongs, ought to be particularly careful — as careful as 
 in the formation of her creed, or Confession of Faith; 
 for error is apt, if not apter, to creep in through an 
 erroneous system of Psalmody, as an erroneous creed. 
 And if the Church does her duty in regard to her 
 Psalmody, there is no more danger to be apprehended 
 from that quarter, than from her Confession of Faith. 
 On the contrary, they will both combine in recom- 
 mending her to all who are enquiring the way to Zion. 
 And here we feel it our duty to remark, that " the 
 Presbyterian church in the United States " has been 
 suffering somewhat in her purity and beauty, by some 
 men, who, through a spirit of novelty, have unadvisedly 
 introduced into her private and sometimes iiito her 
 public worship, hymns which have not received the 
 examination and sanction of her highest judicatory, the 
 General Assembly. This, in our view, is irregular 
 and disorderly, and lays a stumbling block in the way 
 of some in receiving an Evangelical Psalmody. 
 
 But here may be asked, what is become of the 
 hymns and spiritual songs which were so frequent in 
 the primitive ages of Christianity ? They have per- 
 ished in the course of time, like many other writings 
 3 
 
26 PSALMODY. 
 
 on divine subjects : the Psalms composed mider a 
 special divine influence by some of the church of Cor- 
 inth, not excepted. 1 Cor. 14 : 26. But the church 
 has not suff*ered any material loss by the circumstance, 
 as she has the Bible on which they were founded, and 
 can draw from that inexhaustible fountain of spiritual 
 light and life, whatever she may deem necessary for 
 perfecting her faith and practice. 
 
 We will close this number by observing, that from 
 the compendious history of the church in regard to her 
 Psalmody, which we have given, we may see whence 
 it is that Dr. Pressly and others have deceived them- 
 selves, and undesignedly led others astray on this sub- 
 ject. In their statement of the question, and arguing 
 upon it, they seem to take it for granted, that the hymns 
 and spiritual songs which have been, and are in the 
 church, are the mere inventions of the composers, and 
 originated from them, and not from the word of God, 
 nor founded upon it. This is terrifying to the seriou=; 
 but uninstructed mind, and has made many a proselyte 
 to a Judaizing Psalmody. And from this, and this 
 alone, can we account for the applications which they 
 make of the cases and deaths of Nadab and Abihu, 
 and Uzzah of ojd ; but their statement is not true, 
 and they do great injustice to the advocates of an 
 evangehcal Psalmody, but we would hope not inten- 
 tionally. The true statement of the question is : are 
 we in our prayers, and preachers in their sermons, to 
 take the subject matter from those portions of the word 
 of God that are suited to those parts of divine worship, 
 but in our singing to be confined to the book of Psalms, 
 those portions that relate to Jewish localities, rites and 
 ceremonies, not excepted. We have often wondered 
 that they did not see, that while their prayers and ser- 
 mons were evangelical, a considerable part of their 
 singing is really Jewish. But we have ceased to 
 wonder, when we reflect on the strong hold which the 
 prejudice of education once had in our own mind on 
 this very subject. 
 
PRECEPTS. 27 
 
 NO. IV. 
 
 Precepts for ati Evangelical Psalmody, shewn from 
 CoL 3 : 16, 17, m connectioii ivith 2 Tim. 3 : 16. 
 
 In the beginning of his third number. Dr. Pressly 
 ** desires his reader to keep in remembrance the great 
 point in dispute in the controversy on Psalmody." 
 We have the same request to make of our readers, 
 for reasons which will hereafter appear. The point 
 is this. Our reviewer affirms " that we have no au- 
 thority" to use in the praises of God any portion of 
 scripture but the book of Psalms. On the other hand 
 we believe that while ministers of the gospel are war- 
 ranted to draw the subject-matter of their sermons 
 from the whole word of God, and all men the subject 
 matter of their prayers from the same source, so we 
 are to draw the subject matter of our praises from the 
 same inexhaustible fountain. Our reviewer says that 
 we have not proved our position, and somewhat 
 vauntingly affirms that there is no such proof in the 
 scriptures. Now, the reader of our "Inquiry" can- 
 not but remember that in the second chapter we pro- 
 duced both precept and precedent — the precept from 
 Col. 3 ; 16, and the precedent from songs of praise 
 recorded in Rev. 12 : 10, 12 ; 15 : 2, 4 ; 1 : 1, 7 ; 
 the two first of which have, in our opinion, been sung 
 in the church, and the third will be sung, and none of 
 them to be found in the book of Psalms, and conse- 
 quently overturn his system of Psalmody. We ex- 
 pected that he would have turned the force of his 
 literary and critical artillery against these in his third 
 number, but he confines it to the demolition of the 
 precept, as he supposes, but from which we had not 
 argued at all, but mentioned incidentally only, as 
 what had been successfully argued by Latta, Baird, 
 
28 PSALMODY. 
 
 and others, and this accounts for our having only " a 
 few Hnes on the point," and of which he complains. 
 
 But we return to the precept in Col. 3 : 16, and 
 say, that this passage when taken in connection with 
 
 2 Tim. -3 : 16, estabhshes the right of the church to 
 take her songs of praise from any portion of the Old 
 or New Testament that is suited to that part of divine 
 worship. The latter of these passages reads thus : — 
 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is 
 profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for 
 instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may 
 be perfect, and thoroughly furnished unto all good 
 w^orks." We need scarcely observe, that there are 
 none who will understand the apostle as saying in this 
 verse that the scriptures were given for the use of 
 ministers of the gospel only, but for the instruction of 
 all men, and for theirs in an especial manner. Coi. 
 
 3 : 16, also reads thus : "Let the word of Christ dwell 
 in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing 
 one another in psalms and hymns, and spiritual songs, 
 singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And 
 whatsoever ye do in Avord or deed, do all in the name 
 of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God, and the 
 Father by him." We would here remark, that these 
 two passages are evidently parallels in their general 
 scope and design, the words "All scripture" answer- 
 ing to " the word of Christ," when used in an extend- 
 ed sense, " doctrine " to " teaching," and "admonish- 
 ing" to "reproof, correction, and instruction in 
 righteousness." But if our application of the word 
 "admonishing" will be objected to, our argument 
 only requires that it will be admitted that doctrine and 
 teaching mean the same thing, and this cannot be de- 
 nied. Now as the apostle says in the first of these 
 passages, that all scrij^ture is given by inspiration of 
 God, and is profitable for doctrine, and in the other, 
 that christians are to teach one another in psalms and 
 hymns and spiritual songs ; it follows by inevitable 
 
THE WARRANT. 29 
 
 consequence, that these psalms, hymns and sph'itual 
 songs are to be taken from the New, as well as from 
 the Old Testament. But our reviewer tells us that 
 the chapter of which the abov^e passage is a part, en- 
 joins various duties, and among these to have the mind 
 well enriched with " the word of Christ," and to sing- 
 psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, but " not to 
 make or compose them." How that is will be seen 
 hereafter, but we would remark, that although he does 
 not positively say that the clause, "Let the word of 
 Christ dwell richly in you in all wisdom," &c., is a 
 duty distinct from praising God in psalms, &c. Yet 
 when commenting on the verse, he speaks of it as if 
 the singing of psalms and hymns and songs was not 
 connected with having the mind deeply imbued with 
 the " word of Christ," and he punctuates it according- 
 ly. " It is (he says) undoubtedly the will of God, 
 that the precious truths of the gospel should dwell 
 richly in all true believers, and that they sing psalms 
 and hymns and songs in the worship of God." But 
 that the verse contains not two, but one duty strongly 
 enforced, is evident from the consideration that if two 
 distinct duties had been designed, it would have been 
 differently constructed and worded from what it is. 
 It would have read thus, "Let the word of Christ dwell 
 richly in you in all wisdom, and teach and admonish 
 one another. But the words, "teaching and admon- 
 ishing " are not in the imperative mood, but in the 
 participal form, and look back to some antecedent, 
 from which the church in Colosse were to teach and 
 admonish one another." But there is no antecedent 
 but the phrase, " The word of Christ," and this not 
 only gives the necessary information, but inseparably 
 connects the clauses together, as containing one and 
 the same duty. 
 
 And here an important inquiry presents itself, im- 
 portant for ascertaining the true meaning of the pas- 
 sage, namely, what are we to understand by the 
 3* 
 
30 PSALMODY. 
 
 phrase, ''The word of Christ?" We would remark, 
 that it is pecuKar to the writings of the apostle Paul, 
 and is never used by him but once, and that too in 
 connection with singing psalms, hymns and spiritual 
 songs. It would seem to us to import the same thing, 
 as the phrases, *' The word of the Gospel," or "the 
 Gospel of Christ;" or all those doctrines, precepts 
 and promises revealed in the New Testament, relative 
 to the salvation of man through a crucified Christ ; 
 with all the means of grace appointed for interesting 
 us in that salvation. We do not say, that it does not 
 imply in it all the doctrines, precepts and promises con- 
 tained in the Bible : but for the reasons assigned, and 
 the peculiarity of the phrase itself, we think that in 
 Col. 3 : 16, it has reference to the christian dispensa- 
 tion, in an especial manner. And it is something of a 
 misrepresentation in our reviewer to say, that in our 
 Inquiry, "we have changed our tone in regard to the 
 meaning of the phrase :" for what is more common in 
 the scriptures, than for a word to be used in some pla- 
 ces in a more or less extended sense, than in others. 
 Nor does this circumstance " exalt the authority of one 
 part of the word of God to the disparagement of ano- 
 ther," as he says it does. We were surprised to hear 
 him say so, and no less surprised to hear him say, that 
 if by " the word of Christ we are to understand the 
 New Testament exclusively, then it would seem to 
 follow, that the Old Testament is not the word of 
 Christ, and therefore of not equal authority in the 
 church." We confess that we did not expect such 
 reasoning from our reviewer. In 1 John 5 : 7, it is 
 said that " there are three that bear record in heaven, 
 the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these 
 three are one ;" now is there any such expression 
 in the Old Testament that " these three are one," 
 and does this prove " that the Old Testament is not 
 of equal authority in the church with the New." A 
 little reflection before he wrote would have preveiited 
 
THE WARRANT. 31 
 
 him from falling into the above loose train of reason- 
 ing, and saved him the trouble of writing the long 
 dissertation which he wrote for our " special bene- 
 fit;" or to prove to us "that the ancient prophets 
 were under the influence of the Spirit of Christ, as 
 truly as were the aposdes," for we have never had a 
 doubt on the subject. It would also have saved him 
 the trouble of wriUng the dissertation on the prejudice 
 of education, as its obvious tendency is to induce those 
 who may have received some wrong views on divine 
 things in their younger days to persevere in maintaining 
 them, and not to renounce them, even when clearly 
 pointed out. Above all it would have prevented the 
 attempt to prove that the phrase, " the word of Christ," 
 means the whole word of God: for should he have 
 done this, it w^ould prove all that we desire to prove 
 — that we are w^arranted to draw our songs of praise 
 from the New, as well as from the Old Testament. It 
 is, as he says, a phrase " very accommodating," to us, 
 but ruinous to his views on the subject ; and indeed 
 w^e are surprised to find him meddling with it at all. 
 But as some on this subject need "line upon line," 
 and " precept upon precept," we proceed to a farther 
 examinadon of this important passage. The apostle 
 not only exhorts the Colossians to have tjieir minds 
 richly furnished with " the w^ord of Christ," but from 
 it to teach one another in "Psalms, and hymns, and 
 spiritual songs." A question of considerable import- 
 ance in this discussion, here also presents itself — how 
 they were thus to teach one another. We have read 
 and heard three different interpretations of this word. 
 I. That of some commentators who say, that it is an 
 injunction on those who can read, to teach those who 
 cannot, by reading or repeating to them portions of the 
 book of Psalms. Now, as the Psalms are comparative- 
 ly obscure, and speak of a Saviour as yet to come, we 
 think that if that had been the aposde's design, he would 
 rather have recommended the New Testament scrip- 
 
32 PSALMODY. 
 
 tures, which speak of the Saviour as come, and of the 
 way of salvation by faith in his blood. 
 
 II. That of those who think that the church is to be 
 confined in her Psalmody to the book of Psalms, and 
 accordingly understand the word "teach" as an in- 
 junction on ministers to explain the Psalm to the peo- 
 ple before they sing it, that they may " sing with the 
 understanding," or understand what they sing. And 
 indeed, where there are churches who have embraced 
 the above system of Psalmody, explaining the Psalm 
 before singing is not only commendable, but in many 
 cases indispensably necessary. It enables the weak but 
 serious worshipper to affix the proper idea to a word 
 that is typical, or otherwise obscure ; but then this is 
 contrary to our Reviewer's peculiar views, who tells us 
 that the worshipper does not sing the explanations, but 
 sings the Psalm " literally " as it is in his Psalm book, 
 without any regard to the explanations. That he is pe- 
 culiar in his views we know, from conversation with some 
 who agree with him that the church is to be confined 
 in her Psalmody to the book of Psalms. We have 
 heard many such say, and justly too, that they highly 
 esteem those explanations, as it enables them in many 
 instances to worship God " in truth as well as in spirit." 
 The III. interpretation of the word "teaching," in 
 this passage, is, that of those who with ourselves be- 
 lieve, that it is the j^rivilege of the church to draw her 
 songs of praise to God from both the Old and New 
 Testaments ; and that in the word the apostle enjoins 
 it on those who may be qualified to frame those songs, 
 to enrich them well from the word of Christ, or wdth 
 the important doctrines of the Gospel, for the instruc- 
 tion of others, in that part of worship called praise. 
 And not only so, but to admonish one another, to asjoire 
 after gracious affections in singing those songs, or as 
 the apostle expresses it, "to sing with grace in their 
 hearts to the Lord." It is now left to the candid and 
 discerning reader to say, which of the preceding inter- 
 
THE WARRANT. 33 
 
 pretations is most natural and obvious, and most con- 
 sistent with the whole scope of the apostle in the passage. 
 But another important question in this discussion 
 here presents itself also — what did the apostle under- 
 stand by psalms, hymns and spiritual songs ? Our 
 reviewer tells us that all these are to be found in the 
 book of Psalms, under the titles of the Hebrew words 
 " Mizmorim, Tehillim, Shirim, signifying psalms, 
 hymns, songs." And we have seen by other writers 
 on the subject, the Rev. John Brown, of Haddington, 
 adduced as authority that psalms, hymns, and spiritual 
 songs, denote only different kinds of poetic composi- 
 tions. That venerable Father does indeed say in his 
 Dictionary of the Bible, under the word psalm, " that 
 the psalms may denote such as were sung on instru- 
 ments, hymns such as contain only matter of praise, 
 and spiritual songs such as contain doctrines, history 
 and prophecy for men's instruction, Eph. 3: 19. 
 Now, that this division and definition is imaginary, is 
 evident to ourselves for the following reasons. In the 
 Seotuasfint translation of the book of Psalms — Psal- 
 
 J. o 
 
 mos, Psalm, and humnos, hymn, are both used in the 
 title of the sixty-seventh Psalm, and according to the 
 above definition it partakes of the character of Psalm 
 and hymn ; and moreover, the first and second verses 
 only could be sung with musical instruments, for the 
 remainder of it is confined to praise. In the forty- 
 eighth, eighty-third, and ninety-second Psalms, Psal- 
 mos, Psalm, and Odee, song, are in the title. And in 
 the seventy-sixth Psalm, which contains only doctrine 
 and history, we find in the title Psalmos, Humnos, 
 and Odee. And although our reviewer tells us, that 
 Psalmos, Humnos, and Odee, are generally prefixed 
 to many of the Psalms, he does not tell us any thing 
 about these double and sometimes treble titles. 
 
 Besides, from the hundred and nineteenth to the 
 hundred and thirty-fifth Psalm, Odee alone is in the 
 titles, nor is the word lyneiimatike, spiritual, prefixed 
 
34 PSALMODY. 
 
 to any of them, as is the case in Eph. 5:19, and Col. 
 3:16. This circumstance is worthy of particular at- 
 tention. If in Col. 3 : 16, the apostle only meant the 
 songs mentioned in the book of Psalms, why did he 
 prefix the word imeiimatike to them. There was no 
 necessity for it, for the sake of distinction, inasmuch 
 as the Colossians were familiar with those songs. But 
 if he meant by them, songs composed by any member 
 of the church, there was high necessity for it, to dis- 
 tinguish them from the songs of the heathen around 
 them, especially the songs sung at the feasts of Bac- 
 chus, and other heathen gods. From the above cir- 
 cumstances and facts, we think we are warranted to 
 say, that the writers of the book of Psalms used the 
 words, Mizmorin, Tehillen, Shirim, as synonymous 
 terms for any sacred poem used in the worship of 
 God, irrespective of its particular contents, and that 
 the above division and distinction was invented for the 
 support and defence of a favorite principle and prac- 
 tice. This opinion is strengthened by another fact, 
 tliat wherever Christ or the writers of the New Testa- 
 ment refer to any portion of the book of Psalms, they 
 do not say, that psalm, that hymn, or that song — but 
 *' the book of Psalms," or the Psalm, a word that 
 simply signifies, to sing with an instrument of music. 
 Thus, in Luke 20: 42, Christ himself said — "And 
 David himself saith in the book of Psalms, the Lord 
 said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, till I 
 make thine enemies thy footstool." Again, Acts 13 : 
 33. "As it is also written in the second Psalm, thou 
 art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." And 
 now again, it is left with the candid reader to say, 
 whether Paul in Eph. 5 : 19, and Col. 3: 16, meant 
 the above alleged kinds of poetic compositions in the 
 book of Psalms, or those hymns and spiritual songs 
 which were composed from divine revelations, and 
 which we have shewn in our third number, were used 
 in the Patriarchal, Mosaic, and present dispensations 
 of grace. 
 
THE WARRANT. 35 
 
 But the proof for an evangelical Psalmody, from 
 Col. 3 : 16, is not yet finished. After the apostle had 
 exhorted the church of Colosse to teach and admonish 
 one another in Psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, 
 he adds: — "And whatsoever you do in word or deed, 
 do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to 
 God, and the Father by him." And here again, an- 
 other question of much importance in this controversy 
 presents itself. What are we to understand by the 
 words, "In the name of the Lord Jesus," in this verse. 
 Our opponents say, that they mean approaching God 
 through the mediation of Christ, as there is no access 
 to an infinitely holy, and just God, but through a 
 mediator. That is indeed a prominent and cardinal 
 doctrine of the scriptures, and although it is admitted 
 that the doctrine is included in the words, yet we are 
 convinced from the phraseology itself, and from a 
 parallel phraseology in John 16 : 24, that the apostle 
 in the words, meant something more by them, than 
 approaching God through a mediator. In John 16 : 
 24, Christ said to his disciples, "Hitherto have ye 
 asked nothing in my name." What, now, did or could 
 Christ mean by those words? Did he, or could he, 
 mean, that they had never prayed to God through a 
 mediator? No — for as already observed, there is no 
 acceptable access to an ofiended God, but through 
 the mediation of another. His meaning therefore must 
 be, that they had not prayed in his name as " the 
 Mediator;" and who does not see, that it is one thing 
 to approach God through a Mediator held out in the 
 Old Testament, in a general revelation and promise, 
 and another thing to approach him in the name of a 
 particular person as that Mediator, "and the only 
 Mediator between God and man." 
 
 The attention of the reader is requested particularly 
 to these words, as a due consideration of them will, 
 we are persuaded, lead him into correct views on the 
 subject of Psalmody. The Mediator w^as made known 
 
36 PSALMODY. 
 
 in the Old Testament under the names of Shiloh, Mes- 
 siah, Son of God, the King, and David's Lord, but 
 it is in the New Testament, and in the New Testa- 
 ment alone, that it is revealed that Jesus of Nazareth 
 is that Mediator : and hence the exhortation and in- 
 junction — " Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do 
 all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to 
 God and the Father by him." We need scarcely 
 say, that the duty enjoined cannot be discharged in 
 the full meaning of the apostle by confining ourselves 
 exclusively to the book of Psalms, but in songs re- 
 cognising Jesus as the "Mediator of the New Cove- 
 nant," and who purchased the church with his own 
 blood. And we would now respectfully ask those 
 who are for confining the church in her Psalmody to 
 the book of Psalms, which speak of the Mediator only 
 under obscure types, and as yet to come, how they 
 can reconcile their doctrine and practice with the 
 above apostolic injunction. And farther, how does 
 their doctrine comport with what the apostle says on 
 this very subject, in Phil. 2 : 9, 11. — Having mention- 
 ed in the preceding verse, Christ's humiliation, and 
 " obedience unto death, even the death of the cross," 
 he adds — " W^herefore God hath highly exalted him, 
 and given him a name which is above every name : 
 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of 
 things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under 
 the earth : and that every tongue should confess that 
 Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 
 We have now j^roduced an apostolic precept or 
 command for a Gospel Psalmody in four distinct argu- 
 ments deduced from Col. 3 : 16, 17. 1. From the 
 sixteenth verse viewed in connection with 2 Tim. 3 : 
 16, 2. From the phrase, " the word of Christ." 3. 
 From the necessary meaning of the word " teaching " 
 in the sixteenth verse. 4. From the apostolic injunc- 
 tion, " that whatsoever we do, to do all in the name 
 of the Lord Jesus." And now, what has our oppo- 
 
PRECEDEXTS. 37 
 
 nent produced in support of his affirmation, " tliat it 
 is the will of God that the sacred songs contained in 
 the book of Psalms be sung in his worship, both pub- 
 lic and private, to the end of the world, and that we 
 have no authority to use any other." Not one word 
 from the word of God in either his first or second 
 numbers : but we expect to have it in full in his third 
 — we will see. 
 
 NO. V. 
 
 Containing Scriptural p-ecedcnts for an Evangelical 
 Psalmody. 
 
 Our readers will remember, that in our last num- 
 ber, at the call of Dr. Pressly, we adduced Col. 3 : 
 16, 17, as a preceptive proof that the church is au- 
 thorised to use an evangelical Psalmody in the worship 
 of God. This proof consists in four distinct argu- 
 ments deduced from that passage. 1. From the 16th 
 verse viewed in connection with 2 Tim. 3: 36. 2. 
 From the remarkable phrase — " The word of Christ," 
 in that verse. 3. From the necessary meaning of the 
 word "teaching" in that passage. 4. From the 
 apostolic injunction in the 17th verse, "that whatso- 
 ever we do in word or deed, to do all in the name of 
 the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God, and the Father 
 by him." . As we have examined that passage more 
 in detail than any writer w^ho has gone before us, as 
 far as we recollect, and as it contains so many dis- 
 tinct arguments for a gospel Psalmody, we expected 
 that our Reviewer would endeavor in his next num- 
 ber to point out the insufficiency or illegitimacy of 
 those aro^uments. But will not the public be disap- 
 4 
 
SS PSALMODY. 
 
 pointed, and his friends mortified, when they find that 
 his reply to those arguments is, " that when he had 
 examined it, he was disappointed in finding, that in- 
 stead of a precept to uninspired men to compose 
 Psalms and hymns and songs to be employed in the 
 worship of God, it is a direction to christians generally 
 in relation to singing with grace in their hearts to the 
 Lord." That is indeed one of the directions, but 
 surely, that " the word of Christ should dwell richly 
 in them in all wisdom," and that from this word, 
 *' they should teach one another in Psalms and hymns 
 and spiritual songs " is another ; and that " whatsoever 
 they should do in word or deed, to do all in the name 
 of the Lord Jesus," is another also. How he could, 
 then, pass over, in such a summary manner, what we 
 have said on that passage, may be a matter of surprise 
 to both his friends and opponents on this question. 
 The secret, we think, is this : In our last number we 
 assigned reasons why the phrase, " The word of 
 Christ," must be understood as referring to the New 
 Testament Scriptures ; and as it is enjoined on the 
 Colossians, and by consequence, on all other churches, 
 to draw their songs of praise from that word, we drew 
 the obvious inference that a gospel Psalmody was, at 
 the same time, the privilege and duty of the church. 
 To counteract this inference, our Reviewer tried, in 
 his last number, to prove that the phrase had reference 
 to the old as well as to the New Testament ; not see- 
 ing, until we pointed it out to him, that if he had even 
 succeeded, it would prove all that we desire to prove, 
 that we are privileged to draw our songs of praise to 
 God, from any part of the Old or New Testament 
 that is suited to that delightful part of divine wor- 
 ship. This accounts for the summary manner in 
 which he has passed over that important passage, and 
 his evident unwillingness to meddle with it again. 
 But still he demurs, and says, " that the great question 
 at issue is plainly this : have we authority to use in 
 
PRECEDEXTS. 39 
 
 the worship of God, evangehcal songs composed by 
 uninspired men, or have we not." That we have, is 
 indubitably evident to ourselves from the Apostle's 
 injunction to the church at Colosse, unless he believes, 
 and can prove, that all the members of that church 
 were inspired persons. It is now left to the reader to 
 say, if the passage which we have been examining 
 does not decide the question in regard to the use of 
 an evangelical Psalmody, as it respects the arguments 
 and objections of Dr. Pressly. 
 
 Although we deem a Scripture precept, either ex- 
 press in itself or legitimately deduced from Scriptural 
 premises, sufficient to direct our faitli and practice, 
 yet if there are Scriptural precedents, or examples for 
 a practice, it gives additional force to the precept. 
 In the second chapter of our Inquiry, after adducing 
 Col. 3 : 16, 17, as a precept or command to use an 
 evangelical Psalmody in the worship of God, we pro- 
 ceeded to adduce precedents, or examples for the 
 practice. As the opponents of an evangelical Psalm- 
 ody contend that we are to confine ourselves to the 
 book of Psalms exclusively, we adduced the song of 
 Mary the mother of Jesus, and the song of Zacharias 
 the father of John the Baptist, recorded in the first 
 chapter of Luke, as precedents of songs not found in 
 the book of Psalms, from the belief at the time that 
 our opponents could not, and would not, object to their 
 use in the worship of God. Our Reviewer, however, 
 objects, that as Mary and Zacharias were inspired 
 persons, and their songs inspired, they cannot be ad- 
 mitted as proof that songs composed by uninspired 
 persons are to be used in the praises of God. We 
 were aVare of all this, and as said, we adduced them 
 only as songs which we thought might be safely sung 
 in divine worship, but it seems they are rejected by 
 our opponents, and those who think alike with him on 
 this subject. 
 
 We have said in our "Inquiry," that there are in 
 
40 PSALMODY. 
 
 the book of " The Revelation," — that book, which it 
 is to be presumed Mr. Reid has examined with partic- 
 ular care — three songs of praise, and to which v» e now 
 add a fourth, the two first of which have been sung in 
 the church, the third most probably, and the fourth 
 will be sung, and which, it will not be pretended are 
 in the book of Psalms. Dr. P. as the substitute of 
 Mr. Reid, rephes — "that it will be admitted by all 
 who regard the Bible as the w^ord of God, that the 
 songs which are recorded in the book of the "Revela- 
 tion" are the productions of the Holy Spirit, or in 
 other words, that John is the author of them or spake 
 as he was moved by the Divine Spirit." That John 
 was under the Spirit of infallibility when he wrote 
 '•'The Revelation," is admitted. It is also admitted, 
 that he faithfully recorded all that he saw and heard in 
 vision, but that all that he saw and heard came origi- 
 nally from the Spirit, or that the Spirit was the author 
 of them in the same sense that he is the author of the 
 book of Psalms, or of the plan of redemption through 
 Christ, we cannot admit. For in that case, we would 
 be compelled to admit that the blasphemies of the beast 
 with seven heads and ten horns, mentioned in the 13th 
 chapter, came originally from the Spirit, or that the 
 Spirit was the author of those blasphemies. As just 
 now said, John faithfully recorded what he saw and 
 heard, the different actors introduced from time to 
 time, saying and doing; but to say that he is "the 
 author of all that he heard, whether good or bad, is 
 worse than absurd. The sayings and doings belonged 
 to the actors themselves, and the divine spirit is no 
 farther the author of them, than as revealing them to 
 John to be published for the benefit of the church. 
 
 And it is but to read the first of these songs to see, 
 that it was composed in the church, and not by John 
 as the immediate author of it, and sung, as we think, 
 in the beginning of the fourth century, vrhen the church 
 was rescued from heathen persecution by Constantine 
 
PRECEDENTS. 41 
 
 the Great. But before we place this song before the 
 reader, it may be necessary to observe, that in the 
 Apocalyptic writings, "Heaven" is the symbol of the 
 church. Mat. 25: 1. And as this soug; was suno; in 
 the church, here is a precedent of a spiritual song sung 
 in the worship of God, and the song necessarily 
 composed by men not inspired. Rev. 12 : 10, 12. 
 "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven," or in 
 the church, "Now is come salvation and strength, and 
 the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ; 
 for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which 
 accused them before God, day and night. And they 
 overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the 
 word of his testimony; and they loved not their lives 
 unto the death. Therefore, rejoice ye heavens, and ye 
 that dwell in them, wo to the inhabitants of the earth, 
 and of the sea, for the Devil is come down unto you 
 in great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a 
 short time." 
 
 The second of these sono-s is recorded in Rev. 14: 
 
 o 
 
 1, 5, and has reference, as we also think, to the preser- 
 vation of the uncorrupted church, symbolized by "the 
 woman in the wilderness," from the rise of " The Man 
 of Sin" in the sixth century, to the auspicious era of 
 Reformation ; and the subject matter of it has been sung 
 in the Protestant churches from that time to the pres- 
 ent day, with a few exceptions. " x\nd I stood upon 
 the sand of the sea, and lo ! a Lamb stood on the Mount 
 Zion" — another symbol of the church — " and with him 
 an hundred and forty-four thousand" — a definite for an 
 indefinite number, — "having his father's name written 
 on their foreheads." "And I heard a voice from 
 heaven," or the church, "as the voice of many waters, 
 and as the voice of a great thunder, and I heard the 
 voice of harpers harping with their harps ; and they 
 sung as it were* a new song before the throne, and 
 
 "* Some copies of the Greek testament want the word translated 
 "«5 it iccre,'''' and read as it is in the ninth verse of the fifth chapter. 
 4* 
 
42 PSALMODY. 
 
 before the living creatures, and the elders ; and no man 
 could learn that song, but the hundred and forty and four 
 thousand that were redeemed from the earth. These 
 are they which were not defiled with women, for they 
 are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb 
 whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from 
 among men, being the first fruits unto God and the 
 Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile, for 
 they are without fault before the throne of God." 
 
 And that this new song had reference to the era of 
 the Reformation, when the pure gospel of Christ 
 was rescued from the idolatry and superstition of the 
 Church of Rome, and preached to the nation is evident 
 to ourselves, from the next following verses. "And 
 I saw another angel flying through the midst of heaven 
 having the everlasting Gospel to preach to them that 
 dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred 
 and tongue, and people; saying with a loud voice, 
 fear God, and give glory to him ; for the hour of his 
 judgment is come, and worship him that made heaven 
 and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. 
 And there followed another angel saying: Babylon is 
 fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all 
 nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." 
 
 The third song is recorded in Rev. 15: 2 — 1, and 
 which, as we think, was sung during the great revolu- 
 tion in France, when the vials of divine but righteous 
 wrath were poured out on the nations who had wan- 
 tonly shed the blood of the saints, during the dominant 
 reign "of the Man of Sin. "And I saw, (says the 
 
 " And they sung a new song." But admitting that the reading of our 
 translation is the most correct ; still, the words convey the idea, that it 
 was not one of the Old Testament songs ; for in that case, it could not he 
 called a 7ietv, but an old song. This is confirmed by the circumstance, 
 that in the following verse it is said, that this song had i-efei-ence to Christ: 
 " The lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world ;" but Christ 
 is no where represented in the book of Psalms as " redeeming his people 
 by his blood." Such phraseology- is to be found in the New Testament 
 only ; consequently, to be appropriate, the song must have been talien 
 from that part of the Holy Writ. 
 
PEECEDEXTS. 43 
 
 Prophet) a sea of glass mingled with fire," the symbol 
 of a slippery and insecure state, and constant exposure 
 to persecution, "and them that had gotten the victory 
 over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, 
 and over the number of his name, standing on the sea 
 of glass, having the harps of God. And they sung the 
 song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the 
 Lamb, saying, great and marvellous are thy works. 
 Lord God Almighty, just and true are thy ways thou 
 king of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and 
 glorify thy name, for thou only art holy; for all nations 
 shall come and worship before thee, for thy judgments 
 are made manifest." It is scarcely necessary to observe 
 that the circumstance of their having obtained the 
 victory over the image, the mark, and the number of 
 the name of the beast, clearly characterises the Protes- 
 tant churches, or those who have- renounced allegiance 
 to the church of Rome. And w^ho does not know, that 
 hymns and spiritual songs composed from the scriptures, 
 by men not inspired, are sung in all of them, with a 
 few exceptions ; and this is another precedent for 
 singing songs of praise to God, which are not found in 
 the Book of Psalms. 
 
 The fourth song is recorded in chapter 19 : 5 — 8, 
 and which will be sung, as we also think, at the com- 
 mencement of the Millenium, after the battle of Arma- 
 geddon, recorded in chapter 16 : 17 — 21, when 
 Christ will espouse the purified church as a chaste 
 bride to himself. "And I heard as it were the voice 
 of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, 
 and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying. 
 Alleluia, for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. 
 Let us be glad, and rejoice, and give honor to him, 
 for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife 
 hath made herself ready. And to her was granted 
 that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and 
 white, for the fine linen is the righteousness of the 
 saints," or an emblem of that righteousness. Dr. P. 
 
44 PSALMODY. 
 
 tells us, "that he wants a precedent which may be 
 pleaded by a man who can lay no clami to the spnit of 
 inspiration, to authorise him to prepare songs of praise 
 to be employed in the worship of God." Here, then, 
 are four songs sung, or to be sung, in the christian 
 church, on different memorable occasions, and conse- 
 quently composed by men who laid no claim to 
 the spirit of inspiration ; for we do not know that this 
 gift continued in the church longer than the two or 
 three first centuries. 
 
 And to this we would add, that a new song of praise, 
 the song of redeeming love — is foretold and promised 
 by Isaiah, in the forty-second chapter of his prophecy. 
 In the sixth verse, Jehovah is introduced as saying thus 
 to his son, the promised Messiah : — " I the Lord called 
 thee in riohteousness, and will hold thine hand, and 
 will keep thee, and will give theeybr a covenant of the 
 ^^eopZe, for a light to the Gentiles; to open the blind 
 eyes, to bring out the j^risoners from the prison, and 
 them that sit in darkness out of the prison house." 
 Hence, then, the whole human family are called upon 
 in the tenth verse, "to sing unto the Lord a new song, 
 and his praise from the ends of the earth, they that go 
 down into the sea, and all that is therein ; the isles, and 
 the inhabitants thereof." It will be admitted that the 
 preceding prophecy has reference to the christian dis- 
 pensation of grace, the new song must therefore refer 
 to the blessings of this dispensation purchased by the 
 blood of Jesus of Nazareth, as "the Mediator of the 
 better covenant," and "the only Mediator between God 
 and Man." 
 
 And it is worthy of jDarticular notice, that the four 
 songs of praise which John tells us he heard sung in 
 the church on different memorable occasions, Jesus 
 as "the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the 
 world," is the subject or burthen of them all. And it 
 was with no small surprise, that we heard Dr. P. 
 assert, "that the subject matter of these songs was 
 
PRECEDENTS. 45 
 
 taken neither from the Old Testament, nor from the 
 New, but the songs themselves were given to the 
 church by the Holy Spirit, and are a part of the sacred 
 volume." They are so ; but what is the fact in the 
 case, or the history of those songs. ' John tells us ex- 
 pressly that he heard them sung in heaven, or the 
 church. But where did the church get the subject- 
 matter of them ? In the word of God ; but especially 
 from those passages. in the New Testament which rep- 
 resent Christ as " redeeming his people with his own 
 blood, as of a Lamb without blemish, and without 
 spot." These songs, then, were divine in their ori- 
 gin, or the subject-matter of them was taken from the 
 word of God, and the Spirit of God, who is the author 
 of that word, recognised them as his own, and led John 
 to incorporate them in the book of the ',' Revelation," 
 for our instruction and direction in the case. And 
 viewed and traced as they may be, they are scriptural 
 precedents for taking our songs of praise to God from 
 any portions of the Old or New Testaments that are 
 suited to that part of divine worship. 
 
 And here we would observe, that as we view^ the 
 subject, the preceding songs are not to be considered 
 as containing all that would be sung on the memora- 
 ble occasions alluded to, but as epitomes of the sub- 
 ject matter of the songs that would be composed from 
 the sacred word, when those memorable dispensations 
 of a gracious providence would take place, in behalf 
 of the church. What the songs were which were sung 
 on the occasion of the merciful deliverance of the 
 church from fiery persecution in the days of Constan- 
 tine the Great, we do not know, as they have perished 
 in the course of time ; but the 28th, 29th and 65th 
 hymns of the 1st book of the much abused and slan- 
 dered Dr. Watts, are well suited to the occasion of 
 the second and third songs, when the enemies of the 
 protestant church were incapacitated from persecuting 
 her for the time to come, by the pouring out of the 
 
46 PSALMODY. 
 
 vials of the righteous wrath of God upon them. But 
 this is not all ; but the singing of these and of similar 
 songs in the Protestant church is a proof that the 
 prophecy has been fulfilled, whereas, if the church 
 had confined herself to the book of Psalms to the 
 present day, there could not have been any such proof, 
 as there is no Psalm in all the collection that can with 
 propriety be applied to that remarkable dis^^ensation 
 of providence. This, we think, is a matter worthy of 
 serious consideration to all the advocates of an ex- 
 clusive Psalmody. 
 
 To conclude, we have now, as we think, given 
 both precept and precedent for the use of hymns and 
 spiritual songs in the worship of God. And what now 
 has our opponent given in support of the proposition 
 with which he commenced this discussion — "That it 
 is the will of God, that the sacred songs contained in 
 the book of Psalms be sung in his worshijD, both pub- 
 lic and private, to the end of time, and that we have 
 no authority to use any other." We repeat it — " not 
 a single iota," although we have twice distinctly call- 
 ed upon him to do so, assuring him at the same time, 
 that one clear Scriptural proof — one, "Thus saith the 
 Lord," would settle the point, and put an end to the 
 controversy at once. In our second call we expressly 
 told him that we expected this proof in full in his 4th 
 Number. That Number has appeared after a lapse of 
 two months, but no proof, nor the least hint on the 
 subject. His conduct in this case, is somewhat mys- 
 terious, and not easily accounted for. For it is not 
 to be supposed that he would begin the assault so 
 fiercely as he did without believing that he could not 
 only defeat his opponent, but victoriously prove the 
 truth of that system of Psalmody which he has em- 
 braced. He cannot but be aware that his character 
 as a man of letters and Professor of theology must 
 suffer in public estimation by such conduct, and that 
 it will be suspected that he has no j^roof that will stand 
 
MR. HEMPHILL. 47 
 
 the ordeal of public inspection, and critical examina- 
 tion. He i3 not so manly in this respect, as is his 
 brother in the Gospel, Mr. Hemphill of South Caro- 
 lina, who has printed a sermon on Psalmody, and 
 either by himself or by some of his friends, sent us a 
 copy for our "special benefit," or for "converting us 
 from the error of our ways." In that sermon IMr. H. 
 adduces what he thinks is proof for an exclusive 
 Psalmody, and which we purpose to examine, if health 
 permits, and give the public the result of our exami- 
 nation in our next number. We close by calling upon 
 Dr. Pressly a third time for the proof of the above 
 proposition. 
 
 NO. VI. 
 
 Reply to Mr. Hemphill. — As ice use our own laiiguas^c 
 in iirayer, so may ice in praise. 
 
 As intimated in our last number, since we com- 
 menced our defence of an evangelical Psalmody, 
 against the attack of Dr. Pressly, a sermon by the 
 Rev. W. R. Hemphill, of vSouth Carolina, has been 
 sent us by mail, either by himself, or by some of his 
 friends, for which we return due thanks, and a few 
 strictures on that sermon will be the subject of this 
 number. 
 
 Mr. Hemphill, is a minister of the Associate Re- 
 formed Church, as is Dr. Pressly, and the sermon 
 was published at the request of the Synod of the As- 
 sociate Reformed Church of the Carolinas, before 
 whom it was preached in August last. Although this 
 sermon contains twenty-eight pages, more than the 
 one half of it, is filled with irrelevant declamation, 
 
43 PSALMODY. 
 
 bitter denunciations of what he calls human composi- 
 tions in the worship of God — we wonder what the 
 sermon itself w as — and an unj^rofitable comparison of 
 Rouse's and Watt's version of the Psalms. The prin- 
 cipal proposition which he undertakes to defend is, 
 " That no other songs of praise should be used in the 
 worship of God, but those which are known in the 
 scriptures as the Psalms of David." p. 4. 
 
 The first argument which he offers in support of 
 this proposition, is — "that these inspired songs were 
 not intended merely for the Old Testament church, 
 but are likewise fitted and designed for the new^ econ- 
 omy." And, as a proof of this he adduces Psalm 
 96 : 1, where " all the earth is called upon to sing 
 unto the Lord a new song." To this he adds. Psalm 
 98 : 4 ; 100 : 2 ; 113 : 3 ; and then asks — " Were 
 the Jews to be the only people who should sing these 
 sacred hymns ; but the declaration is * from the rising 
 of the sun to the going down of the same, the Lord's 
 name is to be praised.' " We readily answer, no ; 
 and say farther, that many of them are highly suited 
 to every dispensation of grace, and have accordingly 
 been sung and will be sung in the church until time 
 shall be no more. But why not all ? Because some 
 of them, and parts of others, have indubitable reference 
 to the Jewish dispensation, and which Paul, in Col. 
 2 : 14, styles "a hand writing of ordinances that was 
 against us, and contrary to us," and then affirms, — 
 "that Christ took it out of the way, naihng it to his 
 cross." This is a plain, positive, and to the advocates 
 of an exclusive Psalmody, a perplexing affirmation; 
 and to evade its force, Mr. H. shifts the question, by 
 asking — " Were David's Psalms taken out of the way 
 and nailed to the cross." No, but all the Levitical 
 ritual, and all the sacrifices and offerings of that dis- 
 pensation were taken away ; and consequently every 
 Psalm and portion of a Psalm, that refers to these is 
 not suited to the christian dispensation, unless the anti- 
 
SERMON. 49 
 
 typical language and meaning is affixed by the singer ; 
 but that would be doing what Dr. Watts has done, and, 
 moreover, would be singing what is called " human 
 composure in the worship of God." And who may 
 not see that to sing them otherwise, or to sing them 
 literally is, so far, a virtual renunciation of Christianity, 
 and returning to Judaism. A judicious explanation 
 of such Psalms may relieve somewhat in this case, and 
 direct the attentive w^orshipper " to sing with the un- 
 derstanding" and "in spirit and in truth." How far 
 this may be the case with Mr. H's hearers we -do not 
 know, but Dr. Pressly tells us, that his hearers do not 
 sing his explanations at all, or affix the spiritual mean- 
 ing to the typical word. If so, then they are, so far, 
 Judaizers, and a serious practical perusal of the third 
 chapter of Paul's epistle to the Galatians, might be 
 profitable to them. " But w^e are persuaded better 
 things of them, and things that accompany salvation 
 though we thus speak." 
 
 Mr. Hemphill's second argument for the exclusive 
 use of the book of Psalms in the praises of God, " is 
 drawn from the example of Christ and his apostles." 
 And as a proof of this, he says, " that Christ had par- 
 taken of the passover for a number of years, and joined 
 with the Jews in singing the Hallel, the hymn they 
 usually sung at the close of the Passover supper, con- 
 sisting of six Psalms, beginning with the 113th, and 
 will it be pretended, that when the last passover w^as 
 celebrated, and the Lord's supper instituted in its stead, 
 the blessed Saviour laid aside his own divine hymns 
 composed by David, and chose some hymn of human 
 composition with which to close this interesting cele- 
 bration." p. 9. 
 
 This argument has been advanced by every writer 
 which we have seen on Mr. H's side of the question ; 
 and yet we have not seen a single iota of scripture 
 proof, that what is called the Hallel, or any other 
 spiritual song, was sung by the Jews at the celebration 
 5 
 
50 PSALMODY. 
 
 of the Passover in the days of Christ, or at any other 
 time prior to that era. Certain it is, that there is not 
 the least hint in the 12th chapter of Exodus, where we 
 have a detailed account how that ordinance was to be 
 observed, that a song of any kind was to be sung on 
 the occasion. Nor is there the least hint that this was 
 the case at the great passovers observed in the days of 
 Hezekiah and Josiah, kings of Judah ; and if the 
 practice has been introduced by the Jews, at their 
 pas'sovers since the days of Christ, our opponents are 
 very welcome to all the use they can make of the 
 fact as an argument in this controversy. 
 
 Besides, that the Psalms mentioned by Mr. Hemp- 
 hill were sung at the Passover, is improbable in the 
 nature of things. That ordinance was instituted in 
 commemoration of the gracious deliverance of the 
 children of the Israelites, when the sword of the des- 
 troying angel slew the first born in every family in 
 the land of Egypt. If a Psalm or song was sung at 
 that sacred feast, one would think, that it would have 
 reference to that distinguished deliverance. There is, 
 indeed, reference to it in the seventy-eighth and other 
 Psalms, but there is not the least allusion to it in the 
 six Psalms mentioned by our author. There is indeed 
 allusion in the 114th to the deliverance of the children 
 of Israel from Pharaoh and his host at the Red sea, 
 and their passage through Jordan ; but we need 
 scarcely say, that these were deliverances altogether 
 distinct from that on account of which the passover 
 was instituted. 
 
 And to this we would add, that we are told that 
 after Christ and his disciples had partaken of the or- 
 dinance of the supper which was instituted immediately 
 after the celebration of the j^assover, and which was 
 to take its place, they '•^ sung a liymn^ and went out 
 into the mount of Olives ;" but according to our oppo- 
 nents no less than six Psalms were sung on occasion 
 of the celebration of the passover. And admitting to 
 
SERMON. 51 
 
 our opponents that the Hallel was adapted to the 
 ordinance of the passover, and that the Jews sung it 
 on that occasion, the question then will be, which is 
 the most probable — that they would sing a song 
 appropriate only to an ordinance then abolished, or a 
 song suited to the character and design of an ordinance 
 expressly commemorative of the Redeemer's sufferings 
 shortly to take place; more especially when there is 
 not the least allusion to those sufferings, in what is 
 called the Hallel or Hlllcl. We think that the candid 
 reader will . say, that the probability is b^^ far the 
 stronger on the latter side of the question, and that 
 Christ composed the hymn, although infinite wisdom 
 did not see it best, that it should be recorded among 
 his other w^ords and deeds. 
 
 And to all this may be subjoined — that admitting 
 that the Jews sung what is called the Hallel at the 
 passover, and^dmitting that it was sung by Christ and 
 his disciples at the institution of the supper, what would 
 it amount to, and what would it prove? Would it 
 prove, that the book of Psalms was given as an exclu- 
 sive system of Psalmody, to the end of time? No — it 
 would prove only that Christ honored and attended 
 upon all the institutions of the Jewish dispensation 
 under which he lived ; for let it be remembered, that 
 the Christian dispensation did not commence until 
 after his death. That any person should adduce the 
 Hallel, if even sung, as a proof of an exclusive system 
 of Psalmody, has been always surprising to ourselves. 
 
 And here we cannot, and should not pass over, Mr. 
 Hemphill's mistaken views of the character of the 
 hymns and spiritual songs for which we contend. 
 Having told us in the ninth page, that the apostles did 
 not make any hymns, "either on the incarnation, the 
 crucifixion, or the ascension of the Lord of glory;" 
 he then says in the following page, " that the humble 
 fishermen of Galilee had not presumption enough to 
 obtrude their own uninsjnred effusions on the church, 
 
52 PSALMODY. 
 
 as something better adapted to her state and circum- 
 stances, than the songs of the Holy Ghost." This is 
 perfectly akin to what Mr. Reid has said on the same 
 subject, as noticed in our "Inquiry," p. 210. " That 
 it, at least, is bordering on blasphemy, when a man 
 without any authority from God, and merely from his 
 own lieart, composes a religious song, calls it the song 
 of the Lamb, and gives it to the churches to sing in the 
 j3raises of God." 
 
 Here, it is boldly affirmed by both of these rever- 
 end authors, that every hymn, however agreeable it 
 may be to the word of God, and may contain some 
 of the most precious doctrines, precej^ts or promises 
 of that Word, are but the " effusions of the hnmvin 
 heart,^^ because the arrangers of those doctrines, pre- 
 cepts or promises, were uninspired men. Does it not 
 follow by legitimate consequence from this doctrine, 
 that all preaching and praying, however scriptural and 
 agreeable to the divine word, if arranged or uttered 
 by uninspired men, are to be considered only as the 
 effusions of the heart, that fountain of error and 
 moral pollution. Matt. 15 : 19. We are aware that it 
 is said, that although we may pray in our own words, 
 and a^ arranged by ourselves, yet we may not praise 
 but in the words of the scriptures, and as arranged by 
 the Holy Ghost. How that is, w^e will shortly see, 
 and admitting what our opponents say in respect to 
 praying to be true, how will the objection in regard to 
 preaching be removed, for preaching is a divine ordi- 
 nance, as well as praising. We have not seen any- 
 thing as yet on that point, and the advocates of an 
 exclusive Psalmody are now requested to tell us why 
 it is right for an uninspired man to compose or arrange 
 and preach an evangelical sermon from the word of 
 God, but wrong to arrange a spiritual song from that 
 same word. 
 
 Some of our readers may be now ready to ask, 
 what reasons have been assigned why a portion of the 
 
SERMON. 53 
 
 scriptures, when versified by an uninspired man, be- 
 comes as worthless and wicked a thing as the cffiisio?is 
 of the human heart, from which nothing good can 
 come ; and how is the deteriorating and contaminating 
 effect produced, and by what means and process ? 
 We have never heard any reason assigned for this 
 strange transformation, but the 'say so'of the advocates 
 of an exclusive Psalmody. They may be ready to ask 
 farther, how the translation of the Bible into English, 
 by men not inspired, escaped the deteriorating trans- 
 formation, for it has a number of supplementary words 
 which are surely " human composure " as far as they 
 go ; and especially, how did the versification of the 
 book of Psalms by Rouse escape, for it has surely a 
 great number of supplementary words, and the word 
 ^'■perfect,'''' in the first line of the, first Psalm is not only 
 supplementary, but is not true, as it respects this life. 
 We confess that we are utterly incompetent to account 
 for those deteriorations, transformations, and fortunate 
 escapes, and must refer them for solution to the superi- 
 or knowledge of our opponents on this jioint. But 
 although w^e cannot account for, nor reconcile the 
 foregoing inconsistencies, yet w^e think we have seen 
 how they unwarily fell into such absurdities. First, 
 by supposing, or taking for granted, then repeatedly 
 and warmly affirming, and finally believing, that the 
 composers of spiritual songs containing some impor- 
 tant doctrines of the gospel, were the authors of them, 
 whereas they only arranged in verse those truths of 
 which the Holy Ghost, speaking in the scriptures, is 
 the author. For it is no uncommon thing for men of a 
 certain temperament firmly to believe, and ardently to 
 defend, what they at first received as the most probable 
 supposition. And if this is not satisfactory, the whole 
 can be accounted for from the almost insurmountable 
 influence of the prejudice of education. 
 
 Our author's third proof, " that the Psalms of David 
 are to be used in the New Testament church in the 
 5* 
 
54 PSALMODY. 
 
 praises of God, is drawn from the positive command of 
 Paul and James to that effect. Paul says in the text, 
 "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom 
 teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and 
 hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your 
 hearts to the Lord." And James says, " is any man 
 merry let him sing psalms." 
 
 Now, we have said repeatedly in this discussion, 
 that the book of Psalms was perfectly suited to the 
 Psalmody of the church, in the former, and much of 
 it to the present dispensation of grace. And not only 
 so, but that the true believer will find in it, as much, 
 if not more, appropriate to his case, as in any other 
 part of the sacred volume: and we would say to him, 
 " is any man merry, let him sing Psalms." Here, 
 we have no difference with the apostle James, nor 
 with Mr. Hemphill : but we say, that we differ with 
 the latter — toto ccelo — with respect to his interpreta- 
 tions of Col. 3: 16. As we have given our views in 
 full on that passage in the fourth number of our reply 
 to Dr. Pressly, we refer the reader to it as containing 
 an answer equally to Mr. Hemphill, and Dr. Pressly. 
 Dr. Pressly understands the phrase — " The word of 
 Christ" — in that passage, in the same sense as the 
 phrase, "The word of God," or as comprehending 
 the Old, as well as the New Testament, while we think 
 from the peculiarity of the phrase itself, and other 
 reasons assigned in the reply, it is to be understood in 
 that place, as having special reference to the New 
 Testament scriptures. IMr. Hemphill, however, un- 
 derstands the phrase as having reference to the book 
 of Psalms only. p. 11. He does not assign any reason 
 for such an interpretation of the phrase, but his system 
 of Psalmody imperiously demands such a strange 
 restriction. But the restriction is unsupported and 
 untenable; and Dr. Pressly's interpretation of the 
 phrase is of no use to him in this controversy. For, 
 if we understand that phrase as embracing both the 
 
Hemphill's sermon. 55 
 
 Old and New Testaments, it proves all that we ever 
 contended for on this subject. It proves that we are 
 to take our songs of praise to God from the New, as 
 well as from the Old Testament, for the apostle enjoins 
 on the church at Colosse, that from the word of Christ, 
 dwelling richly in them, they shall teach one another, 
 in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs. The reader 
 will have observed, that the system of Psalmody for 
 which we contend, laid us under no necessity to un- 
 derstand and explain the above phrase as having 
 special reference to the New Testament scriptures, we 
 were constrained to do so from the circumstances that 
 it is called "The word of Christ," and not "The 
 word of God." This last phrase is often used by 
 the apostle in his epistles, to denote both the Old and 
 the New Testaments. And we think that it must have 
 struck every reader, that he must have had some 
 special reason for altering the phraseology in this place. 
 The duty which he wished to enjoin explains the mat- 
 ter — "teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, 
 hymns and spiritual songs;" or taking your songs of 
 praise to God from the New Testament as well as from 
 the Old. Besides, the w^ords wdiich immediately follow 
 "whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all in the 
 name of the Lord Jesus," demand this exegesis or 
 explanation. For, as observed in our reply to Dr. 
 Pressly, it is only in the New Testament that we know, 
 that Jesus of Nazarath is the promised Mediator, and 
 if we w^ill praise God in his name, it must be in songs 
 taken from the New Testament which recognise him 
 as such, and as having "once suffered for sins, the 
 just for the unjust to bring us to God." We have an 
 example of this in the apostle John which is worthy 
 of imitation. When about to pen the " Revela- 
 tion," he wished first to raise a song of praise to him 
 whose illuminating influences he then felt pervading 
 every power of his soul. And what was the song V 
 This — "Unto him that loved us and washed us from 
 
56 PSALMODY. 
 
 our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings 
 and priests unto God, and his father; to him be glory 
 and dominion for ever and ever, Amen." And shall 
 not we say Amen to this, by a similar song to him, 
 "who though he was rich, yet for our sakes became 
 poor, that we through his poverty may be rich." We 
 need scarcely say that such a song is only to be found 
 in the New Testament scriptures. We will only far- 
 ther remark on this subject, that the reader cannot but 
 have observed, that Mr. Hemphill's two first argu- 
 ments in favor of an exclusive Psalmody are irrele- 
 vant to the point at issue, and that Col. 3 : 16, the text 
 from which he preached, teaches doctrine just the 
 reverse of that taught in the sermon. As a die, how- 
 ever tossed and turned, will always settle down a 
 complete cube; so, the phrase, " The word of Christ," 
 in that verse, tossed and turned, and explained as it 
 may be, will still prove, that we are to take our songs 
 of praise to God, from the New as well as the Old 
 Testament, and that it is all that we have ever con- 
 tended for, or now contend. 
 
 There is nothing more in Mr. Hemphill's sermon 
 that has a bearing on the point at issue, but his reply 
 to the argument for using hymns and spiritual songs in 
 the worship of God, " That as we employ our own 
 language in prayer, why not in praise." His reply 
 is, "that the ordinances of prayer and praise are alto- 
 gether distinct — that prayer is an offering up of our 
 desires to God for things agreeable to his will ; while 
 praise is rendering to God that which is due to him ; 
 it is to extol him for what he is in himself, has done, 
 and for what he continues to do in the works of crea- 
 tion, providence and grace." 
 
 That prayer and praise are distinct ordinances in 
 some respects, is admitted; but w^hat prevents their 
 being occasionally mingled in the worship of the same 
 God ■? And who does not know, that that form of pray- 
 er, commonly called "The Lord's Prayer," closes with 
 
SERMON. 57 
 
 ascriptions of praise to the Giver of all good, and the 
 God of all grace — " for thine is the kingdom, and the 
 power, and the glory, for ever, Amen." In the course 
 of his reply, Mr. Hemphill observes, "that we have 
 some idea of what our wants are, and that with hea- 
 ven's promised help we can make them known to God, 
 . . . but no one who is not favored with a divine 
 afflatus is competent to provide for the church a sys- 
 tem of Psalmody setting forth the praises of the incom- 
 prehensible Jehovah." The objector seems to have 
 forgotten when he wrote this objection, that Jehovah 
 has been graciously pleased to reveal his own charac- 
 ter or perfections, with some of his works of provi- 
 dence and grace, in his holy word ; and surely it does 
 not require any special affiatus, or inspiration, to col- 
 lect and arrange one or more of these into a song; and 
 when sung, it is singing his praise in his own language ; 
 for the words, or -the ideas, which they represent, are 
 his own words and ideas. Preachers are in the habit 
 of doing this every day in their prayers and sermons ; 
 and this may be as well objected to, as collecting and 
 arranging a spiritual song from the sacred word, now 
 complete. And the promise of Christ to the church, 
 "that He will be with her always to the end of the 
 world," is a security that there will always be in her a 
 sufficiency of talent and knowledge for this and other 
 important purposes. The objection then in the close 
 of the reply, that according to our argument, "every 
 man ought to compose his own hymns, as employ his 
 own language in prayer, as no one man in a thous- 
 and has the gift of poetry," has no bearing, and is of 
 no force in this question. No man is required to do 
 so. It belongs to the church in her highest judicatory, 
 to provide a scriptural and Evangelical Psalmody, as 
 well as a scriptural Confession of Faith; and there is 
 no more danger to her orthodoxy and purity in this, 
 than in her Confession of Faith, or in the ministrations 
 of those whom she may send forth to preach the gospel. 
 
58 PSALMODY. 
 
 Besides, according to the whole drift and design of 
 the reply, there should not have been any prayers in 
 the book of Psalms, and a reader not acquainted with 
 the book, on reading the reply, would naturally con- 
 clude that there are none, but that it is altogether com- 
 posed of adorations and praises. But who does not 
 know that it abounds with them ; and not over a do- 
 zen, if so many, Psalms can be pointed out, that do not 
 contain one or more petitions. There are nearly a do- 
 zen petitions in the fifty-first Psalm. The 17th Psalm 
 is entitled a prayer of David; and the 90th Psalm a 
 prayer of Moses the man of God. The 72d Psalm 
 is titled a Psalm for Solomon, and concludes thus — 
 "the prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended." 
 True indeed, the Psalms abound with praises ; but do 
 the advocates of an exclusive Psalmody pass over the 
 prayers, and sing only the praises '? They should do 
 so in consistency with their system of Psalmody, and 
 never sing the 17th, 90th or 72d Psalms at all. But 
 they sing them, and in doing so, act as inconsistently 
 as when they declaim against what they call " human 
 composure," and at the same time explain the 
 Psalm to their hearers, that they may sing with the 
 understanding ; for to sing some of the psalms literal- 
 ly, or to affix the literal idea to the words, would be 
 rank Judaism. 
 
 The fact is, that although preaching, praying, and 
 praising are distinct ordinances, yet the doctrines which 
 are to be preached, and expressions of prayer and 
 praise, are occasionally so intermingled in the scrip- 
 tures, as to produce the best effect on the reader or 
 hearer, reminding him, at the same time, of the vari- 
 ous duties which he owes to God. This is the case 
 especially, with prayers and praise in the book of 
 Psalms ; and the attempt to separate them, as in no 
 wise connected, for the purpose of supporting an ex- 
 clusive system of Psalmody, not only does violence to 
 the sacred word, but indicates a material defect in the 
 
pressly's evasion of proof. 59 
 
 system itself. And we have been surprised that the 
 advocates of this system do not see, that the mixture 
 of praise and.prayer in many of the Psalms, complete- 
 ly dissipates their objection to our argument — "that 
 as we use our own language in prayer, so may we in 
 praise." We think we may now safely say, that Mr. 
 Hemphill has not answered our argument ; and we 
 will venture to say more — that we consider it unan- 
 swerable. 
 
 NO. VII. 
 
 Typical Psalm — Misi'epresentation Confirmed ■ — 
 Preacher. 
 
 Our readers will remember that in the close of our 
 fifth number, we called upon Dr. Pressly, our re- 
 viewer, for a third time, for the proof of his main 
 position in this controversy — that no portion of the 
 scriptures is to be used in the praises of God but the 
 book of Psalms, assuring him at the same time, that 
 one clear scriptural proof would satisfy us, and put an 
 end to the controversy at once. He has published 
 his fifth number since that time, but not one iota of 
 proof, nor even an allusion to the important point, is 
 to be seen. This is really very strange in a man who 
 tells us in the first number of his "Preacher," which 
 we have accidentally seen, that he was selected by his 
 brethren as the champion in the pending controversy.* 
 And indeed it would seem to us, that some of his 
 brethren themselves will be under the necessity of 
 stejDping forward and producing the required proof. 
 They cannot but be sensible that nothing less than this 
 will satisfy the public in this stage of the discussion ; 
 
60 PSALMODY. 
 
 and if they do not, it will be justly inferred that they 
 are not in possession of any thing that they dare 
 offer to a discerning public, notwithstanding the 
 incessant clamor which they have kept up on the sub- 
 ject of Psalmody for many years past. Why keep 
 back what would put an end to the controversy at 
 once, and restore peace to all the branches of the 
 Presbyterian Church, long distracted on this subject? 
 
 Having made these necessary remarks on, the un- 
 accountable conduct of our reviewer on the preceding 
 case ; we will now examine this fifth number itself. 
 And, indeed, this is a somewhat difficult task, not 
 because of the strength of the argument, but from its 
 miscellaneous character, much of w^hich has no rela- 
 tion to the main question, and the controversy on the 
 part of our opponent is now descending into trifling 
 cavils, and a war of words. 
 
 In the first place he endeavors to fix on us a second 
 charge of heterodoxy, bordering on infidelity. And 
 although he had promised in his first number, that the 
 discussion on his part should be confined to the merits 
 of the question, and not to the relative merits or de- 
 merits of difierent versions of the Psalms ; yet he 
 introduces Watts' version of the Psalms, and charges 
 the Doctor and his version as laying the foundation of 
 a principle that is " hostile to the inspiration of the 
 scriptures," and which he says we have embraced. 
 And what now have we said, that involves this wicked 
 principle ? This, that we have said in our " Inquiry," 
 *' that when we say, that all that is typical and local 
 in the Psalms is not suited to gospel worship and 
 praise, we yet cheerfully and unhesitatingly say, that 
 • whatever is devotional or preceptive is highly suited 
 to the praises of God." And what now is there in 
 tlie preceding opinion that is hostile to the inspiration 
 of the scriptures? " This," says our reviewer, "the 
 Psalms are the productions of the Holy Spirit. They 
 ar6 denominated by the divine author, Psalms or 
 
BEGGIXG THE QUESTION. 61 
 
 songs of praise. In them the praises of God are set 
 forth in such a manner as seemed proper to infinite 
 wisdom. And shall man undertake to sit in judgment 
 upon those divine hymns of praise, and say that some 
 parts of them are not suited to the purpose of praising 
 God under the gospel dispensation." 
 
 The reader has now before him the premises from 
 our " Inquiry," and the conclusion drawn by our op- 
 ponent that they involve in them a principle "hostile 
 to the inspiration of the scriptures." It may be that 
 some of our readers may be ready to -say that they do 
 not see how our reviewer, who it is presumed is a 
 logician, could draw such a conclusion from the prem- 
 ises. He drew it in this way. Instead of proving, 
 although thrice called upon for the purpose, that the 
 book of Psalms is only to be used in the praises of 
 God, he takes it for granted, and in all he has pub- 
 lished on the subject, argues from this assumed prin- 
 ciple. But as that is the point in dispute, and we are 
 of a contrary opinion respecting Jehovah's design in 
 giving us the book of Psalms, we may say that some 
 of the Psalms, those especially that speak of Jewish 
 rites and sacrifices, are Not suited to the worship of 
 the Christian Church, without being charged with 
 hostility to the inspiration of the scriptures. And we 
 would now ask any judicious and unprejudiced reader 
 — we would almost venture to ask Dr. Pressly him- 
 self, if the following portion of the 66th Psalm, and 
 to which he alludes in this number, is suited to the 
 praises of the Christian Church, unless the anti-typical 
 meaning is afiixed to the typical words : "I will go 
 into thy house with hurnt offerings. I will ofi'er unto 
 thee hurnt sacrifices with fatllngs, with the incense of 
 rams : I will offer bullocks and goats." It was per- 
 fectly right In a Jew to say and do so ; but would it 
 not be rank Judaism in a professing Christian to say 
 so, without the qualification mentioned above. As 
 said in a former number, a judicious explanation of 
 6 
 
62 PSALMODY. 
 
 sucli passages in the Psalms, and the officiating min- 
 ister opening up to the unlearned worshipper the 
 spiritual meaning of the Old Testament types, and 
 telling them to sing that meaning, may enable such a 
 worshipper " to sing with the understanding, and to 
 worship God in spirit and in truth." But alas ! for 
 Dr. Pressly's hearers, if what he says of them is true, 
 that they do not sing his explanations, but sing such 
 Psalms " literally" as they are. 
 
 We turn to another portion of another Psalm, also 
 adduced by himself, and which has reference to the 
 sanctification of the sinner, as the one now examined 
 has to his justification before God. The Psalm al- 
 luded- to is the 51st Psalm, 7th and 19th verses, as 
 conjoined by our reviewer. Purge me with hyssop, 
 and I shall be clean ; wash me, and I shall be whiter 
 than snow." " Then shalt thou be pleased with the 
 sacrifices of righteousness with whole burnt ofi'erings : 
 then shall they offer bullocks on thine altar." Our 
 reviewer then adds, " Here we have typical language 
 in which is a direct reference to the rites and sacri- 
 fices of the law. And will any one say that these 
 verses are not suited to gospel worship and praise." 
 We boldly say so ; unless the worshipper understands 
 wdiat w^as meant by sprinkling a leprous person with a 
 bunch of hyssop dipj^ed in the blood of a bird killed 
 in an earthen vessel, over running water. Lev. 14 : 3, 
 7. It is evident from the phraseology, " purge me 
 with hyssop, and I shall be clean," that the Psalmist 
 had reference to this rite as typical of the way in 
 which sinners are cleansed from the leprosy sin, by, 
 the almighty power of the Spirit of God on their 
 hearts. And we would now ask in the language of 
 our reviewer, " will any one presume to say," that 
 the words purge rae with hyssop, and I shall be clean 
 are as well calculated to teach us how the leprosy of 
 sin is expelled from our nature, as what Christ says 
 on the subject, '* It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the 
 
TYPICAL PSALMS. 63 
 
 flesh profiteth nothing." Or what Paul says to be- 
 lievers, " but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, 
 but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, 
 and by the Spirit of our God;" if those or similar 
 passages were thrown into the form of a hymn or 
 spiritual song. And we appeal to any reader of good 
 common sense if the preceding portions of the 66th 
 and the 51st psalms, the one relating to the justifica- 
 tion of the sinner, and the other to his sanctification, 
 can possibly be sung to edification and divine accept- 
 ance, without a judicious explanation, and the unlearn- 
 ed worshipper remembers, and sings those explana- 
 tions. 
 
 There are a couple of sentences near the close ap- 
 pertaining to the point in hand, and which we have 
 read with no small degree of astonishment, as coming 
 from a Professor of Theology in a Presbyterian 
 church. These sentences are as follows : " Typical 
 expressions are doubtless frequently employed in the 
 divine songs, but the Psalms themselves are not typi- 
 cal. Language abounds in the book of Psalms which 
 conveys an allusion to the rites and ceremonies of the 
 law, but will any one say, that any of the Psalms them- 
 selves are among the shadows of good things to come." 
 Yes, we again say boldly, that the 150th Psalm, for 
 instance, is altogether typical, and portions of others 
 are so, and therefore, " the shadows of good things to 
 come." The Apostle Paul is our authority for believ- 
 ing and saying so. Li Heb. 10 : 1, he expressly says: 
 " For the law or the Jewish ritual — having a shadow 
 of good things to come, and not the very image of the 
 things, can never with those sacrifices which they offer- 
 ed year by year continually make the comers thereunto 
 perfect." Here the sacrifices of the Jewish ritual are 
 expressly called " the shadow of good things to 
 come;" and in his epistle to the church at Golosse, 
 alluding to the whole of that ritual, he calls it " a 
 hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, and 
 
64 PSALMODY. 
 
 contrary to us," and then affirms that Christ " blotted 
 it out, and took it out of the way, naihng it to his 
 cross." And that the sacrifices called "burnt offer- 
 ings " in the 51st and 66th Psalms, were ail typical 
 of Christ's sacrifice of himself for removing the guilt 
 of his people, is evident from what the Apostle says, 
 Eph. 5 : 2, ^'' Walk in love, as Christ also hath loved 
 us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a 
 sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour." Is 
 there a reader now w^ho will not be constrained to say 
 " that th^re must be something very defective in that 
 system of Psalmody, which to defend, compels a man 
 to deny that the Jewish burnt offerings were typical 
 of the death of Christ. 
 
 The foregoing remarks contain in them an answer 
 to an objection with which our reviewer closes this 
 Number. That the apostle Paul uses typical language 
 in the 10th chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews when 
 inculcating christian duties. He does so, but not as 
 having reference to a future sacrifice for sin, and the 
 two positive institutes of the present dispensation. 
 Baptism and the Lord's supper, are not typical of 
 other ordinances yet to be introduced into the church. 
 
 But he may say, and has said, "that if any of the 
 Psalms or part of them are among the types of the 
 legal dispensation, then beyond controversy they have 
 vanished away, with the rest of those rites which were 
 the shadow of good 'things to come." We presume 
 that by the Psalms "vanishing away" he means as a 
 part of divine revelation. But how this conclusion 
 follows his premises, we do not see, nor can we see 
 why they should cease to be part of the word of God, 
 although the typical part has vanished as no longer 
 suitable for the praises of God, unless the substance is 
 substituted and sung instead of the shadow. This Dr. 
 Watts has attempted to do and for which he has re- 
 ceived and is receiving much abuse and reproach. — 
 
DISINGENUOUS OBJECTION. 65 
 
 But to return to the objection, Dr. P. might as well 
 infer; that the book of Leviticus has vanished away 
 as a part of divine revelation, because its ritual has 
 expired by the introduction of the christian dispen- 
 sation of grace. 
 
 We have said In our Inquiry, "that the frequency 
 of the objection to an evangelical Psalmody, that the 
 book of Psalms contains* inspired songs but hymns 
 are the production of uninspired men tends more to 
 unhinge the minds of well-meaning, but weak persons, 
 
 *^^Uninspired Hijmns,^'' and '■'■Uninapired ilf^n." — The reader has 
 met, and will fi-equcntly mact with this phraseology in our quotalions 
 from Dr. Pressly; a remark or two on it, may therefore not be amiss. 
 Notwithstanding we have distinctly said, that no hymn or spiritual 
 song that is not clearly founded upon, and agreeable to the word of 
 God, should be admitted into the Psalmody of the Churcl', yet he and 
 other writers on his side of the question, frequently introduce the phrase 
 — uninspired hymn — without telling their readers, what our ideas of a 
 hvmn or spiritual song, really are. To the well-maaning", but weak 
 and unlearned ir.ind, the words themselves are calculated to convey the 
 idea that hymns or spiritual songs do not contain any scriptural or di- 
 vine ideas, but are " human invent ions ;" and to heighten the opposition, 
 and aversion to them, they add — " coinposed by uninspired men." Is 
 this ingenuous, or honest, or honoraljle ? We do not positively say that 
 they intend to convey the above ideas to their i^eaders, but from the 
 great frequency, and the connectio i in which the phras 's are used, it 
 would seem that this is their design. But be that as it may, there is 
 no doubt, but that they are so unders ood by their readers ; and this 
 has been a special mean of prostdytism, and we are persuaded that 
 some, if not many of tlieir people havr^ been proselyted by these means. 
 But if it is a great sin in uninspired TiCn to versify portions of the 
 scriptures for the purpose of singing them in the praises )f God, it is 
 surely as great a sin in sucli to use them in praying and preaching. If 
 our opponen's will but fairly tell their readers what we understand by a 
 hymn or spiritual song, they may us^ the woi'ds "uninspired hymns, 
 and uninspired men " as often as they plea-e; but we have never mot 
 with a writer among them, who has done so fairly and fully. 
 
 Besides, it is preposterous to call a hymn or spiritual song founded 
 on some portion of the scriptures, "a human invention" — for how can 
 the circumstance of that portion being versified by an uninspired man 
 divest it of its divine character. If so, then every prayer and every 
 sermon, although founded on, and extracted from the word of God, is a 
 " human invention." We will not quari-el a,bout word-:, and if the phra- 
 ses "an inspired hymn," or " divine song," do not sound well in the 
 ears of some, let it be admitted — what cannot be denied — that they 
 contain inspired ideas, and we ask no more. It will then be incumbent 
 on such to assign good reasons why they may not be used in celebrating 
 the praises of God. This will shorten the controversy and bring it to a 
 point. 
 
66 PSALMODY. 
 
 and to enlist them under the standard of a Judaizing 
 Christianity, than anything that has been written on the 
 subject. This language, our opponent "conceives 
 tends to cast an unworthy reflection on the spirit of 
 inspiration." How it does so, we can neither perceive 
 nor conceive, and the question is, is it fact, or is it not. 
 It remains yet to be proved that w^e are to confine 
 ourselves to the book of Psalms in our praises of God, 
 and until this is proved, the objection lies as strongly 
 against the preaching and praying of uninspired men, 
 as against signing a hymn, founded on the w^ord of 
 God. And whether Dr. Pressly's scheme of singing 
 the Psalms "literally," and without affixing the spir- 
 itual meaning to the types, is a Judaizing Christianity, 
 is left wdth the reader to say. If it is not altogether 
 that Judaizing Christianity which Paul condemns and 
 reproves in his epistle to the Galatians, it has certain- 
 ly some of its features. The apostle enjoins it upon 
 us in one epistle, "that whatsoever we do in word or 
 deed, to do all in the name of the Lord Jesus," and 
 in another, "that at the name of Jesus, every knee 
 should bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus 
 Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father." We 
 would now ask, if refusing to celebrate his name as 
 mediator, and redeemer, and singing of him only in 
 typical and obscure language, and as yet to come, is 
 not something like a Judaizing Christianity? Is it not, 
 practically " not confessing that Jesus Christ is come in 
 the flesh;" and which the Apostle John says, "is not 
 of God," or not agreeable to his holy word. 
 
 We have also said in our "Inquiry," "that had the 
 churches of the Reformation used the book of Psalms 
 until this day, we would not have any evidence that 
 they are delivered from the dominant powder of "The 
 Man of sin," as there is no Psalm in all that collec- 
 tion which can be called "The song of Moses and of 
 the Lamb." This, our Review^er, thinks, is not con- 
 sistent with that respect which is due to the produc- 
 
SONG OF MOSES AND THE LAMB. 67 
 
 tions of the Spirit of God, "and imports that the book 
 of Psahiis as a collection of divine songs is very de- 
 fective." And as proof that there are Psalms which 
 may be called "The song of Moses and the Lamb," 
 he quotes that song, and then those Psalms, for the 
 purpose of comparison. The song of Moses and the 
 Lamb is this — "Great and marvellous are thy works, 
 Lord God Almighty, just and true are thy w-ays, thou 
 king of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and 
 glorify thy name, for thou only art holy ; for all na- 
 tions shall come and worship before thee for thy judg- 
 ments are made manifest," Rev. 16: 3, 4. The first 
 of the Psalms which Dr. P. adduces as equivalent to 
 this, is Psalm 105: 5 — 7, "Remember his marvellous 
 works that he hath done, and the judgments of his 
 mouth. O ye seed of Abraham, his servant, ye chil- 
 dren of Jacob his chosen. He is the Lord our God, 
 his judgments are in all the earth." Psalm 86 : 8 — 
 10, "Zion heard and was glad, and the daughters of 
 Judah rejoiced, because of thy judgments O Lord. — 
 Among the gods, there is none like unto thee, O Lord 
 neither are there any works like unto thy works. All 
 nations which thou hast made shall come and worship 
 before thee O Lord, and shall glorify thy name. For 
 thou art great, and doest wondrous things ; thou art 
 God alone." 
 
 To this w^e reply, that there is no defect in the 
 Psalms. They answer most admirably the end for 
 which they were given — to be a system of Psalmody 
 for the Jewish church, and contain, moreover, much 
 devotional and instructive matter, suited to the praises 
 of God's people, under the present dispensation of 
 grace. But there is a great defect in the proof ad- 
 duced by our opponent to shew^ that there are in the 
 book of Psalms, Psalms that may be called the song 
 of Moses and the Lamb. Besides the circumstance 
 that the above Psalms are applicable to the Jews only, 
 but Christ the "Lamb of God who taketh aw^ay the 
 
68 , PSALMODY. 
 
 sins of the world," and is the deliverer of his church 
 from her enemies, is not mentioned in those Psalms 
 as such, nor yet in any Psalm of the whole collection. 
 This is what gives the song of Moses and the Lamb 
 its distinctive character ; and as it has been, or will be 
 sung in the Christian church, it is an unquestionable 
 precedent that songs of praise have been sung in the 
 church at present which are not in the book of Psalms. 
 As for the precepts mentioned in Eph. 5 : 19 ; and 
 Col. 3 : 16, 17, to sing "Psalms, hymns, and spirit- 
 ual songs," our Reviewer says in the beginning of 
 this number that they are " entirely unsatisfactory." 
 This is a compendious w^ay of settling a disputed point ; 
 but we are satisfied that if he could have overturned 
 our arguments from those passages, he would have 
 tried it, and until this is done, we will consider that 
 we have produced both precepts and precedents for 
 an evangelical Psalmody. There is nothing more of 
 any importance in this number but what we have no- , 
 ticed, and we are not to be diverted from our main 
 object by entering into an irrelevant discussion re- 
 specting the relative merits or demerits of Rouse's or 
 Watt's version of the book of Psalms — we have a 
 more important object in view. 
 
 THE PREACHER. 
 
 It would seem that we are to be altogether over- 
 whelmed at once. Besides the occasional attacks in 
 the Missionary Advocate, a friend sent us a few days 
 ago, a new religious Journal, edited by Rev. John T. 
 Pressly, D. D. in which he makes his debut, by 
 charging us with gross and grievous misrepresentations 
 of himself, in our reply to his Review. The first is, 
 that we represent him as endeavoring "to put us in 
 a false jDOsition" in the beginning of the discussion, by 
 his stating in his first number that we hold that our 
 songs of praise, are to be taken from the New Testa- 
 ment exclusively. And as a proof that we hold this 
 
THE PREACHER. 69 
 
 doctrine, he produces our saying in our "Inquiry," 
 that the phrase "The word of Christ" in Col. 3: 16, 
 means the New Testament exclusively. And from 
 our asking in p. 207, "where did the church militant 
 on earth, and the church triumphant in heaven, get 
 the subject matter of the preceding songs, and then 
 saying, "Assuredly not from the book of Psalms; 
 for Christ is no where in that book represented as a 
 Lamb slain, and redeeming his people by his blood ; 
 but from such expressions as these — "we have 
 redemption through his blood," &c. Now, how he 
 could infer from these passages, that we hold that in 
 our praises of God, we are to confine ourselves to the 
 New Testament exclusively, must be surprising to 
 every reader of good common sense. The true state 
 of the case is this : — ^We hold that it is the privilege 
 and duty of the church to draw her songs of praise 
 from both the Old and New Testaments, and the above 
 passages were adduced as proofs of the latter proposi- 
 tion. But that we did not exclude the Old Testament 
 from our songs of praise, is evident from the following 
 passages in our "Inquiry," p. 206: — "The scene 
 which John saw in heaven, or the habitation God, as 
 recorded in the fifth chapter, is another proof that we 
 are to take our songs of praise from the New, as well 
 as from the Old Testament." Again, p. 213: "But 
 when we say, that all that is typical and local, in the 
 Psalms, is not suited to gospel worship and praise, yet 
 we cheerfully and unhesitatingly say, that whatever iis 
 devotional and preceptive, is highly suited to the' 
 praises of God, and accordingly has been used in all 
 ages of the church, and we are persuaded, will be used 
 and relished to the end of time." Dr. Pressly had 
 read these passages, and how he could with these and 
 similar passages before his eyes say, that we are for 
 confinino; the sonojs of the church to the New Testa- 
 ment exclusively, is to us altogether unaccountable, 
 unless he calculated that we were too old and in- 
 
70 PSALMODY. 
 
 firm, to reply to his revievv'. And however he may 
 writhe mider it, the charge of misrepresenting us, is 
 now for the second time, irremoA^eably nailed down 
 upon him, and for bringing it again before the public 
 eye, he has himself alone to blame. iVnd here, we 
 hand back to him for his own proper use and improve- 
 ment, this good advice in Prov. 2d : 8 — " Go not forth 
 hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the 
 end thereof, when thy neighbor hath put thee to shame." 
 He seems to have forgotten who was, and is the as- 
 sailant in this controversy. 
 
 Another charge is, that we have represented him as 
 saying, that hymn-singing exposes the singers to the 
 punishment inflicted on Nadab and Abihu of old, for 
 offering " strange fire before the Lord," but which he 
 denies. He admits havinof said — " And have we not 
 
 o 
 
 reason to apprehend that disregard to divine authority 
 in the worship of God, now subjects the guilty to the 
 displeasure of heaven, as certainly as it did the pre- 
 sumptuous sons of Aaron." But he withholds another 
 sentence of his own, and which completely exonerates 
 us from the charge. It is this : that when professing 
 christians who have embraced his views on Psalmody, 
 happen to be where hymns are sung, " however well 
 their hearts may be tuned, and however ardently they 
 may desire to engage in the exercise, they are com- 
 pelled to be silent, lest they should be chargeable with 
 offering strange fire before the Lord." And now we 
 appeal to the reader, if he has not identified the singing 
 of hymns with the " strange fire offered by the unhap- 
 py sons of iVaron;" and if he has not said that hymm 
 singers are now exposed to the punishment inflicted 
 on those presumptous young men. He now says, 
 however, in his "Preacher," that he did not mean that 
 particular punishment, but punishment in general, for 
 disregarding the divine command. Be it so ; and it 
 is to be hoped, that he will be more cautious for the 
 time to come, in expressing his opinion of the enor- 
 
DR. pressly's avit. 71 
 
 mous guilt of his neighbors in the matter and man- 
 ner of their worship, and examine more closely how 
 it is at home. For there are not a few, who think 
 that the worship of his own hearers in singing the typ- 
 ical parts of the Psalms "literally," as he snys they 
 they do, is more like " the strange fire " alluded to, 
 than singing any hymn in the collection of the Pres- 
 byterian church. His best friends will say, that he 
 ought not to have brought up this subject again. 
 
 As for the witticisms which he has thrown out re- 
 specting "our undaunted courage — holy horror — and 
 our blood being excited by the heat of the weather 
 when we wrote," we will pass them by as harmless 
 things which can do no honor to himself, nor dishonor 
 to us. They indicate only a lack of argument. He 
 closes this attack by giving us what he calls his "first 
 lesson." When he reads this, he will see clearly that 
 we have not neglected but attended to it; and we now 
 return the favor by giving him one also. It consists 
 of two good advices. The first is, that as he has made 
 preparation for entering extensively into controversy 
 in the "Preacher;" then we advise him always to 
 quote his opponents, and himself too, fairly and fully, 
 and not by halves. This will save him a good deal 
 of trouble, and it may be, some shame, in his reviewing 
 and editorial career. The second is, that as he is, or 
 thinks he is possessed of a fund of wit, and is not 
 backward to let it flash occasionally, then, for the 
 credit of the Doctorship, let h be that of a Dr. South, 
 and not of a Joe Miller — "Thus endeth our first 
 lesson." 
 
72 PSALMODY. 
 
 NO. VIIL 
 
 De/i?iitions of Human Inventions and Human Compo- 
 sure sustained — Misrepresentation. 
 
 We have said in our last number, that the discus- 
 sion on Psalmody, between Dr. Pressly and ourselves, 
 was fast descending, on his part, into trifling cavils, and a 
 war of words. . Whether he has finished his review of 
 our "Inquiry" we cannot tell; but be that as it may, 
 he has, in the first and second numbers of his " Preach- 
 re," commenced what he calls "Remarks" on our 
 reply to his Review. We have made a few strictures 
 in our last number, on the first number of his Remarks ; 
 and our object in this is to make a few also on his 
 Remarks, No. II. 
 
 And indeed we scarcely know how to begin, as it 
 necessarily must be a war about words, and not about 
 doctrines, precepts, or things. We have said in our 
 " Inquiry," that " human inventions," strictly and 
 properly speaking, mean something devised by human 
 wisdom in the useful arts and sciences ; and that the 
 words "human composure" also mean something 
 composed by men, the subject matter of which, is 
 human interests or concerns; and that it is improper to 
 apply them to any composition relating to the plan of 
 redemption by Christ, as the devising and application 
 of that glorious and gracious plan was altogether di- 
 vine. On the other hand, Dr. P. from Mr. Reid 
 understands by " human inventions," " every doctrine, 
 every mode of worship, and every church regulation, 
 for which there is no authority in the word of God ;" 
 and then says, " that we have not brought forward any 
 scriptural proof in support of our definition of the 
 words." We have no objections that every thing re- 
 lating to this controversy be tried by that infahible 
 standard ; and since he demands scriptural proof on 
 
PERVERSION OF TERMS. 73 
 
 this point, he shall have it. In second Chron. 26 : 15, 
 it is said of king Uzziah, that he made in Jerusalem 
 engines invented by cunning men, to be on the towers, 
 and upon the bulwarks, to shoot arrows and great 
 stones withal. And in the j^rophecy of Amos, 0: 5, 
 certain persons are mentioned "who chant to the sound 
 of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of 
 music like David." As for Psalm 106: 29, where it 
 is said that the Jews " provoked God to anger with 
 their inventions," and which Dr. P. adduces for his 
 use of the words, they were, properly speaking, spir- 
 itual inventions, devised by " spiritual wickednesses in 
 high places," and of which, the worship of Baal-peor 
 mentioned in the preceding verse was one. And 
 what now is the difference between Dr. P. and Mr. 
 Reid, and ourselves in regard to those words. We 
 understand them as strictly and properly meaning 
 inventions in the arts and sciences; but they apply 
 them to what they deem deviations from the true wor- 
 ship of God. It was of this that we complained in 
 our " Inquiry," as throwing a terrifying atmosphere 
 around the worship of God, where hymns and spiritual 
 songs are used in his praise, unless it can be positively 
 proved, that in that part of his worship, we are not to 
 sing any versified portion of the Scrij^tures but the 
 book of Psalms. But this has not been proved as yet, 
 and until it is proved, we repeat it, that the frequent 
 use of these words as aj^plied by our oj^ponents, is 
 throwing a darkening, terrifying and deleterious 
 atmosphere around the subject of Psalmody, and fill- 
 ing th-e well-meaning but weak mind with perplexity, 
 and, as we think, with groundless terror. 
 
 As for the phrase " human composure," or compo- 
 sition, we still adhere to our definition of the words in 
 our " Inquiry," that it is something in prose or in 
 verse, composed by man, the subject matter of which 
 is human views, wishes, concerns, or interests. Dr. 
 P., however, says, "that the latter part of this defini- 
 7 
 
74 PSALMODY. 
 
 tion is not only unnecessary, but imposes a restriction 
 upon the meaning of the words defined, inconsistent 
 with their plain import." After this he gives us his 
 own definition of the words thus — "A human compo- 
 sure is something -composed by man." That is, hu- 
 man composure is human composure ; and as accord- 
 ing to his definition it has no relation to human affairs, 
 it is therefore about nothing under the sun. The def- 
 inition is indeed neat and concise ; but we cannot adopt 
 it, because it is like what Esop in one of his fables tells 
 us the fox said of a well formed likeness of the human 
 head which he saw in a barber's shop — " O ! what a 
 beautiful head, but it has no brains." * He does in- 
 deed afterwards say, "that it may be immaterial what 
 may be the subject-matter of the composition ;" but if 
 the latter part of our definition is ^Hnmecessarij,''^ it 
 excludes all sublunary ideas whatever. There are 
 indeed many compositions in the world that are very 
 scanty of ideas, but we have never read any that had 
 not some ideas, more or less. And here, by the way, 
 we would observe, that as Dr. P. is printing his part 
 of this discussion, his readers will find a great scanti- 
 ness of ideas respecting " human inventions and human 
 composure," and also on what he has said respecting 
 his hearers not singing his explanations of the Psalms ; 
 for all he has said on those j)oints in this number, he 
 has said in the second number of his review. We do 
 not remember an additional idea in the second edition, 
 and why he introduced them again we cannot tell, 
 unless it was to increase the size of the book. But on 
 the point more immediately at hand, we would farther 
 remark, that although the phrase " human composure " 
 
 * Dr. Pressly had given the above definition of " liuman composure " 
 in the second number of his review ; but we took no notice of it, from 
 the persuasion that every intelligent reader would see that it was ab- 
 surd and ridiculous. But when he introduced it again and with the air 
 of an unanswerable ai'gument, we thought it necessary to notice, and 
 exhibit it in its true character, that we might not be troubled with it 
 again. 
 
NO PROOF YET. 75 
 
 has evidently reference to compositions in prose or in 
 verse, on human affairs, yet as there are many com- 
 positions in verse on divine subjects, it is improper to 
 apply it to such. The circumstance of their being 
 founded on the divine word, removes them from '* hu- 
 man composure," stricdy and properly speaking ; for 
 Dr. P. himself acknowledges and admits, " that it is 
 the subject matter of a composition that gives it its 
 distinctive character." And as already observed, to 
 apply the phrase to a hymn, or spiritual song, has a 
 tendency to fill the serious but weak mind with terrors, 
 lest singing such hymns would be worshipping God 
 with what is human, and not divine, or not founded 
 on his word. 
 
 To put an end to this state of perplexity and terror, 
 we have repeatedly called on Dr. P. for the proof of 
 his assumption " that the book of Psalms was designed 
 as an exclusive system of Psalmody for the church," 
 but we have called in vain. And here we confess 
 that we could scarcely believe our eyes, when we read 
 the following sentence : '^ And I appeal to every intel- 
 ligent reader, while I say that there is not a particle of 
 truth in this unqualified declaration, that I assume the 
 point at issue." One would expect that after this 
 unqualified charge on our veracity, he would refer the 
 reader to those Scripture passages which he has adduced, 
 to prove that we are to confine ourselves to the book 
 of Psalms in the praises of God. The reader who 
 has not seen his Review, may be ready to ask and 
 does he not do so ? No, not a single passage to that 
 purport. What then ? " That he exhibited as clearly 
 as he could the principle for which his author contends, 
 and stated his own. But the statement of the principle 
 for which one contends, is certainly a very different thing 
 from the point at issue." Very true ; but when the 
 principle for which one contends is called in quesdon, 
 as we do his, then proof is indispensably necessary. 
 This is what we demanded and called for ; but all to 
 
76 PSALMODY. 
 
 no purpose. He concludes this strange and we must 
 say reckless paragraph thus — " I assume no principle 
 in dispute, without producing what I regard sufficient 
 proof in support of it." He has assumed that the 
 church in her praises of God is to confine herself to 
 the book of Psalms ; and we repeat it, that he has not 
 given a single iota of proof from tlie Scripture, in 
 support of the assumption. But there is a ray of hope 
 in this case, for he says in the last words of the para- 
 graph — •" On this subject the reader will have more 
 full and satisfactory evidence as we advance." We 
 will see. 
 
 And here we could not but smile at the a^^ology 
 which he makes for not proving the position with 
 which he set out in the first number of his Review — 
 " That it is the will of God that the sacred songs con- 
 tained in the book of Psalms, be sung in his worship 
 both public and private to the end of tlie world, and 
 that we have no authority to use any other." He 
 says that the reason why he did not adduce any Scrip- 
 tural proof in support of this proposition was — that he 
 wished to overturn the system of Psalmody taught in 
 our Inquiry, and then bring forward the proof for his 
 own. Now, we would think, that the best method 
 would have been first to prove the proposition, and 
 then from that proposition, demolish the system of his 
 opponents. But instead of this, he takes the proposi- 
 tion for granted, and then argues from it as an admit- 
 ted truth. We wonder what system of Logic he was 
 taught — it was certainly not "Watt's Logic" — and if 
 he teaches his theological students that in framing their 
 sermons, they are first to unfold and explain the doc- 
 trines which they wish to teach, but not prove them 
 as they go along, but when they have finished, then 
 to bring forward the proof. If he does not teach 
 them so by precept, he has taught them so, by a most 
 palpable and striking example in this discussion. He 
 says alsoj that the reason why we called upon him 
 
MISREPRESENTATION. 77 
 
 for the proof of his proposition was to divert him 
 from his assaults on our "Inquiry." He is ahogether 
 mistaken, and could not know that we had any such 
 design. We called for proof, hecause we felt in- 
 dignant that he should take his proposition for granted, 
 while we offered what we believed, and still believe 
 to be proof of our proposition ; — that every part of 
 the word of God which is suhed for praise, may be 
 employed for that purpose, as well as in preaching and 
 praying. 
 
 We cannot dismiss this point, although in a great 
 measure a war of words, and groundless assertions, 
 without noticing a syllogism which Dr. P. has been 
 so kind as to frame for us. He says, "that in the 
 first place we set out with the assertion, which may 
 be admitted, that hymns composed by uninspired men 
 relate to the plan of redemption. But the plan of 
 redemption is a matter of divine revelation, and not a 
 human discovery. Therefore — what ? The proprie- 
 ty of using hymns composed by uninspired men." — 
 Now, there are no such assertions or reasonings in any 
 part of our "Inquiry," nor any thing said by us from 
 which such a conclusion can be legitimately drawn. — 
 If there is, we here call upon our opponent to produce 
 it; and if he does not, we must and will consider the 
 above passage a gross misrepresentation. On the con- 
 trary, we have said in the chapter respecting "human 
 inventions, and human composure" (p. 190) what ex- 
 pressly contradicts his conclusion, and which he has 
 read. The sentence is this — "we are not now enqui- 
 ring if it be lawful to use hymns in the public worship 
 of God, but into the real meaning of the hackneyed 
 words — human inventions." This is not the first time 
 that we have had reason to complain of Dr. P. for 
 not quoting us " fairly and fully." And "indolent" 
 as he says our mind is, and impaired as its faculties 
 are by age, and its accompanying infirmities, it is not 
 yet reduced to such imbecility, as that we could rea- 
 
78 PSALMODY. 
 
 « 
 
 son in such a silly manner as he represents in the 
 above quotation. Indeed, from the recklessness of 
 assertion and palpable contradictions in this No. it 
 would seem to us, that from some cause or other, his 
 own mind was in a state of perturbation when he was 
 writing it. Was it from a view and consideration 
 of the many difficulties which surround his system of 
 Psalmody ? 
 
 When Dr. Pressly had given us a second edition 
 of all he had said in the 2d number of his Review re- 
 specting " human inventions, and human composure," 
 he proceeds to tell us that the people of the Associate 
 Reformed church do not sing the explanation of the 
 Psalm given by their ministers, but " sing the Psalm 
 itself, literally and truly ; the very words of the Psalm, 
 and not the explanation which they have heard." — 
 We confess that we were shocked when we read these 
 words, more full and definite than his first declarations 
 on the point in the 2d number of his review. We 
 were shocked, because if true, it exhibits a scene of 
 mental lying in the house, and in the more immediate 
 presence of God, of which we had no previous con- 
 ceptions. For instance when he selects the 66th 
 Psalm to be sung, he will tell his hearers, we presume, 
 that the words, " I will go into thy house with burnt 
 offerings, I will offer unto thee burnt sacrifices," 
 were typical of the sacrifice Christ offered up of him- 
 self for the sins of his people, but then in singing them 
 they do not sing the explanation, or direct the eye of 
 the mind or the eye of faith to that sacrifice for ac- 
 ceptance with God, but sing them "literally and truly" 
 as they are, and tell Jehovah to his face that they will 
 offer him burnt sacrifices, when at the same time they 
 
 have no desio^n to do so. If this is not awful Ivino^ 
 . . . .0 
 
 with the mind and with the tongue, in the more imme- 
 diate presence of God, we know not what can be so 
 denominated. We will suppose again, that he selects 
 some of those Psalms in which the Psalmist says that 
 
"literally and truly. /y 
 
 he will praise God, or calls upon others to praise him, 
 with "harps, psalteries, cornets, organs, ten stringed 
 instruments, trumpets, and high sounding cymhals ; " 
 he will tell them we would also presume that these in- 
 struments of music, symbolized and denoted high and 
 holy affections in praising God ; but then, according to 
 his theory and practice on the subject, they are not to 
 regard his explanations, nor look to God for those af- 
 fections, but sing those Psalms " literally and truly" as 
 they are in their Psalm book, and when at the same 
 time there is not one of these instruments of music in 
 the church, nor persons to play upon them. What, we 
 would again ask, is this, but a most solemn mockery 
 of that God who will not be mocked with impunity, nor 
 give his praise to graven images. If there are church- 
 es who sing the praises of God according to the pre- 
 ceding plan, we must siy of them — "O my soul come 
 not thou into their secret, unto their Assembly my 
 honor be not thou united." But we cannot believe 
 that there are such churches, and if such individuals 
 there are, their number is small. 
 
 He concludes this paragraph with an illustration 
 which he no doubt thought would com23letely silence 
 us, and vindicate his own theory and practice on this 
 subject. He supposes that Dr. Ralston sometimes 
 explains a chapter of the word of God for the benefit 
 of his hearers — that if a head of a family who had 
 heard it should read the same chapter in family de- 
 votion, and repeat our explanatory remarks, he then 
 asks, if they read Dr. Ralston's Bible, or do they read 
 the word of God ? Now, although we believe that 
 this illustration was designed not only as a vindication 
 of his theory, but as a very witty retort for what we 
 have formerly said about " singing Pressly's Psalms," 
 it militates strongly against him. For why would a 
 head of a family repeat our explanations to his house- 
 hold but that they might affix our ideas to any part of 
 the chapter that may be obscure when they should 
 
80 PSALMODY. 
 
 read or meditate upon it, if they would profit by their 
 reading or meditation. But not so is it in the case 
 under consideration. No matter how typical or other- 
 wise obscure the Psalm may be, and no matter how 
 judicious or evangelical the explanations may be, the 
 people are not to make any use of them in singing, 
 notwithstanding the apostle expressly enjoins it upon 
 us, " to sing with the understanding." It is enough, 
 it seems, according to Dr. P's theory, that what they 
 sing is the word of God, whether they understand it 
 or not, or whether it is suited to the worship of the 
 Jewish or of the Christian dispensation of grace. — 
 Some of our readers may be now ready to ask, of 
 what use, then, is the explanation, and what could 
 induce Dr. P. to contend for such a manner of sing- 
 ing. The secret is this, to admit of our singing the 
 explanation of a typical, or otherwise obscure Psalm, 
 would be to admit mental " human composure," as he 
 calls it, in the worship of God, but that would over- 
 turn his whole system of Psalmody. We admit that 
 every Psalm in the collection may be profitably sung 
 when the antitypical idea taken from the epistle to the 
 Hebrews is affixed to the typical word, but to sing 
 them according to his plan is, in our apprehension, 
 alike absurd and impious. 
 
 We will close this number by remarking, that from 
 the poverty of words in all languages, many words 
 are necessarily used in a lesser and more extended 
 sense. This is the case with the word " divine" in 
 our own lanouas^e. It is used in its most extended 
 sense to denote the character of the Scriptures as alto- 
 gether divine, because the writers were divinely in- 
 spired. It is also used to denote any hymn or spirit- 
 ual sons^ founded on the divine word. In this sense 
 we used it in our " Inquiry," p. 192, as is evident 
 from the drift and design of our argument. But Dr. 
 P., in the 2d number of his review, represents us as 
 using it in its most extended sense, and thereby '' ele- 
 
UNFAIRNESS. 81 
 
 vatino; a hymn composed by uninspired men to a level 
 with the word of God." And then, first in his own 
 name, and again " in the name of the Protestant church 
 of Christ, enters his solemn protest" against the im- 
 pious doctrine. In our 2d number we noticed and 
 explained the matter, and we reasonably expected 
 that should he recur to this point again, he would 
 make the necessary apology and announce to his 
 readers that he had mistaken our meaning of the word. 
 But instead of this, he introduces us in the paragraph 
 last examined as saying " that evangelical hymns 
 composed by uninspired men are divine compositions," 
 w^ithout tellino; his readers in what sense we under- 
 stand the word "divine" when predicated of hymns 
 in this discussion, but leaving them to understand it in 
 the sense against which he had so pompously protest- 
 ed. Now we must say, that this was neither ingenu- 
 ous nor honest. Although he had in the second 
 number of his Review distinctly identified the singing 
 of hymns wdth the " strange fire " offered up by Na- 
 hab and Abihu of old ; and although he had as dis- 
 tinctly said, that the singers were now liable to be 
 consumed by fire from heaven as were those unhappy 
 young men ; yet when he said in the 1st number of 
 his " remarks " that he did not mean that kind of pun- 
 ishment, but punishment in general, w^e felt it to be 
 our duty to announce it to our readers, as w^e did in 
 our 7th number. Any man in the course and heat of 
 controversy may use a word of doubtful meaning, 
 without sufficient explanation, and which may be in- 
 terpreted to his disadvantage. But when he has ex- 
 plained himself, it is the duty and honor of his oppo- 
 nent to publish bis explanation, and not to do so is 
 alike disingenuous and dishonorable. As Dr. Pressly 
 is about to enter largely into controversy in his 
 " Preacher," the preceding observations may be of 
 use to him in his future literary career — "Thus end- 
 eth our second lesson." 
 
82 PSALMODY. 
 
 NO. IX. 
 
 History of Psalmody Defended, 
 
 That our readers might have a full view of the sub- 
 ject under discussion, we presented to them in our 
 3d number a brief history of Psalmody, from the ear- 
 liest ages to the present period of the church. We 
 observed, " that it is evident from sacred history that 
 the church of God was in the habit, from the earliest 
 ages, of singing songs of praise to him, and which 
 have not formed any 23art of the book of Psalms, and 
 that the fair presumption is, that they were the pro- 
 ductions of uninspired men." As proof of this, we 
 referred to Gen. 4: 26; Judges 21 : 19, 20, and 1 
 Sam. IS : 26, in all of which religious songs are said 
 to have been sung in honor of Jehovah, but none of 
 which are in the book of Psalms. And how now 
 does Dr. P. meet and answer this argument? Does 
 he attempt to show that those songs w^ere composed 
 by inspired persons, or that they are in the book of 
 Psalms. No — ^he does not even mention or refer to 
 them, and it was prudent in him not to do so, but he 
 makes no little noise about our saying that it is "a 
 fair presumption " that those songs were of a religious 
 character, or in other words, that our argument is only 
 of the presumptive kind. We acknowledge that the 
 word " presumption " was not well selected, as it con- 
 veys a fainter idea than was intended. But as it is 
 our own, we have a right to change it for a better, and 
 to remove the cavil, we now say, that until he proves 
 that those songs were not of a religious character, and 
 not acceptable to Jehovah, it is a fair inference that 
 they were the productions of pious but uninspired 
 men, and founded on some revelation of the charac- 
 ter and will of God. We have said in a former num- 
 ber that this discussion, on the part of our opponent, 
 
 i 
 
HISTORY. 83 
 
 was fast descending into trifling cavils, and a war of 
 words ; and it is left with the reader to say, whether 
 or not, the preceding objection is of this character. 
 
 But we did not stop here. We shewed in a con- 
 densed narrative from the late Rev. T. D. Baird's 
 *' Inquiry" on the subject of Psalmody, that spiritual 
 songs composed by uninspired men were sung in the 
 christian church from the Apostles' age to the present 
 day, — that they were used, and are still used, if not 
 in all, yet in the greatest number of the churches of 
 the Reformation, — "That the subject came before the 
 General Assembly of the Scottish church in 1647, 
 164S, 16S6, and the Associate Burgher Synod, 
 (from which we are told Dr. P. is ecclesiastically 
 sprung,) in 1747, and that those bodies appear to have 
 admitted the lawfulness of using in Psalmody any 
 Scripture song. 
 
 And to this we would add, that Dr. P. tells us in 
 the 2d number of his "Preacher" " that in conse- 
 quence of difficulties arising out of a disposition on 
 .the part of some of the Eastern brethren to conform to 
 the usages of other churches, the General Synod of 
 the Associate Reformed church was resolved into 
 three independent co-ordinate Synods, the Synod of 
 the West, the Synod of the South, and the Synod of 
 New York." Now, what were those " usages," a 
 conforming to which produced this separation V Did 
 it not arise from the members alluded to occasionally 
 singing hymns in Presbyterian churches, when they 
 happened to be providentially present? Here, then, 
 we have the history of an evangelical Psalmody 
 brought down to the present day, even among those 
 who are dissentients from the church of Scotland, and 
 the Presbyterian church in the United States of 
 America. As Dr. P. says that the Associate Reform- 
 ed Synod of New York is a " co-ordinate " Synod 
 with the Synods of the North and of the South, we 
 would be glad to know how he treats those brethren, 
 who, according to his opinion, occasionally " offer 
 
84 PSALMODY. 
 
 Strange fire before the Lord," when he happens to 
 meet them, does he commmie and mterchange pulpits 
 with them ? If he does, then what is this protracted 
 discussion about ? If he does not, on account of their 
 occasionally using an evangelical Psalmody, why call 
 them Associate Reformed Presbyterians at all, and the 
 Synod of which they are members a co-ordinate 
 Svnod with that to which he belono^s. One would 
 expect, that when endeavoring to invalidate the argu- 
 ment in favor of an evangelical Psalmody, deducible 
 from the preceding short history, he would notice and 
 endeavor to explain the foregoing facts, so as not to 
 counteract his theory and practice. But he is also 
 prudently silent on those points, and confirms the truth 
 of the old adage, "that the legs of the lame are not 
 equal." 
 
 In the course of our compendious history we ob- 
 served, that the song of Moses and the Israelites at the 
 Red Sea, was an inspired song, and therefore came 
 not within the sphere of our inquiry. We observed, 
 also, that this song is not in the book of Psalms, and 
 why it is not, our opponent perhaps can tell us the 
 reason, for we cannot. On this Dr. P. remarks thus 
 — " Why he should have noticed this song at all, it is 
 not easy to discover, unless it was to display his wit, 
 for which he is so remarkable." Whether the reader 
 can discover any thing witty in the above quotation, 
 we cannot tell ; but we Avho wrote it, have not seen, 
 nor can we see, any thing in it, but a simple confession 
 of ignorance on the point. And when we read his 
 remark, by that law of mind called "Association," the 
 following appropriate distich of the witty author of 
 Hudibras, came bolting into our memory, impaired 
 as it is — 
 
 " Optics sharp, they have, we ween, 
 Who see what is not to be seen." 
 
 After this. Dr. P. gives us an instance and proof of 
 his extraordinary mental vision, by telling us, " that 
 
PROOF DEMANDED AGAIN. S5 
 
 the song was prepared and designed by its divine au- 
 thor for a particular occasion. ' And not being design- 
 ed for permanent use in the worship of God he did 
 not think proper to give it a place in the book of 
 Psalms. We meet with divine songs in almost every 
 part of the Bible. But God has given his church one 
 book of Psalms only. Those divine songs which were 
 designed for permanent use in the worship of God, 
 occupy a place in the book of Psalms; while those 
 which were not designed for this purpose are found in 
 various other parts of the Bible." He tells us also 
 that it affords him unspeakable pleasure "to give us 
 the above information." 
 
 We thank him for his benevolence and beneficence, 
 and tell him, that it will give us, if not unspeakable, 
 yet great pleasure, if he will produce proof that will 
 substantiate the foregoing items of his information, for 
 it will put an end to this controversy, protracted by 
 him beyond all reasonable bounds. In the first place, 
 we ask for proof that the song of Moses alluded to, 
 was designed for a particular occasion only, and not 
 for permanent use in the church. It was composed 
 and sung on occasion of a most notable deliverance 
 which the church of God had experienced from those 
 who sought its utter destruction, and is one of the su- 
 blimest pieces of sacred poetry. And from its being 
 referred to in "the Revelation" by John, and coupled 
 with the "song of the Lamb," one would think that 
 it was designed for permanent use in the church, and 
 we are persuaded that the time will come, when it 
 will form a part of her Psalmody. Secondly, we want 
 information respecting the person or persons, who, by 
 divine authority or command, collected the Psalms 
 under the Jewish dispensation, and arranged them 
 with a view of their being an exclusive system of 
 Psalmody to the end of time. The designation of a 
 particular number of Psalms, as a system of Psalm- 
 ody for the church in all ages, implies all this. And 
 8 
 
86 PSALMODY. 
 
 as faith is founded on testimony, then, it is neces- 
 sary for our faith and obedience in the case, that 
 we should know who those persons were, and if 
 they were divinely appointed to that office. And if 
 their names cannot be ascertained, yet proof that 
 some person or persons were thus divinely appoint- 
 ed, is indispensable for commanding our faith and 
 obedience in the premises. In the course of our 
 reading, we have met with some writers who allege, 
 that the book of Psalms was collected and arranged 
 by Ezra, and others, that this was done by a man 
 called " Simon the Just;" but we know nothing more 
 on the point. Dr. P., however, speaks so positively 
 on the subject, as leads us to suppose that he knows 
 who the collectors and selectors were, and can pro- 
 duce tlie divine command for their doing what they 
 did. Our own limited views of the matter have 
 been, that the Psalms composed by David and Asaph 
 for the service of the temple were first collected as a 
 system of Psalmody for that dispensation of grace, 
 and that the others which had been floating in the 
 church from the days of Moses, and had the impress 
 of divine inspiration upon them, were added in pro- 
 cess of time, but by whom we do not know. But it 
 is expected, that Dr. P., who, doubtless, has sounded 
 this subject in all its depths, will, out of his be- 
 nevolence, tell us all about it, and prove it too ; 
 for it is not to be supposed, that a Professor of 
 Theology would speak so jDOsitively on the subject, 
 without being able to produce the proof. Thirdly, 
 we want j^roof that the book of Psalms was design- 
 ed to be an exclusive system of Psalmody to the 
 end of time.- We have been calling for the proof 
 for nearly twelve months, but hitherto we have called 
 in vain. In the second number of his "remarks," 
 Dr. P. promised this proof as he "advanced." — 
 When we read the following words in the third number, 
 "God has given his church one book of Psalms 
 
87 
 
 only," we thought that the oft requested, and long 
 looked for proof was come at last, but as we pro- 
 ceeded, we found that we had nothing for it but his 
 bare. assertion. As the case now stands we must ex- 
 ercise patience for some time longer; and when this 
 proof comes, it will be expected, that it will be so lu- 
 cid, so plain, and so convincing as to put an end to 
 the controversy forever. 
 
 We have also said in our history of Psalmody, 
 ''that the Psalms were given as an excellent fund 
 whence the church might draw, in future ages, much 
 of the material of her songs of praise." We have 
 likewise said, "that we cannot but think, that the 
 book of Psalms was further designed as a model or 
 pattern for framing our songs, as the Lord's prayer 
 was given as a pattern for prayer, and supplication." 
 This, our opponent pronounces bold " dogmatizing, 
 and drawing largely on the credulity of the christian 
 public," and then says, that he '^ wants proof of this 
 from the word of God." How consistent this is with 
 his own conduct in this controversy, we have late- 
 ly seen, and in all which he has written and publish- 
 ed on this subject — taking the main question for 
 granted, and arguing from it as an undoubted truth. 
 But in regard to the above quotations, they were not 
 offered as dogmas, or doctrines, which the christian 
 public were to believe on this subject, but simply our 
 own opinions, and which the reader miglit receive or 
 reject without affecting his orthodoxy on the point. — 
 The words '^ we cannot hut tlihik^^'' are proof positive, 
 that we were only expressing an opinion, and surely 
 a man may express a private opinion, without being 
 arraigned as teaching and inculcating erroneous and 
 dangerous doctrines. And now, let the reader say, 
 if we were wrong when we said, that this discussion 
 was fast descending, on the part of our opponent, into 
 trifling cavils, and a war of words. 
 .Dr. P. closes this No. of his " Remarks," by charg- 
 
88 PSALMODY. 
 
 ing us with saying, " that he takes it for granted, that 
 the hymns and spiritual songs which have been, and 
 are in the church are the inventions of the composers, 
 and originated from them;" whereas, he " freely admits 
 that there are some uninspired hymns in use, which 
 are evangelical as to their matter." Whether design- 
 ed or not, this statement is not only deeply sophistical, 
 but self-contradictory. For what is it for a hymn to be 
 evangelical as to its matter, but that it contains inspired 
 matter, and as stated, it is inspired, and uninspired at 
 the same time. And as we have observed elsewhere, 
 it is the prefixing of the word " uninspired " before the 
 word hymn, that has thrown a darkening and terrifying 
 atmosphere around the subject of Psalmody, to the 
 serious but undiscriminating reader. But passing this 
 by, we have said as above, and were led to say so, 
 from his own high reprobating language of hymns as 
 " human composure, and human inventions, in the 
 worship of God," — and as abhorrent to Jehovah, as 
 " sacrificing a pig instead of a kid " of old, and now, 
 as " settting up, and worshipping pictures and images 
 in the church." To this may be added, his identify- 
 ing singing of hymns with the "strange fire which 
 Nadab and Abihu offered before the Lord ;" for 
 although he has disavowed intending to convey the 
 idea that the singers are liable to the punishment in- 
 flicted on these presumptuous young men, yet he has 
 said nothing respecting hymns as not being in them- 
 selves as bad as the strange fire. I^ we have erred, 
 or fallen into a mistake on this point, his own high 
 reprobating language and illustrations have led to the 
 mistake. For we could not reconcile such language 
 and illustrations with the idea that any hymn had any 
 thing good or evangelical in it ; more especially as Mr. 
 Reid, w^hose cause he has espoused, says, that hymns 
 are the productions of the composer's " own hearts,"^ 
 from which nothing good can come. Dr. Pressly 
 may be able to reconcile these things, but without any 
 
HYPERBOLE AXD I^'CIVILITy. S9 
 
 design or disposition to be witty, we confess — " that 
 we cannot." But as he now admits, that there are 
 some hymns, not so bad as Mr. Reid's language and 
 his own illustrations seem to import; courtesy, and 
 christian charity require that we should believe him, 
 and not charge him hereafter, with holding that all 
 hymns and spiritual songs contain nothing but the ef- 
 fusions of the human heart. But although he admits 
 that there are evangelical hymns in the church, he 
 adds, " that there are thousands and tens of thousands 
 which teach error in all its various forms." ^ye sup- 
 pose that he is speaking hyperbolically in this sent- 
 ence ; and that there are a number of erroneous hymns 
 in some churches, is readily admitted ; but this is no 
 more an argument against the use of those which are 
 sound and evangelical, than erroneous Confessions of 
 Faith are against the use and importance of those that 
 are orthodox and scriptural. 
 
 • And here we would observe, that self-respect for- 
 bids us to reply particularly to the following language 
 which he has used on this occasion — " culpable indo- 
 lence of mind "—and that we have " inhaled so much 
 of the deleterious atmosphere thrown around the sub- 
 ject of Psalmody, as not to understand what we are 
 writing about." Such things are certainly not wit, 
 and we do not choose to write their true name. They 
 indicate only a lack of argument, and when preceded 
 by the fulsome epithets of "venerable father, and ven- 
 erable author," must be disgusting to every reader of 
 the least taste and discernment. 
 
 We will close this number by observing farther, 
 that as Dr. P. and ourselves have been setthng what 
 he calls our " accounts current," and as he has ad- 
 dressed us personally, and " gently whispered some 
 things into our ear," we will address him personally 
 also. And now Rev. Brother, we would gently 
 " whisper into your ear," that there is a small item of 
 debt due to us, which we think, you should settle as 
 S* 
 
90 PSALMODY. 
 
 soon as possible. We allude to your attempt to place 
 us in a false position in this discussion, by misrepre- 
 senting our sentiments on Psalmody in the first num- 
 ber of your " Review." Justice to ourselves required 
 that we" should notice it, nor did we intend to advert 
 to it again. But, of your own accord, you brought it 
 again before the public eye in the first number of your 
 " Remarks," and added injury to injury, by attempt- 
 ing to convince your readers, that our charge against 
 you for misrepresenting us, was a misrepresentation of 
 yourself. Self-defence required that we should nail 
 down our charge upon you, and which we did, and 
 we think irremoveably too. Now, justice to us, and 
 a regard for your own reputation, require that you 
 should give such an explanation of these circumstances, 
 as may be satisfactory ; and if you do not, we need 
 not tell you, in what point of light you must and will 
 be considered as a controversialist. This is our third 
 lesson, and we hope that we will not be under the ne- 
 cessity of giving you a fourth. 
 
 We see that you have published the note which we 
 sent you, with your answer, in regard to pubhshing 
 our numbers on Psalmody in your "Preacher." We 
 have not complained that you refused to do so ; for it 
 is admitted that every editor has an exclusive control 
 over his own Journal. But we complain that your 
 apology for not publishing them is evasive and de- 
 ceptive ; for neither ourselves or friends claim, or have 
 any control over Mr. Annan's " Presbyterian Advo- 
 cate." Open honesty is the best policy. 
 
THE GREAT PRECEPT. 91 
 
 NO. X. 
 
 Precejuive iiroof for an Evangelical Psalmodij, from 
 Col. 3 : 16, 17, defended. 
 
 It may not be amiss to state again the question be- 
 tween Dr. Pressly and ourselves, in this controversy. 
 Dr. P. contends, that in the praises of God the church 
 should confine herself to the book of Psalms. On the 
 other hand, we think that every suitable portion of the 
 Old and New Testaments may be employed in that 
 part of divine worship, as well as in preaching and 
 praying. Although repeatedly called upon for the 
 proof of his proposition, he has hitherto withheld it, 
 and yet in the third number of his review he called 
 upon us for the proof of our own. This we gave in 
 the fourth number of our defence, and he has as- 
 sailed it in the fourth number of his remarks. Our 
 proof was taken from Eph. 5 : 19, and Col 3 : 16. 
 In this last passage the Apostle says — " Let the word 
 of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching 
 and admonishing one another in Psalms and hymns 
 and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts 
 to the Lord." From this passage we argued in the 
 first place, that the phrase — " The word of Christ," 
 when taken in connection with 2 Tim. 3 : 16, — "All 
 scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profit- 
 able for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for in- 
 struction in righteousness," establishes the fact that 
 we may take our songs of praise from both the Old 
 and New Testaments. Our inference was founded on 
 the circumstance, that as in 2 Tim. 3 : 16, "all scrip- 
 ture is said to be given for doctrine, so in Col. 3 : 16 
 Christians are enjoined to teach one another in Psalms 
 and hymns and spiritual songs, from the word of Christ 
 or the gospel of Christ." The reader will have ob- 
 
92 PSALMODY. 
 
 served that in both passages it is said that the doctrines 
 to be taught are to be taken from the whole of the in- 
 spired volume. 
 
 And how now does om* opponent meet, and try to 
 overturn this argument. He separates the two pas- 
 sages from which we have argued in connection, and 
 frames a couple of syllogisms from 2 Tim. 3 : 16 it- 
 self, and palms them upon us as deducible from our 
 reasoning. The first is, " that as the scriptures are 
 inspired, therefore uninspired men may prepare songs 
 for the use of the church, to use in the worship of 
 God." The second is lilve the first — " That as all 
 scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profit- 
 able for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and in- 
 struction in righteousness, therefore every man who 
 comes under a poetic impulse has a right to compose 
 songs to be employed in the worship of God." Now, 
 we have nothing whatever to do with these syllogisms. 
 They belong exclusively to Pr. P., and he may do 
 with them, whatever seemeth best in his own eyes. — 
 For we have not argued at all in favor of an evangeli- 
 cal Psalmody from 2 Tim. 3:16, by itself, and he 
 could not but know that we did not. But as already 
 observed, we have argued for it, from that passage, 
 and Col. 3 : 16, taken in. connection, from their being 
 parallels in some important respects, and our reason- 
 ing was as above. That as the apostle says in the 
 first of those passages, "that all scripture was given 
 by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine," 
 and in the other,, that christians " are to teach one 
 another in Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs," it 
 follows by inevitable consequence that those hymns 
 and spiritual songs are to be taken from the new and 
 old Testament alike. If there was anything defective 
 in our inference, it was fair in him to point it out, and 
 thereby destroy its force. But it seems he found this 
 to be rather a hard task, and as he must say something 
 to keep up the spirits of his friends, he resorted to 
 
OBJECTIONS TO THE PRECEPT. 93 
 
 what, we are persuaded, every discerning reader will 
 say, was neither honest nor honorable. 
 
 A second argument for an evangelical Psalmody 
 was drawn from the necessary meaning of the phrase, 
 " The word of Christ" itself in Col. 3 : 16, and its 
 necessary connection with singhig Psalms, hymns and 
 spiritual songs. It was observed that the injunction 
 of " teaching and admonishing one another in Psalms 
 and hymns and spiritual songs " looked back to some 
 antecedent, whence the Colossians and other churches 
 were to teach one another. That "the word of Christ" 
 was this antecedent, and that its necessary meaning in 
 this place referred to the New Testament, whence 
 those hymns and spiritual songs were to be drawn in 
 an especial manner. 
 
 To this our opponent objects, that in our " Inquiry" 
 we have said that the phrase refers to the New Testa- 
 ment exclusively, and thence he infers an inconsisten- 
 cy in coupling it with 2 Tim. 3 : 16. We readily 
 admit that the word " exclusively" is too strong for 
 the idea which we intended to convey, and in the 4th 
 number of our defence we changed it into the words 
 — "in an especial manner." Dr. P. saw this in that 
 number, and we are sorry to have it to say that he 
 had not the candor to say so. And now we adopt 
 the language of the Rev. John Brown, in his diction- 
 ary of the Bible, under the term " word." Speaking 
 of its second meaning, he says : "And chiefly the 
 gospel is the word of Christ, as he is the author, sub- 
 ject-matter, and end of it. Col. 3 : 16." This is an 
 authority to w^hich, we expect, Dr. P. will not object, 
 as that great and good man was one of his ecclesiasti- 
 cal fathers. 
 
 Our opponent also objects, "that it is an instance 
 of great temerity, not to say of unwarranted presump- 
 tion, to take up a phrase which occurs but once in the 
 Bible, and impose upon it an interpretation to suit a 
 favorite hypothesis." All Trinitarians are guilty of 
 
94 PSALMODY. 
 
 this temerity and presum23tion, for they "take up" 
 the words — " these three are one " in 1 John 5:7, 
 as proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, and these 
 words are not found in any other part of the Bible. 
 Besides, the words of the perplexing phrase are not 
 dark, or ambiguous, but clearly import the same thing 
 as *' the word of the gospel," or " the gospel of 
 Christ." And we have said, that although it has spe- 
 cial reference to the New Testament, it yet embraces 
 " all the doctrines, precepts, and promises of the old." 
 He also spends some time in j^roving what we never 
 disbelieved, and which has no relevancy to the point 
 in hand, that the Old and New Testaments are alike 
 the word of God. 
 
 And here we would remark farther, that the Apostle, 
 in his epistles, when speaking of the scriptures, styles 
 tliem, between ten and twenty times, " The word of 
 God." In the present passage which we are now 
 examining, he styles them " the word of Christ," in 
 connection with the duty of singing Psalms, hymns, 
 and spiritual songs. Now, can any man account for 
 tliis departure from his usual phraseology, in this pas- 
 sage, but that he designed to inform us that our songs 
 of praise are to be taken from the New Testament in 
 an especial manner. And to this we would add, that 
 had Dr. P. proved, or could he prove, that the phrase 
 " The word of Christ," meant the Old and New Tes- 
 taments, without any. special reference to the New, 
 what would it prove ? This only, that we are to draw 
 our songs of praise to God from both, and this is vir- 
 tually all we ever contended for, or now contend. Is 
 there a reader of plain common sense who does not 
 see this ; and that all he has said now and formerly 
 on this point is nothing but " beating the air." 
 
 A third argument for a gospel Psalmody was de- 
 duced from the injunction to " teach and admonish 
 one another in Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, 
 singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." Dr. 
 
VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS. 95 
 
 P. says that the apostle's object in the passage was 
 only to enjoin singing the praises of God with suitable 
 affections. That was indeed one object, as expressed 
 in the last clause — " singing with grace in your hearts 
 to the Lord." But the Colossians were enjoined to 
 teach one another in Psalms, &c., and the question 
 now is, how were they thus to teach one another ; for 
 we need scarcely say that the duty was distinct from 
 that of singing. In our 4th number we mentioned 
 three different interpretations of this injunction which 
 we had read and heard of, and then left it with the 
 reader to choose that which appeared most agreeable 
 to the drift and design of the Apostle, for we have not 
 heard of a fourth. The first is that of some commen- 
 tators who think that the apostle in those words enjoins 
 it upon those who could read to teach those who 
 could not, by reading or repeating to them portions of 
 the Psalms. This we rejected,*because as the Psalms 
 are comparatively obscure, and speak of the Saviour as 
 yet to come : the apostle would have rather recom- 
 mended the New Testament scriptures, which speak 
 of the Saviour as come, and of the way of salvation by 
 faith in his blood. The second is the opinion of those 
 who think that in the above words the apostle enjoins 
 it on Ministers to exj^lain the Psalm to the people be- 
 fore they sing it, " that they may sing with the under- 
 standing," or understand what they sing. This we 
 also reject, because its advocates take it for granted 
 that the book of Psalms was designed as an exclusive 
 system of Psalmody for the church, but this has not 
 as yet been proved. The third is, that those who 
 have qualifications for composing hymns or spiritual 
 songs for the use of the church, should enrich them 
 well from " the word of Christ" or the gospel of 
 Christ, in its doctrines, precepts and promises. This 
 we prefer until we meet with a better, but against it 
 Dr. P. raises the following objections. He says that 
 the qualifications which we allege as necessary for 
 
96 PSALMODY. 
 
 composing a hymn or spiritual song may be transferred 
 to the duties mentioned in the preceding verses. — 
 These duties are — " setting; tlie affections on thinps 
 above, v. 2 — mortifying our members which are upon 
 the earth, v. 5 — and not being one to another, v. 9." 
 He has transferred and prefixed the word " quahfied " 
 to those duties, and produced a reading, ludicrous 
 enough. But, in the name of common sense, what 
 have these duties to do with the duties mentioned in 
 the 16th verse, of " teaching one another in psalms, 
 hymns, and spiritual songs." A knowledge of the 
 doctrines of the gospel, and of the true meaning of 
 any portion of the scriptures to be versified, are neces- 
 sary qualifications for composing a useful hymn, or 
 spiritual song ; but are they necessary for discharging 
 the preceding duties? We think that there is not a 
 discerning person who will read this objection, but 
 will be constrained to say, that it is not only utterly 
 irrelevant to the point in hand, but all over contempti- 
 ble. 
 
 2. He objects also, that the scriptural knowledge 
 of the Colossians was very limited, as they had but 
 lately emerged " from thick darkness and superstition 
 of Pagan Idolatry," and that the writings of the New 
 Testament had not been completed, and those which 
 were in existence were accessible to few. At what 
 time they were converted to the christian faith, we 
 are not told: but according to Dr. Scott's chronology, 
 the epistle sent to them by Paul was in the year 64 ; 
 and this was 31 years after the commencement of the 
 christian era. Besides, Dr. P. tells us, "that they 
 were acquainted with the book of Psalms in which 
 there are a variety of sacred poems, bearing- the titles 
 of Psalms, and hymns." From these considerations, 
 it would seem, that they were not so ignorant and un- 
 qualified for composing others, as he at first represents 
 them. But it matters not as to the objection whether 
 any of them composed a spiritual song, or not ; for it 
 
TALENT FOR POETRY. . 97 
 
 should be borne in mind, that the apostoUc injunction, 
 whatever it meant, was not given to the church of 
 Colosse alone, but to the church in all future ages to 
 the end of time. It is in this point of light that we 
 have considered it in this discussion and when view- 
 ed in this light, the objection has no bearing what- 
 ever. 
 
 3. Dr. P. has another objection to our interpre- 
 tation of the words "teaching one another in Psalms, 
 hymns, and spiritual songs," and on which he places 
 considerable stress. It is founded in the circumstance, 
 "that a talent for writing poetry is one of those natural 
 gifts, which God has conferred on comparatively few." 
 In reply to this, we would observe, that Poets are in- 
 ventors, and a great power of invention is one of the 
 distinguishing characteristics of great Poets, as Ho- 
 mer, Virgil and Milton. Sometimes they invent the 
 story on which the poem is founded, and if the sto- 
 ry must be radically true, they invent, if not the whole 
 yet the greatest number of its incidents. The object- 
 ion, would seem to take it for granted, and indeed Mr. 
 Reid expressly says so, that the subject matter of 
 hymns and spiritual songs originate in "the hearts of 
 the composers." And notwithstanding Dr. P. has said 
 "that there are some uninspired hymns that are evan- 
 gelical as to their matter;" — a self-contradictory pro- 
 position, by the bye — yet the objection would seem 
 to import that the subject-matter was invented by the 
 composers. But the subject-matter of an evangelical 
 hymn was invented by infinite wisdom, is revealed in 
 his inspired word, and all the invention necessary in a 
 composer is, to arrange that inspired matter so as to 
 fit it to be sung in the praises of God. And is "this 
 as unreasonable as the conduct of Pharaoh, who 
 would not supply the Israelites with straw to make 
 brick, and yet rigorously exacted the full tale of 
 brick?" For surely it does not require- any extraor- 
 dinary talents to arrange the hnes of a hymn into a 
 9 
 
9S PSALMODY. 
 
 certain number of syllables, or poetic feet, as they are 
 called. And whatever difficulty may arise to us who 
 look for what is called rhyme, neither Jews, nor Greeks, 
 nor Romans were so fettered. It required only a 
 correct knowledge of the meaning of the portion of 
 scripture to be versified; and is not this attainable 
 without any poetic inspiration, or " afflatus" as it is called. 
 And if it is said that the composer may mistake the mean- 
 ing of the portions of scripture which he versifies, so may 
 translators, and so may preachers; but is that an ar- 
 gument against the translation of the scriptures, and 
 the preaching of the word. The objection, then, is 
 founded on what Logicians call ^'•ignoratio clenclii^^'' 
 or an ignorance of the subject, or of the true state of 
 the question. 
 
 4. In the 3d No. of his Review, Dr. P. produced 
 with some degree of pomp, the Hebrew - words, 
 "Mizmorim, Tehillim, Shirim," — Psalms, hymns, 
 songs, as proof that there are in the book oi Psalms, 
 three distinct kinds of sacred composition, and that 
 the Apostle alluded to these in Col. 3: 16. In our 
 4th No. we showed that in the Septuagint translation 
 of the book of Psalms, sometimes two, sometimes 
 three of those words are in the titles of some Psalms, 
 and consequently that the alleged division and distinc- 
 tion is fancied and false. This has lowered his tone 
 on this point, and brought him to acknowledge "that 
 it is a matter of no consequence to his argument, what 
 is the distinctive import of these different terms." And 
 it w*as prudent in him to do so ; for so far as we know, 
 the Jewish writers never mention the division and dis- 
 tinction alleged by him and others ; and that the above 
 words are synonymous, importing the same thing as 
 Ode and Song with us. The division and distinction, 
 then, belong to the Apostle Paul, and in our opinion, 
 by Psalms he alludes to the book of Psalms, and by 
 hymns and spiritual songs, other portions of the divine 
 word, versified for praising him who hath graciously 
 
THE FOURTH ARGUMENT. 99 
 
 given us the New as well as the Old Testament scrip- 
 tures. And to this we would add, that the jihrase 
 " spiritual songs " is not once mentioned in the book 
 of Psalms, but is peculiar to the New Testament, and 
 the New Testament dispensation of grace, emphatically 
 called, " the ministration of the Spirit." This circum- 
 stance is entitled to no small weight in this controversy. 
 A fourth argument for a gospel Psalmody, was de- 
 duced from the words of the seventeenth verse, "what- 
 soever ye do in word or in deed, do all in the name 
 of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the father 
 by him." In unfolding this argument it was observed, 
 that there is no access to an infinitely holy and just 
 God, but through a mediator. That this cardinal 
 doctrine was included in these words, but that we are 
 convinced from the phraseology itself, and from a 
 parallel phraseology in John 16 : 24, that the iVpostle 
 meant something more by them, than merely approach- 
 ing God through a mediator. The words in John are 
 the words of Christ himself to his disciples.- — " Hith- 
 erto ye have asked nothing in my name." It was 
 then asked, what did, or could Christ mean by these 
 words ? Did he, or could he mean, that they had 
 nev^r. prayed to God, through a mediator? No — ^for 
 there is no acceptable access to God, but through the 
 mediation of another. His meaning therefore must be, 
 that they had not prayed to God in his name, as " The 
 Mediator;" and it was again asked, "who does not 
 see, that it is one thing to approach God through a 
 Mediator, held out in .the Old Testament in a general 
 revelation and promise, and another thing to approach 
 him in the name of a particular pei-son as that Jledia- 
 tor, and ' the only Mediator between God and INFan.' " 
 From this was drawn. the obvious inference, that the 
 duty of praising God in Psalms, hymns, and spiritual 
 songs, cannot be discharged in the full meaning of the 
 Apostle, by confining ourselves to the book of Psalms, 
 but in songs recognizing Jesus as "the mediator of the 
 'NeAY Covenant," and who hadi purchased the church 
 
100 PSALMODY. 
 
 with his own blood." And to this was added the 
 declaration to the church by the Apostle in Phil. 2 : 9, 
 10 ; " that at the name of Jesus every knee should 
 bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and 
 things under the earth ; and that every tongue should 
 confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God 
 the Father." 
 
 Dr. P's. remark on the preceding statement, is truly 
 astonishing. He represents us as teaching " that be- 
 lievers under the Old Testament approached God, they 
 knew not through whom. It was through a mediator 
 held out through the general revelation and promise, 
 but who this mediator was, it seems they knew not. We 
 have observed in our fourth number that the mediator 
 was made known in the Old Testament under the ap- 
 pellations of " Shiloh, Messiah, Son of God, and Da- 
 vid's Lord ;" but did they know, or could they possi- 
 bly know, that Jesus of Nazareth was the mediator, 
 until he was manifested in the flesh, had they even 
 lived until that day. He says also, "if the author's 
 views on this subject are correct, it would seem, it 
 might be said of the eminent believers who lived be- 
 fore the incarnation of Jesus Christ, as our Lord said of 
 the Samaritans, " ye worship, ye know not what." And 
 could they not, and did they not believe in, and wor- 
 ship him as " The Son of God," exhibited as such in 
 the second Psalm. But as said, had they also lived 
 to that day, how possibly could they have believed in 
 Jesus as the Son of God, and the promised mediator, 
 until they had seen the characteristics of a mediator in 
 his life, doctrines, miracles and death. And as j^roof 
 that Abraham had as clear a view, as we have, that 
 Jesus was the promised Messiah, he adduces the words 
 of Christ himself — "Abraham rejoiced to see my day, 
 and saw it, and was glad." And how did that Patri- 
 arch see his day ? Was it not by the eye of faith, 
 and he saw it as substantially and clearly (Heb. 12 : 1,) 
 as if he had seen it with the eye of the flesh, because 
 of the unchangeable character of Him who had prom- 
 
OBVIOUS DISTINCTION. 101 
 
 ised, "that in his seed all nations of the earth should 
 be blessed." This is the import of the passage, and 
 to apply it in any other way, is preposterous, and dis- 
 torting it from its real meaning. It seems that our 
 saying that it is one thing to approach God through a 
 mediator held out in the Old Testament in a general 
 revelation and promise, and another thing to approach 
 him in the name of a particular person as that medi- 
 ator, is what has perplexed and bewildered Dr. P. on 
 this subject, " and he asks the Doctors of the Presby- 
 terian church, if this is the Theology of the Bible, or 
 of the Confession of Faith." We cannot answer for 
 others, but for ourselves we will say, that we do not 
 think there is a D. D. in the Presbyterian Church so 
 superficial a Theologian as not to see that the distinc- 
 tion is clear and scriptural. Perhaps Dr. P. himself 
 would see it, if connected with any other subject than 
 that of Psalmody. We suspect that it is not so much 
 the doctrine itself he dislikes, as the consequences fol- 
 lowing from it, legitimately demanding a song of praise 
 to Him " who loved us, and washed us from our sins 
 in his own blood, to make us kings and priests to God 
 and his father, to whom belongs the glory and domin^ 
 ion, forever and ever." 
 
 From the whole, we think we may safely say, that 
 our four arguments for a Gospel Psalmody, deduced 
 from Col. 3 : 16, 17, have not been answered by Dr. 
 Pressly. We have no doubt but that he put forth all 
 his strength on this occasion, as the credit and curren- 
 cy of his restricted views depended very much on his 
 success ; but he found those verses, particularly the 
 phrase " The w^ord of Christ," too stubborn to bend 
 to his exclusive system. But it may be necessary to 
 observe here, that we do not consider, nor have we 
 offered our third argument as a positive preceptive 
 proof in the case, but only as highly probable, but the 
 other three we offer as positive, and unanswerable. 
 
102 PSALMODY, 
 
 NO. XL 
 
 Charges of Misrejyresentation rebelled — Mental human 
 com])08ure sung by the Associate Reformed Church, 
 
 Although Dr. Pressly had promised m die second 
 number of his "Remarks" diat as he "advanc- 
 ed," he would produce die proof of his main propo- 
 sition, " that the church is to confine herself to the 
 book of Psalms, in singing the praises of God," he 
 has published three numbers since that time, but not 
 an iota of proof, nor even an allusion to the important 
 point, is to be found in either of them. The last of 
 these. No. 5, is occupied with an objection to one of 
 our arguments for a gospel Psalmody, and tvvo or 
 three strange complaints against ourselves. We have 
 said, as he states, " that the Psalms speak of a Saviour 
 to come, therefore they are not suited to the use of 
 the church, since the Saviour has now come." To 
 this he replies, " that it so happens that everywhere 
 throughout the book of Psalms, the Saviour is present- 
 ed to our view as already to come," and in proof he 
 refers us to the 2d, 22d, and 6Sth Psalms. The Sa- 
 viour is indeed exhibited in the 2d Psalm as the Son 
 of God, but it "so happens " that the promise of the 
 Father to him is not in the past or present, but in the 
 future tense, or time. " Thou shalt break them with 
 a rod of iron, thou shalt dash them in pieces like a 
 potter's vessel." Christ is also exhibited in the 22d 
 Psalm as a suffering, and in the 68th as a risen and 
 exalted Saviour. But who does not know that it was 
 usual with the prophets to represent future persons, 
 times, and things as present, because of the unchan- 
 geable character of the predictor or promiser, and to 
 impress our minds more deeply with the unfailing cer- 
 tainty of the prediction. Thus it is said in Isa. 9 : 6, 
 " that unto us is a child born, unto us a son is given," 
 
A SAVIOUR YET TO COME. 103 
 
 when at the same thiie the administration of his king- 
 dom of grace, as it respects the present dispensation, 
 is represented as future — *' and the government shall 
 be. on his shouMer." And that Christ is not always 
 represented in the Psalms as having suffered for sin, 
 and exalted to God's right hand, as that this shall be 
 the case, is evident from the last verse of the 110th 
 Psalm, where he is spoken of as a suffering and ex- 
 alted Saviour. He sliall drink of the brook by the 
 way, therefore he shall lift up the head. And now 
 we appeal to every reader, we appeal to Dr. P. him- 
 self, if the Messiah is not praised in these Psalms as 
 a Saviour who was to come, and our argument for an 
 evangelical Psalmody derived from that circumstance, 
 is firm and untouched. We confess that we were 
 astonished at a question which he asks us on this point, 
 as coming from a man who has been in the ministry 
 for a considerable number of years, and who has made 
 an exclusive use of the book of Psalms in the praises 
 of God during that time. He asks us where in the 
 book of Psalms is the Saviour spoken of as yet to 
 come, and adds, " when you lift up your pen again, will 
 you be so good as to mention the Psalm and the verse 
 where the Redeemer is spoken of as one who is yet 
 to come." We cheerfully comply with the request, 
 and now tell him that besides the Psalms now^ ad- 
 duced, in the 40th Psalm and 7th verse, the Redeem- 
 er is introduced as saying to his Father — " Lo, I 
 come in the volume of the book that is vrritten of me, 
 I delight to do thy will, O my God : yea thy law^ is 
 Avithin my, heart." And as this has a mighty bearing 
 on the point at issue, and may have a salutary effect 
 on Dr. P. himself, we will present him with another. 
 In the llSth Psalm, 26th verse, the Redeemer is thus 
 characterised — " Blessed is he that cometh in the name 
 of the Lord, we have blessed you out of the house of 
 the Lord." And now we would ask, if the coming of 
 Christ is spoken of in these verses as past, or future 
 
104 PSALMODY. 
 
 to the time in which the promises were given — a thou- 
 sand years at least before his incarnation and birth. 
 Every boy and girl can answer the question, and these 
 passages of themselves should decide the point in de- 
 bate, if there was nothing else. 
 
 And to this we would add, that as there is no ac- 
 ceptable approach to God but through a Mediator, it 
 is therefore of the last moment to know who this me- 
 diator is, and if he is come into our world, or is yet 
 to come. As observed in a former number, the 
 Apostle John thought this point an all-important one, 
 and accordingly says, 1 Ep. 4 : 5, " Every Spirit that 
 confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, 
 is not of God." He had his eye, no doubt, on the 
 Jews who denied that Jesus of Nazrareth was the 
 promised Messiah and Mediator between God and 
 man. We do not charge Dr. P. or his friends with 
 denying that the Redeemer is come in the flesh, but 
 we would respectfully and affectionately ask them if 
 they do not deny the doctrine in practice, when they 
 sing those portions of the Psalms to which we have 
 adverted, unless they substitute in mind the past for 
 the future tense. Certain it is to ourselves that John 
 with his principles would not, could not, sing them 
 literally as they are. There are many other Psalms, 
 however, that may be sung by us literally and profita- 
 bly. 
 
 The objection " that if the Psalms are not suitable 
 to be sung in the j^raises of God, it is not proper that 
 they should be read in the worship of God," is really 
 silly. According to our opponent's system of Psalm- 
 ody, " The Song of Solomon " is not fit to be sung in 
 the praises of God, then his reasoning will prove that 
 it is not fit to be read in his worship. The Church is 
 one and indivisible in all the dispensations of Grace. 
 And may there not be some ordinances and means of 
 grace suitable in one dispensation that are not suited 
 to another, while there are some things in each which 
 
DR. P.'S MURMURS. 105 
 
 are suited to every dispensation. This is the case 
 with the book of Psahns, in respect to singing the 
 praises of God. Whatever in them is doctrinal, pre- 
 ceptive, or devotional, is suitable to be sung in the 
 praises of God to the end of time, while all that re- 
 spects Jewish rites and sacrifices, and the time of the 
 coming of Christ, is only suited literally to that econo- 
 my of grace. 
 
 Having answered, and we hope satisfactorily, the 
 objections brought against our argument for a gospel 
 Psalmody deduced from the circumstance that Christ 
 is represented in the book of Psalms as coming into 
 our world, we will now consider our opponent's com- 
 plaints or charges against us. He charges us with 
 "misrepresenting him in almost every argument, and 
 an almost continual ascription to him of sentiments 
 and statements for which there is no foundation." He 
 has, however, adduced only three instances, and it is 
 to be presumed that they are the strongest which he 
 could muster, and these we will now examine in their 
 order. 
 
 The first of these cases is, that we have said in our 
 first and seventh numbers that he attemjoted to place 
 us in a false position in this discussion, by represent- 
 ing us as holding, that we are to take our songs of 
 praise to God exclusively from the New Testament 
 scriptures. We have thought so, and said so, and 
 we still think it will be apparent to all who have read, 
 or will read, the first number of his Review. In jus- 
 tice to ourselves we noticed it at the time, and treated 
 it as tenderly as we thought it deserved ; but we did 
 not then positively say, nor do we now say, that it 
 was a designed misrepresentation. For we are aware 
 that one man may misrepresent another, by mistaking 
 his meaning, or through inattention to all which he 
 may have said on the subject. We suppose that it is 
 in allusion to this case, that he says — " that if any of 
 our brethren in his own name, will point out a single 
 
106 PSALMODY. 
 
 instance in this Review, in which he has attributed to 
 us a sentiment which our own language does not teach, 
 according to the ordinary meaning of words, he pledges 
 himself to the christian community to acknowledge his 
 error, publicly, and to correct it." As we are con-, 
 scious that we have not the least desire, that Dr. P. 
 should suffer the least detriment in the public estima- 
 tion by us, we here propose what we think will be 
 more likely to settle existing heart-burnings between 
 us. Let him select a clerical friend, and we will se- 
 lect another, and let them consider what Dr. P. has 
 said on this point in the first number of his Review, 
 and the first number of his "Remarks" in his "Preach- 
 er ;" and what we have said on the same point, in our 
 first and seventh numbers, and if they say that we had 
 no ground for saying that he misrepresented us, we 
 will conclude, and say, that we have unhappily mis- 
 taken his meaning. And should they find that there 
 was ground for the charge, yet if they are of opinion, 
 that the misrepresentation was not designed, we will 
 receive it as satisfactory. For we admit the justness 
 of Dr. P's observation, and which we expect he ex- 
 tends to himself, "that we are too deeply concerned 
 in the case, to be a competent witness." Indeed, had 
 he but said at the beginning that he did not design to 
 misrepresent us, it would not have come for a third 
 time before the public eye ; but let it be remembered, 
 that for bringing it the second and third times, he has 
 himself alone to blame. We wish to put an end to 
 these querulous complaints, for the binding obligation 
 of the ninth commandment apart, we would scorn as 
 a man to misrepresent him. We may have mistaken 
 him, but to misrepresent him, we never have in a 
 single instance. Indeed we had no temptation to do 
 so. 
 
 The second complaint, or charge is, that we have 
 represented him in our seventh number as being "se- 
 lected by his brethren as their champion in the pend- 
 
DR. r. THE CHAMPIOX. 107 
 
 ing controversy." And was not this the fact ? His 
 own staternent proves it. He has said in the first 
 number of his "Preacher," " that in conformity to the 
 wishes of some of his brethren, the editor entered up- 
 on the task of reviewing our Inquiry." Now, do not 
 these words imply and import, that there was a con- 
 sultation on the subject between him and some of his 
 brethren ; and what was his " undertaking the task of 
 reviewing our Inquiry in conformity to their wishes," 
 but that he was selected by them for that purpose ? 
 And what is a champion, but one who not only fights 
 his own battles, but the battles of others, whether civil, 
 or ecclesiastical — by the arm of the flesh, or by the 
 sword of the Spirit. And if adroitly dodging the 
 main question, spending the time on collateral or un- 
 important points, and protracting the issue, by weary- 
 ing out his opponent, as it would seem, deserves a 
 large meed of thanks from his constituents, he deserves 
 it richly. They could not, we are persuaded, have se- 
 lected a more suitable person for the above purposes. 
 But the above high crime and misdemeanor was 
 aggravated by the circumstance, that our 7th No. was 
 published at the time that the convention of the three 
 Synods of Pittsburgh, Wheeling, and Ohio, sat in 
 Pittsburgh. And as we were there, he charitably 
 " apprehends that we were not in the most happy 
 frame on the occasion, for giving a fresh impulse 
 to the cause of religion." Now, how did he, or 
 could he know, what was our frame of mind on the 
 occasion, and what should have disturbed it ? Our 
 publishing what he himself had previously published 
 to the world. We have no answer to this; and let 
 the reader now say, if the charge "of our making 
 statements that have no foundation in fact," is not al- 
 together groundless ; " and if the pious reader had rea- 
 son to be astonished, because there is no such state- 
 ment in the Preacher." Let the reader also say, if 
 we were wrong, when we said that this discussion is 
 
108 PSALMODY. 
 
 descending fast, on the part of our opponent, into tri- 
 fling cavils, and a war of words. But all will be un- 
 availing, for the day is coming when he must produce 
 the proof of his main point, or the public see and say, 
 that he has none. This will be expected more espe- 
 cially, as this is the second time that he is travelling 
 over the same ground. 
 
 The third complaint, or charge is, — that we misrep- 
 resent him in respect to his hearers not singing his ex- 
 planation of the Psalms, and he closes with represent- 
 ing us as saying — " that to sing the very words of an 
 inspired Psalm, is to exhibit a scene of mental lying 
 in the house of God." Now, there never was a more 
 palpable misrepresentajion than this. The reader 
 will have observed, that Dr. P. represents us as say- 
 ing so in respect to all the Psalms ; whereas, we only 
 have said so in respect to some portions of some 
 Psalms, and that only, according to his own system of 
 Psalmody. We had said more than once, that every 
 Psalm might be sung profitably, if the singers sung the 
 explanations which they may have heard from the offici- 
 ating minister, previously to their singing of the Psalm. 
 Dr. P. denied that they did so, but sung the Psalm, 
 " literally and truly," as it is in their P^alm book. — 
 This appeared strange to us, as he said at the same 
 time, that they made use of the explanation " as a help 
 to assist them to sing with the understanding." This 
 led us to ask, if singing the words of the 66th Psalm, 
 " I will go into thy house with burnt offerings," nvould 
 not on his system be mental lying in the house of 
 God, as no one designed to offer sacrifice, and they 
 were not to affix the antitypical idea to the word " of- 
 fering." We added that this must be the case, or the 
 alternative was, affixing no idea to typical words at 
 all. And this explains, and is an answer to another 
 charge, " that in singing the Psalm, they have no re- 
 gard whatever to its meaning." The reader will per- 
 ceive that the above statement is very different from. 
 
CONTEMPTIBLE QUIBBLING. 109 
 
 saying absolutely, " that to sing the words of an inspi- 
 red Psalm is to exhibit a scene of mental lying in the 
 house of God." Besides, to have it said so, would 
 be at war with what we have repeatedly said of the 
 excellency and suitableness of many of the Psalms for 
 the praises of God, as he could not but know. In 
 this 5th No. of his Remarks, Dr. P. alludes to himself 
 as a " Christian and a Gentleman." We do not dis- 
 pute his claim and title, but we are persuaded, as either 
 or both, he cannot review the preceding charges without 
 feeling his cheek suffused with the blush of shame, and 
 making that acknowledgement and reparation which a 
 Christian and a Gentleman ought to make on such an 
 occasion. This shame must be increased upon the 
 reflection that this gross misrepresentation was made 
 in the very No. in which he charges his opponent with 
 misrepresenting himself. If agreeable to Dr. P. w^e 
 have no objections that this case be also submitted to 
 our mutual friends. 
 
 And here it is necessary to remark, that there has 
 been all along, something mysterious and incomprehen- 
 sible to us in Dr. P.'s saying, that the people do not 
 sing his explanations of the Psalms, and yet that they 
 use them as "helps to assist them to sing with the 
 understanding." There apj^eared to be a glaring 
 inconsistency in the two statements ; and therefore we 
 adverted to the subject oftener than we would other- 
 wise have done, with the expectation of obtaining 
 more light on the point, and we think that we have ob- 
 tained that light from the last No. of his " Remarks." 
 If we now understand him aright, the state of the case 
 is this. His hearers in singing, as we believed, do 
 affix the spiritual ideas appertaining to a ritual or typi- 
 cal word, and which they may have heard in the expla- 
 nation but they do not sing the explanation itself; 
 consequently his saying that they do not sing the 
 explanation, was founded on a sorry and con- 
 temptible quibbling in words. We say contempti- 
 10 
 
110 PSALMODY. 
 
 ble, because we have repeatedly said that by sing- 
 ing the explanation of a Psalm, we meant affixing 
 the antitypical idea to the typical word which was 
 pointed out in the course of an explanation, yet 
 as we used the word explanation he still persisted in 
 denying that they sung the explanation, mean- 
 ing, thereby the very words of the explainer. — 
 This is a refinement in language and logic, to 
 which we were not accustomed, and we did not ex- 
 pect our opponent would have taken refuge under it 
 in this case, for he could not but know what we meant 
 by singing the explanation of a Psalm. He is wel- 
 come to it, however, and to all the aid which it can 
 give him in this controversy, but the reader cannot but 
 see, that the cause cannot be good that compels a man 
 to resort to such low and contemptible means to sup- 
 port it. Such are not the weapons of an honest and 
 honorable warfare. 
 
 And what, now, are the consequences which in ma- 
 ny instances legitimately flow from singing the book of 
 Psalms in the foregoing manner. This — that the 
 Presbyterian, and the Associate Reformed Churches, 
 both sing what is called "human composure," in the 
 worship of God. The only difference is, that Pres- 
 byterians sing written, and the Associate Reformed 
 Church sings mental human composure. This is ev- 
 ident from the circumstance, that when the singer af- 
 fixes the antitypical idea to the typical words, as "the 
 blood of Christ," for the "blood of bulls and of goats," 
 the external form of the Psalm is changed, or assumes 
 a new and different aspect to the Christian worship- 
 per. It is not true, then, that he sings the Psalm 
 "literally and truly," for the literal meaning of the 
 word is dropped, and the spiritual meaning properly 
 substituted in its place. To affix the literal meaning 
 to the word, would be renouncing Christianity, and 
 returning to Judaism. And we would here ask, of 
 what advantage can it be, to sing the express words 
 
NEARLY AGREED. Ill 
 
 of a Psalm, when in many instances, to sing with the 
 understanding, a different idea is apphed to them from 
 what they Hterally import. To express the spiritual 
 meaning of many words in the Psalms in New Testa- 
 ment language, is what is improperly called "human 
 composure," and it makes no difference in the case, 
 whether that meaning is committed to writing, or ex- 
 pressed mentally, or by the mouth. The inquiry 
 should be : is what we sing suited to the praises of 
 God, and does it contain inspired matter, or a part 
 of divine revelation ? The two churches, then, in re- 
 spect of singing Psalms, are nearer to each other than 
 has been generally imagined, and it requires but a lit- 
 tle sober reflection to bring together those who have 
 been alienated from each other, by this ill-understood 
 question. And we are persuaded, that the time is 
 coming, and perhaps not very distant, when the Church 
 will have a version of the book of Psalms, in which 
 all typical, ritual, and otherwise obscure Avords will be 
 omitted, and the antitypical or spiritual idea expressed 
 in suitable language taken from the New Testament. 
 This is what Dr. Watts designed and attempted, but 
 with what success is not now the question. But 
 candor constrains us to say here, we never have been 
 perfectly satisfied with his version of the Psalms. Not 
 because he has mistaken the meaning of the types, or 
 introduced any thing inconsistent with the analogy or 
 proportion of faith, but because he has in some instan- 
 ces almost diluted the spirit of the original, by a too 
 expansive paraphrase, or explanation. As to hymns 
 and spiritual songs, as the Apostle calls them, we would 
 like a collection executed on the plan of the General 
 Assembly of the Church of Scotland — a select num- 
 ber of passages from the Old and New Testaments, 
 versified as near to the originals, as the nature and 
 laws of versification will admit. This, w^e think, will 
 be always safest and best. 
 
112 PSALMODY. 
 
 NO. XII. 
 
 saying that there are no typeSf hut only tyjn- 
 cal language mentioned in the New Testament, re- 
 futed and exposed. 
 
 Dr. Pressly introduces the 6th number of his "Re- 
 marks " by complaining that we have endeavored by 
 " wit and sarcasm," to exhibit him to the pubhc in a 
 "ridiculous" j^oint of light, while he has "treated 
 our hoary hairs with merited respect." If he has, it 
 has been in the manner of Joab when he said to 
 Amasa, " art thou in health, my brother, and kissed 
 him, and then smote him in the fifth rib." Many 
 instances of this kind of respect might be produced 
 from his Review and Remarks, but the following from 
 this very number will, we think, be ample proof. — 
 " There is something so exceedingly imerile in the 
 vain hoasting of our venerable author, that it is really 
 painful to have to expose it." Again, " anile non- 
 5e;zse," or the nonsense of an old w^oman. We are 
 not to be understood as complaining of such things, 
 for they cannot do us any harm, and we have never 
 complained but when our words have been distorted 
 from their real meaning, or our sentiments misrepre- 
 sented in a palpable manner. 
 
 But passing this by, we will now re-examine what 
 he reiterates and tries to defend in this number, re- 
 specting some portions of the Psalms : — " That typi- 
 cal expressions are frequently employed in the Psalms, 
 but the Psalms themselves are not typical." — " That 
 language abounds in the book of Psalms which con- 
 veys an allusion to the rites and ceremonies of the 
 law, but will any one pretend to say that the Psalms 
 themselves are among ' the shadows of good things 
 to come.' " He also says, " that no one wants proof 
 to satisfy him that the sacrifices of the law were typi- 
 cal." — Let this be remembered. 
 
PSALMS OF DAVID TYPICAL. 113 
 
 We adduced a portion of the 66th Psalm as proof 
 that portions of the Psahns are typical, and typical too 
 of the death of Christ, as appears from Eph. 4 : 2, for 
 the principal phraseology of the latter would seem to 
 have been borrowed from the former. In the 66th 
 Psalm David says, " I will go into thy house with 
 burnt offerings — I will offer unto thee burnt sacrifices 
 of fatlings with the incense of rams ; I will offer bul- 
 locks with goats." And in Eph. 4 : 2, the Apostle 
 says, " walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and 
 hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice 
 to God for a sweet smelling savor." The reader will 
 have observed that in the 66th Psalm there is a posi- 
 tive declaration and promise of the Psalmist to offer 
 burnt sacrifices to Jehovah, as was his duty as a Jew 
 to do, and which he had been in the habit of doing 
 from time to time." This surely is something more than 
 using typical language, and alkiding to the injunctions 
 of the Levitical law, and proves our point, unless Dr. 
 P. will prove that the word " sacrifice," when used 
 in the Psalms, loses its typical meaning, and means 
 something else, or nothing at all. And to this may 
 be added that we are told in the 110th Psalm that 
 Melchisadeck was a type of Christ in his priestly 
 office — " thou art a Priest for ever after the order of 
 Melchisadeck." Dr. P. might as well say that the 
 Psalmist uses typical language only, for there was no 
 type in the case, as to say that the. burnt sacrifices 
 mentioned in the 66th Psalm were not typical of the 
 sacrifice which Christ offered up of himself for the 
 sins of his people. We confess that we have never 
 known a stronger instance of the darkening and be- 
 wildering influence which an unscriptural system has 
 on the human intellect than Dr. P.'s system of Psalm- 
 ody has on his understanding, in regard to the mean- 
 ing of that Psalm, and portions of some other Psalms. 
 
 But to our views on the subject he objects by say- 
 ing, " that if there are parts of the Psalms that are 
 10* 
 
114 PSALMODY. 
 
 types, the shadow of good things to come, they have 
 consequently vanished away with the typical institu- 
 tions of the law. And if this principle be correct, it 
 would now be as improper to sing those Psalms as to 
 offer a bullock in sacrifice, or to keep the passover." 
 It would so, if they are to be sung " literally," but as 
 all the burnt sacrifices were typical of the death of 
 Christ, (Eph. 4 : 2.) and the passover was typical of 
 the christian feast of the supper, (1 Cor. 5 : 7, 8,) 
 then, as we have repeatedly said, if the antitypical 
 ideas are affixed to the typical words of those Psalms 
 they may be sung profitably and acceptably, but sure- 
 ly not otherwise. For we cannot conceive ^of any 
 other way of singing them but literally, and that would 
 be rank Judaism, or of not attaching any idea to them 
 at all. 
 
 But as Dr. P. writes darkly and not explicitly on 
 this subject, we would remark farther, that if by 
 " vanishing away " he means that the Psalms must 
 have ceased to be any part of divine revelation, if any 
 part of them are typical, he may as well say that the 
 book of Deuteronomy has ceased to be such, because 
 it contains the Levitical law, which was " the shadow 
 of good things to come." Besides the Levitical law, 
 the book of Deuteronomy contains the moral law, and 
 other important precepts, and is therefore a valuable 
 part of the Bible. So is it with the book of Psalms. 
 Besides some typical representations of Christ and his 
 Priesthood, and vicarious death, it contains many very 
 valuable doctrines and precepts for the direction and 
 consolation of the people of God, and is therefore an 
 invaluable part of divine revelation also. We do not 
 see, and we think that no man can shew any incon- 
 sistency or discrepancy in this view of the subject. 
 
 He objects also to our saying, " that the Psalms 
 cannot be possibly sung to edification and divine ac- 
 ceptance without a judicious explanation, and the un- 
 learned worshipper remembers those explanations." 
 
SIXG WITH THE UNDERSTANDING. 11-5 
 
 We have said so, and we think that we have the au- 
 thority of the Apostle Paul, and of common sense, for 
 what we have said. In 1 Cor. 14 : 19, speaking of 
 preaching, praying, and singing, he says, — " Yet in 
 the church I had rather speak five words with ray 
 understanding, that by my voice I might teach others 
 also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." 
 And again, 5 : 15, " I will pray with the Spirit and I 
 will pray with the understanding also : I will sing with 
 the Spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." 
 And who does not see that we cannot be profited by 
 singing what we do not understand, any more than if 
 we suno; a Psalm in an unknown tono;ue. The church 
 of JR-ome is properly blamed for performing their wor- 
 ship in an unknown tongue. 
 
 The words "purge me with hyssop," in the 51st 
 Psalm, were also produced in our 7th number as typi- 
 cal expressions, to which it is necessary to fix the 
 antitypical idea, if we would sing with the understand- 
 ing, and to divine acceptance. There is in the j^hrase 
 an evident allusion to the means appointed for cleans- 
 ing a leprous person, and in singing it, it is necessary 
 to drop the literal meaning of the phrase, and affix to 
 it the antitypical idea, the cleansing influences of the 
 Spirit, or as Paul expresses it, "the washing of water 
 by the word." And that Dr. P. should oppose this 
 manner of singing it, has surprised us ; but we forgot 
 that this would be singing mental " human comjio- 
 sure," and subvert his system of Psalmody. We 
 will add only on this point, that in the close of this 
 Psalm the Psalmist does not allude to sacrifices as 
 typical language only, as Dr. P. would persuade us, 
 but actually promises that they shall be offered to 
 Jehovah. " Then shalt thou be pleased with the 
 sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt ofFerhigs, and 
 whole burnt offerings, then shall they offer bullocks 
 upon thy altar." And admitting that the Psalmist 
 uses typical language only, still that typical language 
 
116 PSALMODY. 
 
 must have some meaning, but what that meaning -is 
 our opponent has not been so kind as to tell us. • 
 
 We have said that the 150th Psalm is altogether 
 typical. Dr. P. closes this number by saying, " that 
 I am the first man since the creation of the world, who 
 has advanced the ridiculous affirmation that the 150th 
 Psalm is altogether typical, and portions of others are 
 so, and therefore ' the shadow of good things to come.' " 
 We did not know before this that the book of Psalms 
 was as old as the creation. rBut passing this by, we 
 think that there are few men now existing, who would 
 understand us as saying, that every word in the 150th 
 Psalm is typical, but the substance of it only ; and 
 that he dares not deny, and this was the point at issue 
 between us. And yet, every word in it, the words 
 *' praise — mighty acts — excellent greatness," except- 
 ed, are either typical or figurative. The word "sanc- 
 tuary," and perhaps " the firmament of his power," 
 in the first verse, are typical, and the words " every 
 thing that hath breath," in the last verse, are figura- 
 tive, and the difi'erence between typical and figurative 
 language is, that "a type is a person or thing, that by 
 the destination of God prefigured something relative to 
 Jesus Christ, and his church." — Brown's D. B. 
 Then to praise God, " with the sound of a trumpet — 
 with a psaltery and harp — with stringed instruments 
 and organs — and w^ith cymbals, the high-sounding 
 cymbals," was highly, and altogether typical. 
 
 In our apprehension, these instruments of music 
 typified or denoted high and holy affections in singing 
 the praises of God. From the preceding extraordi- 
 nary objection and criticism, the reader has seen the 
 scantiness of argument to which Dr. P. is reduced in 
 this discussion. There are few men who would not 
 be ashamed to adduce such a silly and miserable ob- 
 jection before an intelligent public. And we think, 
 that his readers cannot but have observed, that in his 
 "Remarks," he writes sometimes, like a man desper- 
 
RETIRING. 117 
 
 ate and reckless, and at other times like a drowning 
 man catching at straws. What else can be said of 
 his criticism respecting the 150th Psalm. And on 
 the whole, we have not seen any thing from his pen, 
 so dark and self-contradictory as this sixth number of 
 his "Remarks." We say self-contradictory, for can 
 any man reconcile his saying, "that no man wants 
 proof to satisfy him that the sacrifices of the law were 
 typical," and then saying, that the sacrifices mentioned 
 in the fifty-first and sixty-sixth Psalms, were not typi- 
 cal of the death of Christ. They are utterly irrecon- 
 cileable, and as o^^j^osed to each other, as the Arctic is 
 to the Antarctic pole. And now, can any unpreju- 
 diced person embrace a system of Psalmody that 
 involves such jarring interpretations, and self-destruct- 
 ive principles. 
 
 We had written the preceding in reply to the sixth 
 number of Dr. P.'s "Remarks," and j')urposed to fill 
 up our own with whatever answer his seventh number 
 would seem to require. We expected that his seventh 
 number would necessarily refer to the information 
 which we requested in our ninth number respecting 
 the person or persons who, by divine command, col- 
 lected and selected the book of Psalms, with the view 
 that it w^as to be the exclusive system of Psalmody for 
 the church to the end of time. As observed in that 
 number, this is not only reasonable in itself, but indis- 
 pensably necessary for commanding and securing our 
 faith and obedience in regard to his system of Psal- 
 mody. But what was our surprise on receiving the 
 seventh number of his "Preacher," to find that he had 
 dropped the controversy on Psalmody, and entered 
 upon a new one, with a Rev. George W. Clarke. 
 The omission could not be owing to a want of room 
 in that number, a great part of which is taken up 
 with a fourth edition of his "Review" of our "Inqui- 
 ry." Our readers, and his readers, will certainly be 
 
118 PSALMODY. 
 
 surprised at such an abrupt and unceremonious dis- 
 missal of this important subject, and will naturally en- 
 quire how it is to be accounted for. 
 
 Perhaps some of our witty readers may think and 
 say, that he was guided by the prudent maxim of the 
 hero of the celebrated author of Hudibras, the two 
 first lines of which he applied to us in the fourth num-. 
 ber of his "Remarks," but very unjustly, for we are 
 still in the field. The maxim is this : — 
 
 " He that in battle runs away, 
 May live to fight another day ; 
 But he that is in battle slain, 
 Will never live to fight again." 
 
 If then. Dr. P. has "run away from the battle," 
 rather than run the risk of being slain outright, we 
 think that it must have been for the following reasons. 
 As observed above, he had positively affirmed in the 
 third number of his " Remarks," that the book of 
 Psalms was selected by some person or persons di- 
 vinely appointed, to be an exclusive system of Psal- 
 mody for the church ; but when called upon for the 
 proof, he found that he had none to give. And what 
 was still more perplexing, that although he had assu- 
 med in the outset of this discussion, — "that it is the 
 will of God, that the sacred songs contained in the 
 book of Psalms, be sung in his worship, both public 
 and private, to the end of the world, and th-at we have 
 no authority for using any other ;" yet when repeatedly 
 called upon to tell us where this will of God is record- 
 ed, he also found that he had no asswer to give, not 
 even one solitary text of scripture. For ourselves, 
 we do not know of any such passage in all the word 
 of God ; but we thought that he must have had some 
 such passage or passages in view, but it seems that when 
 he- examined them closely, he found them to be as 
 irrelevant as those adduced by his brother, Mr. Hemp- 
 hill. For surely such passages, as where "all the 
 earth is called upon to sing unto the Lord a new song," 
 
DEFEAT OF VANITY. 119 
 
 and that " from the rising of the sun to the going down 
 of the same, the Lord's name is to be praised," do 
 not prove that the book of Psalms was given as an 
 exchisive system of Psahnody to the end of time. 
 They prove that praise is to be a part of the worship 
 of God in his church, but they prove nothing more. 
 
 What now will a discerning public say in this case, 
 and what will Dr. P.'s own particular friends say ? 
 We are j^ersuaded, that they will feel disappointed 
 and mortified. For we have no doubt, that those who 
 appointed him as their champion in this controversy, 
 expected that he would forever silence his and their 
 opponents on the subject of Psalmody. We are also 
 persuaded from the manner in which he commenced 
 this discussion, that he expected a certain and brilliant 
 victory over his opponent worn down by old age, and 
 its accompanying infirmities of both body and mind. 
 We think, however, that he will pay more attention 
 for the time to come, to the wholesome advice which 
 the king of Israel gave to Benhadad, king of Syria — 
 "Let not him that girdeth on his harness, boast him- 
 self, as he that putteth it off." It was with great re- 
 luctance that we entered upon this -controversy, as we 
 foresaw from the ground which onr opponent took in 
 the two first numbers of his Review, and from what 
 we thought was his constitutional temperament, that it 
 would be a protracted discussion. But we do not 
 now regret the range which the discussion has taken, 
 as the relative and intrinsic merits or demerits of the 
 two systems of Psalmody, his and ours, have been 
 thereby brought before the public mind in a point of 
 light not presented heretofore. And not only so, but 
 all the objections against an evangelical Psalmody, 
 which ingenuity could devise, have also been brought 
 forward in this discussion. Some of them were stated 
 in an imposing attitude, and doubtless thought to be 
 unanswerable, but we trust that they have not passed 
 unanswered through our hands. Others of them were 
 
120 PSALMODY. 
 
 weak, exceedingly weak, as our readers have seen, 
 but according to the old adage, '■^ drowning men will 
 catch at straws." 
 
 We will close with observing, that what Dr. P. has 
 been lacking in argument, he is endeavoring to supply, 
 by spreading his "Review" far and wide. First, in 
 the "Missionary Advocate," and then twice in his 
 own "Preacher;" and as if that was not sufficient, he 
 has printed it in a little book. We think, however, 
 that his best friends will say, that it was neither fatherly 
 nor judicious, to send the poor thing into a carping, 
 criticising, and laughing world, without a text of scrip- 
 ture, or even a fig leaf, to cover its unscriptural na- 
 kedness. It was, doubtless, expected that in his 
 "Remarks," he would supply the great defect; but 
 the public has seen the issue, and such ever will be 
 the issue in any attempt to defend the unscriptural 
 system of Psalmody, which he has been defending for 
 the last twelve months. We repeat it, that he has 
 not produced an iota of proof that the book of Psalms 
 was given as an exclusive system of Psalmody to the 
 church to the end of time, whilst we think, that we 
 have produced scriptural i^recept and precedent for 
 using in the praises of God, any portion of the Old or 
 New Testaments that is suited to that delightful part 
 of divine worship. Without any pretension to a spirit 
 of prophecy, we venture to foretell, that the day is not 
 very distant, when this will be the case, in all the dif- 
 ferent branches of the Presbyterian church. We 
 speak so from "the signs of the times." If our infor- 
 mation is correct, the subject of Psalmody is canvassed; 
 if not in all, yet in a great number of the Presbyterian 
 churches, and from the particular attention which we 
 have been compelled to pay to the subject^ we fear 
 not to predict the issue in due process of time. It 
 requires only a fair discussion, for the people to see 
 that a system of Psalmody has been imposed upon 
 them, that has not a single text of scripture to support 
 
TRIFLING MISTAKES. 121 
 
 its fundamental principle. And a system, too, that 
 excludes from the praises of the church, the blessings 
 of the new covenant as purchased by the blood of 
 Jesus, and delineated in the New Testament, in all 
 their full, free, gracious, and heart-attracting colors. 
 
 . NO. XIII. 
 
 Objections to our Revieiv of Mr. Hemjfhiirs sermoii 
 cms iccred — Puseyism. 
 
 After a cessation of six weeks, Dr. Pressly has again 
 *' lifted up his pen " against us; but not in reply to our 
 last, or 12th No., but in defence of his friend Mr. Hemp- 
 hill, of South Carolina, whose sermon on Psalmody 
 we had reviewed in our 6th No. He charges us with 
 falling into three mistakes respecting that sermon. 1. 
 That we have "said, that it was preached before "the 
 A. R. Synod of the Carolinas," but he tells us that 
 besides the two Carolinas tlie Synod covers the states 
 of Florida, Georgia, Alabama^ Tennessee, Mississip- 
 pi, and part of Kentucky, and that its proper name is 
 "the Synod of the South." This may be all true, 
 and we have no desire to narrow its limits. 2. That 
 we have said the sermon was preached, before the Sy- 
 nod in August last; whereas, he tells us, that it was 
 preached before his own congregation in August, and 
 then again before the Synod in October. 3. As it 
 is said, in the title page, that the sermon w^as " pub- 
 lished by request," we concluded that the request 
 came from the Synod; but Dr. P. tells us, that it came 
 from his own church at Bethel. 
 
 He makes no little noise about these trifling and ir- 
 relevant mistakes, and which any man might fall into, 
 and yet he has fallen into a greater mistake, if a mis- 
 11 
 
122 PSALMODY. 
 
 take it is. We have said that one half of the ser- 
 mon is filled with " irrelevant declamation, bitter 
 denunciations of what he calls human compositions 
 in the worship of God — we wonder what the ser- 
 mon itself was — and an unprofitable comparison of 
 Rouse's and Dr. Watt's versions of the Psalms." 
 The words, "we wonder what the sermon itself 
 was," Dr. P. interprets as an allusion to the Synod, 
 "as an ignorant body of men," whereas they obvi- 
 ously refer to the words immediately preceding — 
 "human compositions in the worship of God." Or 
 as Mr. H. was declaiming against human composi- 
 tions in the worship of God, we wondered if the 
 sernion itself was a divine or human composition. 
 And we seriously think, that there is no man 
 whose mind was not disturbed, and embittered, and 
 desirous of finding fault where there is none, would 
 understand and interpret the words as he has done. 
 The Synod may be a respectable body of men, for 
 any thing we know to the contrary, and nothing 
 was more distant from our mind at the time, than 
 to allude to them in a disrespectful manner, or to al- 
 lude to them at all. 
 
 But it seems that we have fallen into another mis- 
 take, in representing as Mr. Hemphill's first argument 
 for an exclusive Psalmody, what was not designed as 
 an argument, but was designed for a difi*erent pur- 
 pose — " to show^ from the contents of many of the 
 Psalms, that they could not have been designed ex- 
 clusively for the Jews. We acknowledge, that, 
 strictly speaking, this is not laid down numerically, 
 by Mr. H., as his first argument, and we had doubts 
 whether we should consider it as such. But as it is 
 intimately, if not vitally connected with the subject in 
 dispute, we concluded to consider it as an argument ; 
 for an argument it certainly is, — lest it might be said, 
 if we passed it by, that we were afraid to encounter it. 
 The truth is, the contents of the sermon are so hud- 
 
TRIFLING CAVILS. 123 
 
 (lied and jumbled together, and arranged in such an 
 illogical manner, that we felt at a loss where to begin, 
 and examine it, so as to be understood by our readers. 
 The reader will have perceived, however, that we 
 have not done Mr. H. any injustice by passing by any 
 thing that was relevant to the point at isstie. Indeed, 
 according to Dr. P.,^e have done him too much jus- 
 tice, by noticing, vj0ks according to the laws of fair 
 argumentation, we might have entirely passed by. — 
 But the reader may now be ready to ask, how do all 
 these trifling cavils prove that the church in her 
 Psalmody is to confine herself to the book of Psalms 
 to the end of time. Dr. P. can tell, but we cannot. 
 
 When Dr. P. intimated in his *' Preacher," that he 
 would review our remarks on Mr. H's sermon, his 
 friends doubtless expected that he would defend his 
 brother's argument for an exclusive Psalmody dedu- 
 ced from what is called the " Hallel," and his inter- 
 pretation of Col. 3 : 16. With respect to the " Hal- 
 lel," he does not even mention it, much less attempt 
 to defend it. As to Col. 3 : 16, we had observed that 
 Dr. P. considered the phrase " The word of Christ" 
 in that passage, as having reference to the whole word 
 of God, and Mr. H. to the book of Psalms exclusive- 
 ly, and the Dr. tries to reconcile these jarring inter- 
 pretations, and to shew, that Mr. H. and himself are of 
 the same opinion on that point. We have nothing to 
 do with this family dispute, and they may settle it the 
 best way they can ; but that will not prevent others 
 from seeing and saying, that their interpretations of the 
 phrase are contradictory, the one to the other. 
 
 Dr. P. overlooks altogether, INIr. H's answ^er to our 
 argument, — 'Uha;t if we may use our own words, and 
 arrangement of divine truth in preaching and praying, 
 why not in singing- He does not attempt to defend 
 or strengthen the answer, and it is prudent in him to 
 do -so ; for in our view the argument is unanswerable, 
 and level to the weakest capacity. 
 
 Dr. P. charges us with the error' of saying, that 
 
124 PSALMODY. 
 
 some of the Psalms require " a judicious explanation " 
 to be sung with profit, and to divine acceptance : and 
 ** he asks the Protestant reader, what he thinks of the 
 sentiment that we cannot with propriety use certain 
 portions of the word of God in his worshi]^, unless we 
 have the help of a judicious explanation. We do not 
 believe in the Popish doctrine of what is called " opus 
 operatum,'''' or that ordinances of themselves confer di- 
 vine grace. This doctrine under the name of " Pu- 
 seyism " is making rapid progress in the present day 
 in the Episcopal churches ; but we were surprised to 
 see something like it in a branch of the Presbyterian 
 church ; and it behooves Dr. P. to ask himself, if his 
 implicitly saying that we can be profited by singing 
 what we do not understand is not very like it, if not 
 the doctrine itself. 
 
 With this is connected another charge, that we have 
 said that his hearers do not sing his explanation of the 
 Psalms, but smg them " literally and truly." He 
 has said so more than once. And w^hat is it to sing a 
 Psalm " literally and truly." Is it not to sing not. only 
 the very words, but to attach to those words the ideas 
 which are attributed to them by common consent. 
 Now, in the 66th Psalm so often referred to, it is said, 
 "I will offer to thee (Jehovah) burnt sacrifices with 
 fatlings, with the incense of rams." A Jew could 
 sing these words " literally and truly," because he 
 intended to do so, but do Dr. P.'s hearers mean to do 
 so. No — what then? "As the believer under the 
 legal dispensation did not rest in the sacrifices of the 
 law, but through them looked to Him who is the end 
 of the law for righteousness to every one that believ- 
 eth," so believers now, when tliey sing those words, 
 look through the type to Christ the antitype, for ac- 
 ceptance of their persons and services. This is all 
 very well, and what we beheved they did ; but then 
 they do not sing them '* literally and truly," but anti" 
 typically or spiritually. And he should not have used 
 words so calculated to convey false ideas on the sub- 
 
pressly's psalms. 12-5 
 
 ject, and now when their impropriety is pointed out, 
 candor should induce him to retract them. Again, in 
 the llSth Psahn, Christ is exhibited as the stone which 
 the buiklers rejected, but is become the head-stone of 
 the corner ; and then it is said of him, " blessed is he 
 who cometh in the name of the Lord." Now do Dr. 
 P.'s hearers sing those words " Hterally and truly." 
 No ? — The intelligent part of them substhute the past 
 for the future tense, and to do otherwise would be to 
 deny practically that He is come in the flesh, and sing- 
 ing of a Saviour who is yet to come. And what now 
 is all this but singing what is called " human compo- 
 sure," and wherein does it differ from a modern hymn 
 which is founded on the advent, life, and death of 
 Christ, as giving himself as an atoning sacrifice for the 
 sins of his people. They differ only in this, that the 
 one is mental human composure, founded on the sing- 
 er's previous knowledge, or on the ideas he may have 
 received in the course of the explanation, but the oth- 
 er is written and adopted by the church. Were we 
 wrong, then, when we said, that while Presbyterians 
 sing what is called Watt's Psalms, or explanation of 
 the Psalms, Dr. P's hearers sing Pressly's Psalms, or 
 explanations of the Psalms. There may be a differ- 
 ence of opinion as to the character of the two explana- 
 tions, but the principle on which both act is the same. 
 The object of both is, to make the subject of the Psalm 
 clearer and fuller to the less learned singer; and our 
 object in mentioning these things again, is to promote 
 the unity, peace, prosperity, and purity of the church. 
 Near the close of this No. he advances the follow- 
 ing doctrine in favor of his exclusive system of Psalm- 
 ody. " That the songs contained in the book of 
 Psalms are the word of God, while those hymns 
 which have been composed by men are not the word 
 of God, but are human views of the word of God. 
 The most that can be said of them is, that they may be 
 conformable to the word of God." We confess, 
 11* 
 
126 PSALMODY. 
 
 that we were astonished and startled at the reckless, 
 and we think impious assertion, — that although the 
 book of Psalms when versified for the praises of God, 
 is his word, yet every other portion of the scriptures, 
 when versified for that purpose, ceases to be his word. 
 Mr. H. had thrown out the same idea in his sermon, 
 and in reviewing it, we were led to ask, and we ask 
 again, how the contaminating and transforming effect 
 is produced ; for we believe with the wise man, that 
 " every word of God is pure," wherever it may be 
 placed or found. It may indeed be misapplied, as 
 we think it is in the present case, but that cannot con- 
 taminate the pure word itself. Besides, according to 
 the preceding doctrine, there should be no preaching 
 or praying, but in the very words of the scriptures, for 
 every honest preacher preaches and prays according to 
 his own views of the divine word. And if the hymn 
 or spiritual song is not a literal or close translation, 
 but only founded upon, and agreeable to the word of 
 God : still the ideas in it are inspired ideas, as far as 
 they are conformable to that standard, and consequent- 
 ly must be as acceptable to Jehovah, as an orthodox 
 sermon, or an orthodox prayer. 
 
 Dr. P. closes this 7th No. by saying, " that such 
 are some of the evil consequences resulting from a de- 
 parture from that system of Psalmody which God has 
 provided for the use of his Church." The reader need 
 not be told, that by this exclusive system of Psalmody, 
 he means the book of Psalms, and although he was 
 called upon time after time, for better than thirteen 
 months, for the proof of this assertion, he has not pro- 
 duced a- single iota, but takes it for granted, and argued 
 from it accordingly. The reasonable conclusion then 
 must be, that there is none ; at least, that he does not 
 know of any such proof. To support his system, it is 
 indispensably necessary to prove the two following pro- 
 positions. First, that God designed, that some of the 
 Bongs of praise of the Old Testament dispensation should 
 
PROOF NOT YET GIVEN. 127 
 
 be a system of Psalmody for his Church to the end of the 
 world. Secondly, that some person, or persons were 
 divinely commissioned to make that selection, and col- 
 lection, and that the book of Psalms is that collection. 
 Dr. P. has repeatedly affirmed the ti^uth of both of the 
 propositions in one form or other, and when repeated- 
 ly called upon for the proof, declines it, if such there 
 is. The question and discussion then is at an end, 
 until he produces this proof; and hundreds of disqui- 
 sitions on collateral points are of no avail in this case, 
 and if the discussion is to be continued, it must be 
 confined to those two points — every thing else is 
 "beating the air," and labor in vain. For surely we 
 have had enough of extraneous and irrelevant matter 
 in this discussion, but the reader, knows that it was not 
 our fault ; for in an early stage of the controversy, w^e 
 called for this proof, but it was postponed from time to 
 time, notwithstanding promises that it would be pro- 
 duced. We repeat it, that if the discussion is to be 
 continued, it must be confined to those two important 
 and vital points, and if so, w^e w ill pay that attention to 
 what may be offered, to which it may be entitled, 
 otherwise, the discussion is closed on our part. But 
 here it may be asked, how are we to account for the 
 circumstance, that many serious and intelligent persons 
 who wish to " worship God in Spirit and in truth," 
 have embraced a system of Psalmody that has not a 
 single text of Scripture to support it ; at least its advo- 
 cates have not been able to produce such a text. 
 Some have embraced it from the strong influence of the 
 prejudice of education. Some have not the means, 
 or a sufficient degree of literature for enquiring accu- 
 rately and closely into the subject. And some, from 
 hearing it frequently affirmed in the pulpit, that while 
 the Psalms are the word of God, " hymns are not the 
 word of God," but human inventions, and to sing them 
 is offering strange fire before the Lord," have been led 
 to think, that any particular inquiry into the subject is 
 
128 PSALMODY, 
 
 unnecessary. And not only so, but the bold assertion, 
 that singers of hymns and spiritual songs are liable to 
 be smitten down by the immediate hand of God, like 
 Uzzah for touching the ark, or to be consumed by fire 
 from Heaven, like Nadab and Abihu — the frequent 
 repetition of these things from the pulpit, is not only 
 highly calculated to proselyte the weak minded, and 
 illiterate, but to keep the proselyted steady to their al- 
 legiance. Hence it is, that some who have embraced 
 Dr. P's restricted, and exclusive system of Psalmody, 
 have been astonished that the system has not only been 
 questioned, but shown to be destitute of Scriptural 
 support and defence, and adverse to the unity and 
 purity of the church. This consideration ought to 
 induce all who love " the truth as it is in Jesus," to 
 bring not only their own individual opinions, but the 
 doctrines which they hear in the j)ulpit, — " to the law 
 and to the testimony ; if they speak not according to 
 this word, it is because there is no light in them." la. 
 8: 20." 
 
 NO. XIV. 
 
 Dr. P.^s proof for a restricted Psalmody Examined — 
 The Book of Psalms designed for a. directory of 
 praise and prayer to the Jewish church. 
 
 In our last number we observed, that to sustain his 
 exclusive system of Psalmody, it was indispensably 
 necessary for Dr. Pressly to prove the two following 
 propositions, wdiich, although inseparably connected, 
 are yet distinct in themselves. "First, that God de- 
 signed that some of the songs of praise of the Old 
 Testament dispensation should be a system of Psal- 
 mody to the church to the end of the world. Sec- 
 
THE PROOF AT LAST. 129 
 
 ondly, that some person or persons were divinely com- 
 missioned to make that selection and collection, and 
 that the book of Psalms is that collection." Every 
 reader will see that this is the gist of the question, and 
 where, we think, any other man would have begun, 
 when entering upon its discussion. But instead of 
 this, he has published in the course of fifteen months, 
 eleven or twelve numbers on collateral ^ints, and 
 now in the thirteenth number of his " Preacher," he 
 has given us, what it is to be presumed, he supposes 
 is the justly demanded proof. Although long delayed 
 and often called for, we are glad to see it even at this 
 late stage of the discussion, and as promised, we will 
 now examine it and try its strength. 
 
 This important proof consists in a brief scriptural 
 history of Psalmody from the days of Moses, to the 
 reign of Hezekiah, king of Judah; and whether any 
 of his quotations, or all of them put together, prove that 
 the book of Psalms was designed to be the only sys- 
 tem of Psalmody for the church, to the end of time, 
 will be left with the reader to say. The first of the 
 songs adduced as proof in this case, is the song of 
 Moses and of the Israelites at the Red Sea, recorded 
 in the fifteenth cha^oter of Exodus. " Then sung Moses 
 and the children of Israel this song unto the Lord ; 
 and spake, saying, I will sing unto the Lord, for he 
 hath triumphed gloriously, the horse and his rider he 
 hath thrown into the sea." We confess that we were 
 surprised when w^e sav\^ this song adduced as proof of 
 the foregoing proposition, and that for two reasons. 
 First, it is not in Dr. P.'s exclusive system of Psal- 
 mody ; and secondly, that in Rev. 15 : 3, it is coupled 
 or connected with the song of the Lamb. The next 
 of these songs is the song of Deborah and Barak re- 
 corded in the book of Judges, 6: 1 — "Praise ye the 
 Lord for the avenorino^ of Israel." This is all that 
 Dr. P. has quoted from that song, and whether there 
 is in it, or in the whole song itself any proof for his 
 
130 PSALMODY. 
 
 exclusive system of Psalmody, is also left with the 
 reader to say. From these he passes on to the days 
 of David, and refers to 2 Sam. 23 : 12, for addi- 
 tional proof of his exclusive system of Psalmody, as 
 it would seem. " Now, these be the last words of 
 David, David the son of Jesse said, and the man that 
 w^as raised up on high, the anointed of the God of 
 Jacob, and the sweet Psalmist of Israel, has said, the 
 Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in 
 my tongue." He closes his proof on the first propo- 
 sition with a quotation from 2 Chron. 29 : 26, and as 
 he has italicised tlie concluding words, it is to be j)re- 
 sumed, that he considered it as very strong and de- 
 cisive proof in the case. "And he [Hezekiah] set 
 the Levites in the house of the Lord, with cymbals, 
 psalteries, and with harps, according to the command- 
 ment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and of 
 Nathan the prophet, for so was the commandment of 
 the Lord by his prophets." 
 
 Upwards of forty years ago, when we came to this 
 western country, the war about Psalmody was as hot 
 if not hotter than it is at present. And we have fre- 
 quently heard not only the above quotation, but the 
 words of the thirtieth verse advanced as unanswerable 
 arguments for an exclusive Psalmody. But we had 
 no colleges, or schools of Logic, or of "the art of right 
 reasoning" then, but as literature and knowledge in- 
 creased, their pertinency and force passed away, and 
 we expected never to have heard them advanced again 
 on the same controversy. The verse alluded to is 
 this — "Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes 
 commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord 
 in the words of David and Asaph the seer." What 
 now were the facts and circumstances, that gave rise 
 to this command. We are told in the close of the 
 foregoing chapter, that Ahaz the father of Hezekiah 
 "sacrificed to the' Gods of Damascus — cut in pieces 
 the vessels of the house of the Lord — shut it up, and 
 
PROOF TOO MUCH. 131 
 
 made him alters in every corner of Jerusalem, to burn 
 incense to other Gods." When Hezekiah, who was 
 a pious prince, ascended the throne of Judah, he gave 
 orders that the house of the Lord should be opened, 
 cleansed, and the worship of Jehovah re-established, 
 and among other things that the Levites should praise 
 the Lord in the words of David, and Asaph the seer. 
 Now, was there any thing extraordinary in this, or any 
 thing but what a good man would do in similar cir- 
 cumstances, and that any person should infer from it 
 that the book of Psalms is to be an exclusive system 
 of Psalmody to the church, is surprising indeed. Be- 
 sides, if the command to sing the praise of God in the 
 words of David and Asaph and nothing else, is per- 
 petually binding on the church, so is the command to 
 accompany them with cymbals, psalteries, harps, trum- 
 pets, &c. for the command is as j^eremptory in the 
 one case, as in the other. And not only so, but ac- 
 cording to the inference no part of the book of Psalms 
 is to be used, but the Psalms composed by David and 
 Asaph — all others are excluded by the command. 
 
 As Dr. P. has not produced a single jot or tittle of 
 proof either express, or legitimately inferential, for 
 his exclusive system of Psalmody, many, if not all of 
 our readers, may be ready to say, that we must have 
 misapprehended him, and that his design was only 
 to present us with a brief history of Psalmody under 
 the Jewish dispensation of grace. We would have 
 thought so, had it not been for the inference which he 
 has drawn from that history ; for inferential proof is to 
 be admitted on this subject as well as on any other. 
 His inference is this — "that if it can be made appear 
 to the satisfaction of the reader, that the songs con- 
 tained in the book of Psalms were given to the church 
 to be used in celebrating the praise of God, it will 
 then be admitted that the point in dispute is settled, 
 for with all who receive the Bible as the rule of faith, 
 it is a received principle, that in the worship of God, 
 
132 PSALMODY. 
 
 divine appointment is our guide." The reader will 
 have now perceived, that he intended his history as 
 argument in the dispute, and not to prove that the 
 book of Psalms is to be used in the praises of God ; 
 for this we have said repeatedly in this discussion, but 
 we contend also that every portion of the Old or New 
 Testaments that is suitable for the purpose, may be 
 used in that part of divine worship. * 
 
 * In the ninth number of his " Remarks," Dr. P. denies that he de- 
 signed the above brief history of Psalmody, as a proof that the chm-ch, 
 in the praises of God, is to confine herself to the book of Psalms. We 
 have assigned our reasons why he did consider it as designed for that 
 purpose; and we think that there are few, if any, who will attentively 
 consider the above quotation from his sixth chapter, but will be led to 
 the same conclusion. But as he r.ow says ihat he had something else 
 in view, courtesy requires us to admit it, and to apprise, the I'eader of 
 this, was one end wbich we had in view in writing ttiis note. 
 
 The reader may now consciously ask, what then is his proof? This — 
 if we understand him aright ; for he tells his readers in this and preced- 
 ing numbers, that we ai-e laboring under a " culpable indolence of mind." 
 " In pleading," he says, ''for the use of the sacred songs contained in 
 the book ot Psalms, my principal argument is drawn from the divine 
 APPOINTMENT ot these songs to be employed in the praises of God." 
 And then he adds — " The inspii-ation of these songs is admitted by all, 
 they are the songs, not of fallible men, but of the spirit. We ai-gue that 
 these songs were given to the church to be sung in the worship of God, 
 from— 
 
 The peculiar character of their matter. 
 
 The titles from which the Holy Ghost desigiiates them. 
 
 The use which was originally made of them by the church of God." 
 
 Dr. P. will probably impute it to "the indolence of oitr mind," but 
 we must confess that we cannot see in this statement, " a jot or tittle " 
 of proof for the exclusive use of the book of Psalms in the praises of 
 God, more than in his brief scripture-history of Psalmody. It is freely 
 admitted that the book of Psalms was written byinspired men, and that 
 it was given to be a system of Psalmody to the church under the Jewish 
 dispensation of grace ; while all that is perceptive, practical and devo- 
 tional, is suited to the praises of God under evei-y dispensation. But still 
 we want proof that it was designed to be an exclusive system of Psal- 
 mody for the church to the end of time. This, he tells us, " he draws 
 from the divine appointment." But where is this divine appointment, 
 or in what chapter and verse of the Bible is it recorded ? We have re- 
 peatedly called for this, and now, after a lapse and labour of eighteen 
 months, lie cannot produce a solitary text from the word of God, which 
 he himself will venture to say is proof in the case. And if aU which he 
 has written on the subject was reduced to a syllogism, it would stand 
 thus — -It is evident from sundry passages in the Old Testament that the 
 book of Psalms was designed to be a system of Psalmody for the church 
 under the Jewish dispensation of gxace. Jt is also evident that in some 
 of the Psalms, sacrificing is mentioned as a duty incumbent on the mem- 
 
THE PROOF A TRADITION. 133 
 
 And as to the second proposition — " that some per- 
 son or persons were divinely commissioned to make a 
 selection and collection of the songs of praise under 
 the Jewish dispensation, to be a system of Psalmody 
 to the church to the end of time, and that the book of 
 Psalms is that collection, the reader will see that he is 
 as lacking of proof on that point as on the other. He 
 afhrms that we should believe and act on this point as 
 he does, under the penalty of " offering strange fire 
 before the Lord ;" and when called upon for testimony 
 on which to found our faith and obedience, he tells us 
 " that it is highly probable that the selection was made 
 by Ezra, and that this probability is founded on " Jew- 
 ish tradition." But admitting that the Jewish tradition 
 is correct, still we want proof that the selection and 
 collection were made to be an exclusive system of Psal- 
 mody to the^end of the world. Such is the oft-re- 
 quested and long-looked-for proof, which Dr. P. has 
 brought forward in support of his exclusive system of 
 Psahnody. We are persuaded that there is not an in- 
 telligent reader, although he may be somewhat preju- 
 diced in his favor, but will say that this is a poor foun- 
 dation on which to build our faith and obedience.t 
 
 bers of that church, but sacrifices, with the whole Jewish ritual have 
 passed away, being '^nailed to the cross of Christ, Col. 2: 14;" 
 therefore, according to Dr. P.'s logic, the book of Psalms was designed 
 to be an exclusive systein of Psalmody for the christian church to the end 
 of time. The syllogism is founded on our opponent's acknowledged 
 doctrines, but every reader of good common sense will see, that the 
 conclusion is false, not being contained in the premises ; and that a con- 
 trary conclusion, or that the book of Psalms was not designed to be an 
 exclusive system of Psalmody for the christian church, necessarily flows 
 from the preceding premises. We would observe, however, that the 
 book of Psalms is not excluded from the Psalmody of the Christian 
 Church. It constitutes a part of it, and may be sung profitably if the 
 antitypical idea is affixed to the typical word ; for in Col. 3 : 16, the 
 Apostle enjoins it upon us to sing Psalms, and not only Psalms but 
 "hymns and spiritual songs," taken chiefly from " the word of Christ," 
 or the New Testament scriptures. 
 
 + Dr. P. thinks that it is a matter of Httle, or of no importance, who 
 selected and collected the book of Psalms into a system of Psalmody. 
 But as it respects our faith and obedience, it is, in our opinion, a matter 
 of great importance. For if it was selected to be an exclusive system 
 
 12 
 
134 PSALMODY. 
 
 We would, however, say that the j^overty and insuffi- 
 ciency of the proof is not to be imputed to a want of" 
 zeal, or of taste and talents for controversy in Dr. P., 
 but that there is no such proof in all the word of God, 
 as far as we know^ And we would farther say, that 
 there is as little proof, from the same source, for those 
 who think that the church may not use every scripture- 
 song in the praises of God, but confine herself to those 
 songs. It-is but for such to take another step, including 
 the w^hole word of God, and they will find themselves 
 standing on a firm and sure foundation — " the founda- 
 tion of the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ himself 
 being the chief corner stone — in whom all the building 
 fitly framed together, groweth into an holy temple in 
 the Lord." And to induce them so to do, we would 
 beg to recommend to them a serious and attentive per- 
 usal of the following words in Col. 3: 17 — "And 
 whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the 7iame 
 of the Lord Jcs2is, giving thanks to God, and the Fa- 
 ther by him." 
 
 Before we close this number, we would offer an 
 observation or tw^o on another argument which Dr. P. 
 has offered for his traditional faith and practice on this 
 subject, because from the great number of times in 
 which it is mentioned, it would seem that he places 
 great dependence upon it. It amounts to this — that 
 there is no system of Psalmody in the New Testament, 
 but there is a system of Psalmody in the Old Testa- 
 ment ; therefore we are to use it in the praises of God. 
 But there were reasons why a system of Psalmody was 
 indispensably necessary under the Jewish, but not ne- 
 cessary under the christian dispensation of grace.— 
 When it pleased God that his church should assume a 
 visible form in his chosen people, the Jews, he ex- 
 
 of Psalmody in all future ages of the Church, one would expect clear 
 and abundant proof from the divine word, that it was so designed and 
 selected for that very purpose. Can he mention an important doctrine 
 in the circle of Theology which demands our belief, and for which there 
 is so little proof, or rather no proof at all ? 
 
DIFFERE^'CE OF DISPENSATIONS. 135 
 
 pressly commanded them to worship him through the 
 ordinances of sacrificing, praise and prayer. When 
 that dispensation commenced, the revealed will of God 
 to man was very limited, and, until the days of jMoses, 
 was traditional, or handed down from fathers to their 
 children. Although some of the Patriarchs were con- 
 siderably instructed in divine things, yet, for the rea- 
 sons assigned, the mass of the Israelites must have 
 been very ignorant in regard to the real character of 
 Jehovah, and of the worship that would be acceptable 
 to him, and profitable to themselves". Hence, then, 
 in the nature of things, an express and precise revela- 
 tion respecting sacrificing, praising and praying, were 
 indispensably necessary, and as a directory for sacri- 
 ficing acceptably, the book of Leviticus was written. 
 For the same reasons, a system of Psalmody was also 
 necessary, and hence the book of Psalms. And it 
 cannot but have been particularly observed by all who 
 have read that book attentively, that prayers are mixed 
 with the praises, and thus it answered a two-fold pur- 
 pose, directing them at the same time for what they 
 were to praise God, and for what to supplicate " the 
 throne of grace." Both duties are inseparably and 
 wisely connected ; for every true worshipper of God 
 knows that when he " praises with the spirit " he feels 
 a disposition to pray for needed blessings, and when 
 he "prays with the spirit," to praise God for all his 
 goodness, whether of a temporal or a spiritual kind 
 and character. Indeed the inspired songs of that dis- 
 pensation appear to have been as necessary for prais- 
 ing and praying acceptably, as the book of Leviticus 
 for sacrificing in an acceptable manner, on the pre- 
 scribed occasions. It was, moreover, in many things, 
 a typical dispensation, or "a shadow of good things 
 to come," and divine truths and things seen as through 
 a glass darkly. But when Christ, .the great antif^'pe, 
 came into our world, and holy men were inspired to 
 frive us a fuller and clearer revelation of the way in 
 
136 PSALMODY. 
 
 which God desires to be worshipped now, no system 
 of sermons, or of praises, or of prayers, was necessary, 
 but the minister of the gospel required to conduct the 
 several parts of divine worship, in accordance with the 
 whole Word, the infallible rule of truth and righteous- 
 ness. " For all scripture," saith the Apostle Paul, 
 " is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for 
 doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for insttuction in 
 righteousness — that the Man of God may be perfect, 
 thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Let it be 
 particularly noted here, that the above declaration and 
 suggestion were given to Timothy in regard to the 
 whole of his ministerial duties, whether preaching, 
 praying, or praising God. They clearly and unequiv- 
 ocally direct every " Man of God," or the Minister of 
 the Gospel, to take the matter of his ministrations, not 
 from a j^art only,' but from the whole word of God 
 that is suited to the occasion. But according to the 
 views of some, when the iVpostle said that " all scrip- 
 ture was given for doctrine," &c., and that Timothy 
 was to take the matter of his ministrations from the 
 w^hole of the divine word, he should have told him 
 that there was an exception ; for that in singing the 
 praises of God he must confine himself to the book of 
 Psalms. Unfortunately for such, and Dr. P., Paul 
 did not make the exception. 
 
 The foregoing considerations have satisfied our- 
 selves why it was necessary that the book of Psalms 
 should form a part of the Old Testament as ar direct- 
 ory for praise and prayer under that dispensation of 
 grace, but not necessary for the church in future ages ; 
 but whether they will be satisfactory to others, we do 
 not know. But be that as it may, it remains yet to be 
 proved, that a book of Psalms, belonging to a dispen- 
 sation that was typical, and the " shadow of good 
 things to come," should be an exclusive system of 
 Psalmody to another dispensation which enjoys the 
 full blaze of all the spiritual light and revelation that 
 
MISCELLANEOUS. 137 
 
 God designed to bestow upon man. We conclude by 
 observing that unless some other proof for the two pro- 
 positions stated in the beginning of this number is 
 brought forward, this is to be considered as closing 
 the discussion on our part. We think we may say 
 that Dr. P. has not produced even the shadow of a 
 proof for his exclusive system of Psalmody, and we 
 will not carry on an interminable war of words about 
 collateral and immaterial points. 
 
 NO. XV. 
 
 Miscellaneous, 
 
 When we closed our last number we said that un- 
 less Dr. Pressly brought forward some scriptural proof 
 in defence of his exclusive system of Psalmody, the 
 discussion w^as to be considered as closed on our part. 
 But as he has produced one scripture passage for that 
 purpose, which will be examined in the proper place, 
 and published four additional chapters of "Review" 
 since that time — this and some other considerations 
 have induced us to write and publish another number 
 at least. 
 
 We therefore observe, that when we wrote our 13th 
 number the 8th number of Dr. P.'s " Remarks " had 
 not come into our hands, nor did it reach us for some 
 weeks after that time. It contains, however, nothing 
 with which we are concerned, but a supposed piece 
 of wit, which, no doubt, gave him much delight, as he 
 adverts to it a second time, and we feel no disposition 
 to disperse the pleasing sensation. He says that we 
 have admitted in our 13th number that he has smitten 
 us to death as Joab smote Amasa, but that he had no 
 12* 
 
138 PSALMODY. 
 
 such design, but only to draw a little blood to cool 
 our fiery tenaperament. But whether through design 
 or a lack of perspicuity, he has committed a palpable 
 mistake in res-ard to this famous witticism. Our read- 
 ers, we think, will have observed that we did not al- 
 lude to the act and efficiency of Joab in smiting Ama- 
 sa, but to his "manner" of doing it, saying — "Art 
 thou in health, my brother, and kissing him," while 
 malice, arising from disappointed hope and expecta- 
 tions, was rankling in his heart. And it is left with 
 Dr. P.'s readers to say if his conduct to us in this con- 
 troversy has not been something like that of Joab to 
 his brother Amasa, as he called him. Throughout 
 the discussion he has addressed us as " venerable Fa- 
 ther," and "venerable author," while at the same 
 time he represents us as destitute of moral rectitude, 
 in misrepresenting him in many instances, not one of 
 which he has sustained, and we fearlessly say cannot 
 sustain. Many instances of this might be produced, 
 but the very first paragraph of this Sth number furnish- 
 es sufficient proof. In that paragraph he addresses 
 us as " venerable author," and then says — " that from 
 some infirmity of nature, it is impossible for us to give 
 a correct exhibition of the views of our opponent." 
 And on what now is this serious and sweeping charge, 
 afi:e9ting not our literary but moral character, found- 
 ed? That we have represented him as complaining 
 " that we have endeavored by wit and sarcasm to ex- 
 hibit him in a ridiculous point of light, while he has 
 treated our hoary hairs with merited respect.'^'' And 
 has he not so complained *? That cannot and will not 
 be denied. On what, then, is this very serious charge 
 founded ? On this — that we- have quoted from his 
 " Review, and not from his Remarks." To make the 
 matter a little more clear, he tells us that he is pos- 
 sessed of " two different styles of writing." That of 
 the " christian and gentleman," which he says in a 
 preceding number he is, and which he used in his 
 
DIVERSIFIED TALENT. 139 
 
 Review ; and another, to which we do not think pro- 
 per to give a name, but which he himself calls wit, 
 and which he used in his "Remarks," — and that the 
 words "merited respect" are quoted from the Re- 
 view, and not from his Remarks, where it seems they 
 are not, nor were designed to be. This is the foun- 
 dation of the above serious charge, and whether it 
 w^ill justify him is left with the reader to say. We do 
 not envy him of this diversified gift or talent, but w^e 
 would beg leave to say, that he should change the 
 name of his religious journal, for we are persuaded 
 that some of his best friends will say that the language 
 occasionally used respecting ourselves, the editor of 
 the Presbyterian Advocate, and some others, is not 
 becoming in "a christian and gentlemanly Preach- 
 er." We are not complaining of such things, for 
 they can do us no harm, but only stating facts as they 
 really are, and placing things in their true point of 
 light, that the reader may decide correctly in the 
 case. 
 
 Our readers will remember that in our 11th number 
 we proposed to Dr. P. to select a clerical friend, and 
 we would select another, and submit to them the mis- 
 representations alleged on both sides, and pledged 
 ourselves that if they would say that we had misrepre- 
 sented him in anything, we would make the neces- 
 sary acknowledgments, while we expected the same 
 course of conduct from Dr. P. He has not availed 
 himself of this opportunity of removing his grievances, 
 if he feels himself really aggrieved. We will now 
 leave it with the reader to draw his own inference, 
 why it was that he did not embrace this fair opportu- 
 nity of relieving his character from the charge of more 
 than one misrepresentation preferred against him, one 
 or two of which were material in regard to the point 
 at issue. 
 
 The 7th chapter of Dr. P.'s "Review" consists in 
 a train of loose argumentation, for the purpose of prov- 
 
140 PSALMODY. 
 
 ing that as there is no book of Psalms m the New, we 
 should therefore confine ourselves in the praises of 
 God to the Psalms of the Old Testament. As we 
 have given our views on this subject in our last num- 
 ber we do not think any thing more necessary, and 
 will leave him to settle the point with those of his 
 brethren who think that we may warrantably use any 
 rehgious song in the Old or New Testaments. We 
 will only further observe, that he has not made any 
 attempt to prove that a special book was necessary for 
 praising, but not for praying and preaching, under the 
 present dispensation of grace. We have never met 
 with a. writer w4io takes so many things for granted as 
 our opponent, Dr. Pressly. 
 
 We have observed in a preceding number that 
 Christ is represented in some of the Psalms as coming 
 into our world, and that in such Psalms, if we will 
 sing " with the understanding," and according to truth, 
 we must substitute the past for the future tense or time. 
 That this is what Dr. P. calls " singing human com- 
 posure in the worship of God," and w^hich he so much 
 condemns. For, what is human composure in this 
 sense but substituting the spiritual meaning of a typi- 
 cal word, or arranging in verse a portion of the Scrip- 
 tures somewhat differently from what it is in the origi- 
 nal language, retaining the meaning or ideas of the 
 original. In answer to this. Dr. P., in the Sth chap- 
 ter of his Review, adduces passages from the Psalms 
 in which Christ is represented as " suffering, dying, 
 arising from the dead, and ascending up on high, lead- 
 ing captivity captive." As it was not unusual with 
 the prophets to represent future events as present, for 
 the purpose of assuring us of the unfailing certainty of 
 the event, so is it in some of the Psalms, in respect to 
 the death, resurrection, and ascension of the Son of 
 God to glory. And such Psalms may be sung with- 
 out any variation, or substituting one word and its idea 
 for another, but will any man say that we can, accord- 
 
SHIFTIXG THE DISCUSSIOX. 141 
 
 ing to truth, so sing portions of the 40th, 110th, 118th, 
 and some other Psalms, which represent him as not 
 come, but coming into our world. 
 
 There is a little piece of sophistry in Dr. P.'s ar- 
 gument on this point which we cannot pass over, in- 
 asmuch as it affects our own argument, but whether 
 designed or accidental we will not say. It consists in 
 changing the true state of the question to one akin to 
 it, a practice not unusual with some writers when 
 sound argument is lacking. "It so happens," he 
 says, " that every w^here in the Psalms the Redeemer 
 of the church is presented to our faith not as one who 
 should appear in some distant age, but as already en- 
 gaged in the accomplishment of his Mediatorial work." 
 But the present question is not when did he undertake 
 his Mediatorial work, but when did he come into our 
 world for that gracious purpose — surely not before the 
 book of Psalms was written. 
 
 The remainder of the chapter is taken up with a 
 severe attack on Watts' version of the Psalms. This 
 is contrary to his own promise in the 1st chapter of 
 his Review, that the discussion should not relate to 
 any version of Psalms, as they have nothing to do 
 with the main question, or the point at issue. We 
 will repeat it, for Dr. P. seems to forget both it and 
 his own promise. The question then is — "Are we to 
 take the subject matter of our praises to God from any 
 portion of the Scriptures that is suitable to that part of 
 divine worship, or are w^e to confine ourselves to the 
 book of Psalms." We believe, and contend for the 
 former proposition, and Dr. P. contends for the latter. 
 The reader will see that everything that is not to this 
 point is irrelevant and unprofitable wrangling. 
 
 Although Dr. P. has headed his 9th chapter " a 
 Review of Ralston's Inquiry," yet he scarcely notices 
 us or our Inquiry, but makes another severe attack on 
 what is usually called Watts' version of the Psalms. 
 Although we do not intend to assail or defend any 
 
142 PSALMODY. 
 
 version of the Psalms, yet this attack is so manifestly 
 unjust as entitles it to a passing notice. He will not 
 allow it to be a version at all, but an " Imitation," and 
 in proof quotes Watts' own words in his preface— "I 
 have chosen rather to imitate than translate." But 
 what did Dr. Watts mean by imitating the Psalms ? 
 Hear his own words as quoted by Dr. P. "My de- 
 sign," he says, "in short, is this, namely to accomo- 
 date the book of Psalms to Christian worship, and to 
 make the Psalmist speak like a Christian," or as he 
 would have spoken, had he lived under the Christian 
 dispensation of grace. That is, when he met with a 
 typical expression, as the blood of bulls and goats as 
 intended sacrifices, he substituted the words "the 
 blood of Christ," which they typified, and so of all sim- 
 ilar typical expressions. When Dr. P. and his breth- 
 ren explain the psalm to their hearers before they sing 
 it, do they not tell them, that to sing such passages 
 with the understanding, they must substitute the words 
 " the blood of Christ," by which, and by which alone, 
 the guilt of sin can be removed. Now, what is this ; 
 but doing the very thing, for doing which, they severe- 
 ly condemn Dr. Watts. And we have often wonder- 
 ed that they did not see the strong and glaring simi- 
 larity between their own practice and that of Dr. 
 Watts in regard to explaining the Psalms. The 
 principles on which both parties have acted is precise- 
 ly the same — to point out the spiritual meaning of ty- 
 pical and obscure words, that the worshippers may sing 
 to divine acceptance, and their own spiritual profit, 
 for we still believe that we cannot be profited by sing- 
 ing that which we do not understand. There may in- 
 deed be a difference in the two imitations, in regard to 
 orthodoxy, but which does not affect the principle on 
 which both parties have acted. Watts' imitation* of the 
 
 *\Ve have no reason to doubt that Dr. Watts called his versification 
 of the Psalms an " imitation." We do not know that he has given a 
 definition of the word in his preface ; but from what he says was his dc- 
 
IMITATIONS. 14:3 
 
 Psalms, as he calls it, has been strictly examined and 
 amended by the Presbyterian church, in its principal 
 judicatory, and judged to be agreeable to the scriptures 
 and our Confession of Faith, and is open for the ex- 
 amination of all who please to do so ; but the orthodoxy 
 of theirs depends on the Biblical knowledge, and 
 soundness in the faith of the explainer of the Psalm. 
 There is another little difference between these imita- 
 tions, but which also does not affect the principle on 
 which they are both based. In his imitation Watts has 
 changed the typical word and its literal idea, but they 
 retain the literal typical word, and tell their hearers 
 that they must affix the spiritual meaning to the word 
 while it is dwelling on their lips. How it may be with 
 others, we do not know, but we always found it to be 
 difficult, and tending to produce a jumbling of ideas, 
 and confusion of thought. 
 
 In a word, the principle is correct and good, and 
 when judiciously applied, is highly useful, and sanc- 
 tioned by the practice of- the writer of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews. And from the preceding considerations, 
 we think that Dr. P. might extend to the Presbyterian 
 church a Httle of that " forbearance " which he says he 
 exercises to those who think that they must use any 
 scripture song in the praises of God, and not publicly 
 brand her as he has done, with *' offering strange fire 
 before the Lord." If we are in error on this subject, 
 so are they, although it may be in a less degree. 
 
 In his 10th chapter Dr. P. endeavors to answer an 
 argument of ours in this controversy — " that as we 
 use our own language in prayer, so may we in praise." 
 He tries to obviate the argument by pointing out in 
 four particulars the difference between praise and pray- 
 
 sign in composing- it, Ave think that he might have chosen a more appro- 
 priate name. He tells us that his design was " to accommodate the book 
 of Psalms to christian worship," then, in our humble opinion, explana- 
 tion would have been a more appropriate title than imitation. We are 
 not now enquiring how he succeeded in the execution of his design — that 
 is another considei-ation, and belongs not to the present question, and 
 the point at issue. 
 
144 PSALMODY. 
 
 er ; and then draws the conclusion, that they are so 
 different that a system of praises was necessary for 
 the church, but not for prayer. The two ordinances 
 are indeed different in some respects, but not so dif- 
 ferent and " dissimilar," as to forbid their being used 
 at the same time in the worship of God. If that was 
 the case, then, one would expect that they woidd 
 never be mentioned conjointly in the same act of wor- 
 ship, and that the book of Psalms would consist alto- 
 gether of praises. But let any man examine the book 
 for the purpose, and he will find not over a dozen 
 of Psalms in which prayers are not intermingled with 
 praises. And not only so, but he will find prayer fol- 
 lowing praise, and praise prayer without any interven- 
 ing matter whatever ; and it proves what we have al- 
 ready said on this point, that when the believer " 2Draises 
 with the Spirit," or in a spiritual frame, he will pray 
 for needed blessings, and when he "prays with the 
 Spirit," he will praise God for all his goodness and 
 grace. Thus, in the 12th verse of the 119th Psalm, 
 the Psalmist says — " Blessed art thou, O Lord ; teach 
 me thy statutes." And in the llSth Psalm, 25th 
 verse, the Psalmist prayeth thus — " Save now, I be- 
 seech thee, O Lord ; O Lord, I beseech thee, send 
 now prosperity." And then he immediately adds — 
 " Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord ; 
 we have blessed you out of the house of the Lord." 
 According to Dr. P.'s views on this point, and 
 to be consistent with himself, he should never sing a 
 Psalm in which there is a prayer or prayers ; and if he 
 sings such a Psalm, he should pass over the prayers, 
 because of the great " dissimilarity " between prayer 
 and praise. And not only so, but when he prays, or 
 leads in prayer, he should never bless God for his 
 goodness and grace, but simply pray for needed bless- 
 ings. But we are persuaded that the reverse is the 
 fact ; and thus the objection is overthrown, not only by 
 scripture facts, but by his own constant and proper 
 
IRRELEVANT PASSAGE. 145 
 
 practice. We will therefore only again say, that the 
 argument is unanswered, and we believe unanswerable. 
 Dr. P. concludes the argumentative part of this 
 chapter by producing 1 Cor. 2 : 13, as proof that in 
 singing the praises of God, we should confine ourselves 
 to the words of the scriptures, and' of consequence to 
 the book of Psalms. The verse reads thus — "which 
 things we also speak, not in words which man's wis- 
 dom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, 
 comparing spiritual things with spiritual." We have 
 often seen and heard these words adduced as proof 
 for a restricted system of Psalmody ; and we ex- 
 pected that Dr. P. would refer to them in the course 
 of this discussion. If they referred to Psalmody, they 
 would indeed prove that in praising God we should 
 confine ourselves to the express words of Scripture, 
 but they would not prove that the book of Psalms con- 
 tains those words exclusively. But that they have 
 reference only to the preaching of the Gospel is evi- 
 dent from the preceding context. In the 4th verse the 
 iVpostle says — " And my speech and my preaching 
 was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in 
 demonstration of the Spirit and with power." The 
 same thing is also evident from the phraseology of this 
 13th verse — Man's wisdom — speaking — teaching — 
 comparing spiritual things with spiritual — all of which 
 words have reference to the preaching of the word, and 
 not to singing the praises of God. We confess that we 
 were astonished to see this verse applied as it is, by a 
 man of Dr. P.'s age and standing in the Church. 
 May we not say again that he has not produced even 
 the shadow of a proof for his exclusive system of 
 Psalmody. 
 
 It would seem that this discussion is to be intermi- 
 nable. Not satisfied, as it appears, with his prowess, 
 and literary achievements in warring over the same 
 ground twice, once in his " Review," and a second 
 time in his " Remarks,'' Dr. P. has commenced a third 
 13 
 
146 PSALMODY. 
 
 campaign in the 23d No. of his " Preacher," under the 
 caption of " The Text book of the Synod of Pittsburgh 
 on Psahiiody." 
 
 In the 1st No. of this campaign, he assails the Synod 
 for requesting us to pubHsh our Nos. on Psalmody in 
 a "book form," and affirms that the Synod is respon- 
 sible for all which we have said on the subject. Few 
 men but Dr. P. would suppose or assert that a simpl-e 
 request imports all this ; and we are persuaded that 
 such a foolish and extravagant idea never entered into 
 the head of a single member of that Synod. A num- 
 ber of men have heard Dr. P. preach, and have re- 
 quested him to preach to them again. He complies ; 
 and does the request make them responsible for all he 
 has said or may say in the pulpit. We alone are re- 
 sponsible, and whatever he may have to say farther on 
 the subject, let him say it to us, and we will answer as 
 we can, and as we think w^e ought. 
 
 . In this No. he brings forward three charges against 
 us, or rather against the Synod of Pittsburgh through 
 us. Two of these charges are specified in the 1st and 
 2nd Nos. of his " Review," and replied to by us, and 
 it is to be presumed that our friends in the Synod have 
 seen the replies, and been satisfied with them in gen- 
 eral. However, that he may have no ground to com- 
 plain, we will again briefly state these charges with 
 their replies, that the reader who may not have seen 
 them, may be able to decide for himself. 
 
 The first is, that we have charged him wrongfully 
 by saying, that he charged us with " holding doctrines 
 which we never believed, never taught, and which we 
 rejected with our whole heart.*" And has he not 
 charged us in the 2nd No. of his " Review," '' with 
 elevating a modern hymn to a level with the word of 
 God," and against which, "in the name of the Pro- 
 testant church," he entered a pompous protest, as if 
 the Protestant church had committed her orthodoxy 
 and honor to his safe-keeping. Our views against 
 
CHARGES. 147 
 
 which he has so pompously protested, may be briefly 
 summed up thus — every hymn or spiritual song which 
 is strictly founded on the word of God, may in a cer- 
 tain sense, be termed '* divine," because it contains a 
 portion of that word, but it is not in itself any new or 
 additional divine revelation. And we appeal to the 
 reader if it is not calculating too highly on human 
 forbearance ; first, to charge a man with holding a 
 dangerous error, and then blame him for mentioning 
 the charge for the purpose of exonorating himself. 
 
 The second charge is, that we represent him as say- 
 ing, that hymn-singers are liable to be devoured by 
 fire sent down from heaven for that purpose. Let 
 his own words decide in this case. He had told us 
 how Nadab and Abihu had been consumed by fire 
 from Heaven, for offering strange fire before the Lord ; 
 and then says, that if any w4io approve of his views on 
 the subject of Psalmody, happen to be where hymns 
 are sung, *' they are compelled to be silent, lest they 
 should be chargeable with offering strange fire before 
 the Lord." If there is not a complete identification of 
 the two cases here, we know not what identification 
 means. 
 
 As connected with these, he charges us with draw- 
 ing the following inference from the preceding premi- 
 ses — " That it is truly mournful and pitiable to see 
 puny and sinful mortals desirous of seizing upon the 
 thunderbolts of Jehovah's ire, for the purpose of hurl- 
 ing them at the heads of fellow sinners, because they 
 differ from them on points not essential to the salva- 
 tion of the soul." 
 
 We remember that when w^e wrote this sentence, 
 we had in view James and John, (Luke 9 : 54,) who 
 in a fit of intemperate zeal, once desired fire from 
 heaven to consume the Samaritans, because they wor- 
 shipped God in a manner different from w^hatthey did. 
 And as such good men were liable to such ebullitions 
 of false and fiery zeal, we knew not but that it might 
 
148 PSALMODY. 
 
 be the case with Dr. P. and his identifying the 
 *' strange fire " of the unhappy sons of Aaron with 
 hymn singing more than half convinced us that it was 
 the case. But as he has heretofore disavowed having 
 any such desire, and now disavows it a second time, 
 it is not to be imputed to him again, and we have ac- 
 cordingly remodelled the above sentence, and changed 
 the word " desirous " into " trying to prove," as will 
 be seen, if our Nos. should be published in a volume. 
 The occasion induces us to remark, that if Dr. P. 
 w^ould re-examine some of his language respecting our- 
 selves, he would find that some of it would not lose by 
 a change in the phraseology. But be that as it may, 
 we consider it not only a duty but an honor to correct 
 a mistake ^thich we may have fallen into from any 
 cause whatever. To this we will add only, that he 
 now sayS; that all he has said about Nadab and Abihu 
 — strange fire and hymn singing — and consuming fire 
 from heaven, was only to inculcate the necessity and 
 importance of worshipping God agreeably to his own 
 appointments ; and that he had no reference to the kind 
 of punishment due to those who do otherwise. If that 
 was only his design he took a very unhappy way of 
 communicating his ideas on the subject. But christian 
 charity and courtesy require that we should admit of 
 his explanation ; and it is hoped that the cases of Na- 
 dab and Abihu, and singers of hymns, will never again 
 be identified as an argument in any future discussion 
 on Psalmody. It is a scandal to religion, and a dis- 
 grace to any minister of any branch of the Presbyterian 
 Church. 
 
 The third charge is, that we have said that Dr. P. 
 "assumes it as an admitted truth and fact, that the 
 book of Psalms was designed as an exclusive system 
 of Psalmody for the church, and argues from it accor- 
 dingly, whereas this is the point at issue." We could 
 without fear appeal for the truth of our assertion to all 
 who have read his "Review" and "Remarks," but 
 
149 
 
 he himself has furnished us with ample proof in this 
 very No. For although we repeatedly called upon 
 him for the proof of his exclusive system, yet it was 
 not until the Gth chapter of his " Review " that he told 
 us, " the principal argument for his system was drawn 
 from the divine appointment." His apology for this 
 delay is, that he was engaged in reviewing our " In- 
 quiry." But every reader of good common sense, 
 who never read a treatise on Logic, will see and say, 
 that the proper method of conducting this controversy 
 was, — to bring forward at first, what he supposed to be 
 proof for his belov^ed system, and then any other pas- 
 sages from Scripture that would conduce to strengthen 
 or illustrate that proof. And when after a lapse of 
 twelve months, he produced his principal argument, 
 what, proof from the divine word does he produce to 
 sustain it. Will his friends and admirers believe it ? ■ 
 Not a text — not a solitary text from the word of God, 
 and no other proof can be admitted in the case. And 
 now may we not say that Dr. P.'s restricted system of 
 Psalmody, is an unscriptural and culpable restriction 
 of the privileges of the church under the christian dis- 
 pensation of grace, and that his attempt to defend it 
 has issued in a most pitiable manner. At least, we 
 think so. 
 
 We have now replied in this No. to every thing ma- 
 terial in the last four chapters of his "Review," twoNos. 
 of his " Remarks," and the first assault on the Synod 
 of Pittsburgh ; and w4iether we will write another No. 
 or more than another, depends upon contingencies. 
 13* 
 
150 PSALMODY. 
 
 NO. XVI. 
 
 Objections answered — Charges of Misrepresentations 
 refuted. 
 
 As it was in the 1st, so is it with Dr. Pressly in the 
 2d number of his third campaign on Psalmody — there 
 is not a single new idea but one, which will be noticed 
 in the proper place. As if conscious that he had lost 
 all the ground for which he had battled, first in his 
 "Review," and again in his "Remarks," he breaks 
 ground the third time, where he first began, with the 
 famous words — " human inventions, and human com- 
 posure." But we are at a loss to see the new w^ounds 
 which he has inflicted on these unfortunate victims of 
 his wrath — " human inventions " — as he has not said 
 any thing against them which he has not said in his 
 "Review" and "Remarks." It is wdth reluctance 
 that we repeat what we have already said — but it is 
 unavoidable, or suffer falsehood and sophistry to pre- 
 vail over what we believe to be an important truth. In 
 our "Inquiry" we hav^e said that "human inventions 
 have reference to discoveries in the useful arts and sci- 
 ences." This is the primary, proper and obvious 
 meaning of the phrase ; but we did not say that it may 
 not be used, as it is by Dr. P. and others, in an impro- 
 per and unusual sense, to denote compositions on di- 
 vine subjects ; but their using it in this improper sense 
 does not change its primary and proper meaning. 
 
 We have also said, " that it is the subject-matter of 
 a composition, whether in prose or in verse, that gives 
 it its distinctive character," and which is admitted by 
 Dr. P. and others, " that there cannot be a greater 
 perversion of the established meaning of words, than 
 to call a hymn or spiritual song, founded on the char- 
 acter and perfections of God, as developed in the 
 works of creation, providence or grace, " a human 
 
BRAINLESS DEFINITION. 151 
 
 Every reader, of go.od common sense, 
 will see, that unless it is proved that the plan of re- 
 demption through Christ was a human and not a divine 
 invention or device, that his definition of the phrase is 
 improper, and that the one which we have given is pro- 
 per, and agreeable to the obvious meaning of the words. 
 
 But, says Dr. P., "the Psalms, when corirectly 
 translated, are strictly divine ;" but hymns or spiritual 
 songs, though founded on the word of God, " are not 
 the word of God." If he means that they contain no 
 part of it, it is not true, and as containing a part of it or 
 founded upon it, they may be as lawfully used in di- 
 vine worship as his own sermons and prayers, which 
 are not a strict translation of any part of the divine 
 word, but only extracted from, or founded upon it. 
 And it remains yet to be proved, that praying and 
 preaching thus extracted may be acceptable worship, 
 but not praising, unless the very words of the scrip- 
 tures are sung. 
 
 The other victim of his- displeasure — " human com- 
 posure " — is mentioned transiently only by Dr. P., 
 and, we are persuaded, to the great disappointment of 
 his friends and readers. For it was doubtless expect- 
 ed that he would either defend or amend his definition 
 of that phrase, and which we have said we could not 
 adopt. He defines it thus — " Human composure is 
 something composed by man ;" or, in other words, 
 human composure is human composure. We have 
 acknowledged in our 8th number that it is neat and 
 concise, and w^e believe without a parallel. And we 
 are persuaded, that should Johnston's and Webster's 
 Dictionaries be searched from beginning to end, a sim- 
 ilar definition could not be found. We have said 
 that we could not adopt it, because it is as destitute of 
 brains as the wooden head in a wigmaker's shop ; and 
 as we are under no obligation to furnish it with that 
 organ of perception and thought ; and until Dr. P. 
 will put brains into it, we must abide by our own defi- 
 
152 PSALMODY. 
 
 nition — " that it is a composition relating to human 
 affairs and concerns." 
 
 And what now, if his. improper definition of the 
 phrase " human inventions," and his brainless defini- 
 tion of "human composure," were right, and ours 
 wrong, would that prove the divine appointment of the 
 book "of Psalms to be a system of Psalmody for the 
 Church to the end of time '? That is the jDoint at is- 
 sue — and every thing that does not tend to this is a 
 war of words ; and it may be asked, why does Dr. P. 
 contend so tenaciously for such irrelevant and unim- 
 portant points ? They are terrifying words to the se- 
 rious, but weak-minded, and found to be the most 
 efficacious means for proselyting such. And all who 
 make use of them for that purpose well know that to 
 wrest them from them, by shewing that their defini- 
 tions are irrational, or absurd, reduces them to a state 
 somewhat similar to that of Micah, when he said to 
 the Danites — " Ye have taken away my gods, (or the 
 idols in which he trusted for success,) and what have 
 I more." ^^H'lnc tllcz lachrijmce,'''' — hence those tears 
 and lamentations ; and hence it is that those terrifying 
 words must be contended for, to the utmost extremity. 
 We think that his best friends will say that he should 
 not have brought this point a third time before the 
 public eye. 
 
 Tn this number Dr. P. also introduces another sub- 
 ject which has undergone considerable discussion, and 
 in which he gives us, not argument, but much dark 
 and equivocating declamation. It respects the man- 
 ner in which his hearers sing some of the Psalms, after 
 he has explained them. We would here remark, that 
 whatever is moral in its character is suitable to the 
 worshij^ of God, under every dispensation of grace. 
 There is much of this in the book of Psalms, and such 
 Psalms may be profitably sung without any exj^lana- 
 , tion. But there are other Psalms, and portions of 
 Psalms, that relate to the Jewish economy, and mode 
 
EXPLANATION AGAIN. 153 
 
 of worship, and the question is, how are these Psahns 
 to be sung to divine acceptance, and the spiritual pro- 
 fit of the worshipper. Dr. P. told us that his hearers 
 sung them " literally and truly," even when the Psalm- 
 ist said that " he would go into the house of God with 
 burnt sacrifices of fatlings, with the incense of rams." 
 We were astonished at this, and observed that it was 
 rank Judaism, and that we had always understood that 
 one object of explaining the Psalm before it was sung, 
 was — to tell the singers that in singing such Psalms 
 they should attach the spiritual meaning to the typical 
 words, " the blood of Christ," which those sacrifices 
 typified, and that this is singing what he calls human 
 composure in the worship of God. He continued 
 sullen and silent for a considerable time, but galled by 
 our adverting to it at diff'erent times, he at length com- 
 plained in the 5th number of his " Remarks " that we 
 had misrepresented him on the subject, and, if we 
 understood him aright, affirmed that his hearers sung 
 such Psalms in that manner. How it is with him now, 
 let the reader judge from the following quotation : — 
 " It is maintained in this Text boolc, that in all such 
 cases where there is an explanation of the Psalm be- 
 fore it is sung, the congregation sing the explanation 
 which has been given, and therefore sing human com- 
 positions. The reader who possesses but a limited 
 store of common sense, will naturally ask, how can 
 this be ? The Psalm is read — the worshipper has the 
 book before him, and sings the words of the Psalm — 
 how, then, the reader who has not entirely lost his 
 senses, appropriately enquires, can the worshipper at 
 the same time sing the explanation." 
 
 It may not be amiss to observe here, that when this 
 subject came first under discussion, Dr. P. resorted to 
 a sorry quibbling on words, and it is left with the reader 
 to say if he does not take refuge under the same con- 
 temptible covering at present. We had said that his 
 people sung his explanations, and that this was virtu- 
 
154 PSALMODY. 
 
 ally singing human composure. This he denied by 
 saying, that by ^'' explanation^^ he meant the very 
 words of the explainer ; although we think that we 
 made it sufficiently plain that we meant by the word, 
 attaching the spiritual meaning to the typical words of 
 a typical Psalm. The whole, however, may be briefly 
 summed up and stated thus. If Dr. P.'s hearers sing 
 typical Psalms " literally and truly," then they sing 
 Judaism and not Christianity. But if they affix the 
 spiritual meaning to typical words, then they sing men- 
 tal human composure. There is no alternative but 
 not affixing any ideas at all to such Psalms. We ex- 
 pect that he will not admit either the first or third of 
 these alternatives ; then, we ask, if written human 
 composure may not be as orthodox and profitable as 
 that which is mental, or gathered from the explanation. 
 
 Although there is not a new idea in all which he 
 has said about human inventions, human composure, 
 and singing the explanations of typical Psalms, yet he 
 informs his readers that we have " felt rather uncom- 
 fortable " throughout this discussion, and have been 
 *' a stranger to equanimity while in the field." This 
 is a new idea to ourselves, and when we read it we 
 expected some proof, but, according to custom, he 
 takes it for granted, as he has done with many others of 
 his affirmations. We acknowledge that it was with 
 reluctance that we entered into this controversy, but 
 when engaged through necessity, it is left with our 
 readers to say if we have betrayed *' an uncomfortable 
 spirit, or a want of equanimity" throughout the dis- 
 cussion. Our health was and is feeble and precari- 
 ous, but yet we were not under the necessity of going 
 southward for a single day, for the purpose of recruit- 
 ing perturbed spirits and shattered health. 
 
 He closes this number by trying to throw off the 
 odium of being the assailant in this controversy, by 
 saying, "that he is only defending * the advocates of 
 the songs of inspiration ' against the charge that they 
 
RECKLESS PERVERSION. 155 
 
 use a system of Psalmody which is not evangehcal." 
 He forgot to tell his readers that our " Inquiry" is a 
 defence against the charges of the Rev. Mr. Reid, 
 whose champion he is, and who says in his book en- 
 titled "the Seven last Plagues," that two of the vials 
 of the wrath of God, mentioned in the 16th chapter of 
 " the Revelation," will be poured out on those church- 
 es who use what he calls " human inventions " in the 
 worship of God. When Dr. P. joublishes his second 
 edition of his " Chapter of History," he is requested 
 to publish this, as a matter of right and justice. 
 
 In the 3d number of his third campaign. Dr. P. has 
 given the public a few strictures on our " Brief His- 
 tory on Psalmody," and which, we think, the reader 
 will say is as reckless as anything that has yet droj^ped 
 from his pen. We have said, " that it is evident from 
 sacred history that the church of God was in the ha- 
 bit, from the earliest ages of singing songs of praise to 
 him, and which have not composed any part of the 
 book of Psalms, and that the fair presumption is, that 
 they were the productions of pious but uninspired 
 men." In this history we mentioned the song of Mo- 
 ses, and of the Israelites at the Red Sea, because it is 
 the first on divine record, but at the same time we 
 distinctly said, "that it came not within the sphere of 
 our Inquiry," because it is an inspired song. Now, 
 will not the reader, when he reads the following con- 
 clusion, say either that Dr. P. wrote under the influ- 
 ence of a perturbed mind, or that he is reckless of 
 what he may say, provided it will prop up his sinking 
 cause in the smallest degree. He desires his readers 
 " to pause and contemplate this admirable specimen of 
 reasoning. The first song which was sung by the 
 church of God was an inspired song, therefore the fair 
 presumption is, that the songs which were employed 
 in the Church of God in singing his praise were unin- 
 spired songs. Should Dr. P. ever have mentioned 
 the word misrep-esentation ? 
 
156 PSALMODY. 
 
 But that is not all. He passes over what we have 
 said on that subject from Gen. 4 : 26, compared with 
 Psalm 105 : 1, 2, and what is said of the religious 
 songs sung at " the feast of the Lord," mentioned in 
 the 21st chapter of the book of Judges. He says that 
 the song sung by the women of Israel, on the occa- 
 sion of David's victory over Goliah, who had " defied 
 the armies of the God of Israel," or of the churches, 
 1 Sam. IS : 26, was not a religious song at all. To 
 say is one thing, and to prove is another : and had he 
 proved it, still the other instances which we have ad- 
 duced sustain our affirmation, for he does not dare 
 even to look at them. 
 
 The next objection is — that we have said, " that 
 among the other purposes for which the book of 
 Psalms was given to the church, we cannot but think 
 that it was given as a model or pattern for framing her 
 more evangehcal songs, as the Lord's prayer was 
 given as a pattern of prayer and supplication under 
 the present dispensation of grace. The reader will 
 have observed, that this is only a private opinion, and 
 as Dr. P. has not shewn that it is wrong, we must 
 abide by it until the error is pointed out. We would 
 not have noticed this at all, had it not been for another 
 conclusion which he has drawn from the preceding 
 premises. *' Where," he asks, " is it revealed in the 
 Scriptures that these songs (the book of Psalms) are 
 no longer to be sung, but to be regarded as a fund 
 whence the Church is to draw 77iiich of the material of 
 her songs of praise." Now, our readers know% and 
 Dr. P. cannot but know^, that we have repeatedly said, 
 that they may all be sung profitably, even the typical 
 portion of them, when the antitypical idea is affixed to 
 the typical word. How to account for the above 
 charge we know not, unless from the causes lately 
 mentioned. 
 
 Another objection is, that we have said " that a 
 number of the Psalms are so constructed and expressed 
 
CLOSE OF DISCUSSION. 157 
 
 as to shew evidently that those parts of them at 
 least were designed as a system of Psalmody for the 
 Jewish dispensation only." We have said so when 
 viewed literally, and so says Dr. P., although he con- 
 tended for a long time that his hearers sung them 
 " literally and truly" as they are, without any regard 
 to the explanations given by the officiating minister. 
 Alluding in the close of this number to the words of 
 the 51st Psalm — " purge me with hyssop, and I shall 
 be clean, wash me, and 1 shall be whiter than snow," 
 he says — " It was evidently not for a literal washing 
 that he (David) prayed, but for that spiritual cleansing 
 which is effected by the Holy Ghost." This per- 
 fectly comports with our own views of the subject, but 
 to sing these and other typical passages literalhj, could 
 be done with propriety by a Jew only, whose duty it 
 was to apply the water of purification on particular 
 occasions, and to offer the sacrifices mentioned in the 
 close of the Psalm. We were glad to see this at last 
 from Dr. P., for he was far from being open and in- 
 genuous on this point in the course of the discussion, 
 and sometimes shrouded himself in pitchy darkness, 
 and at other times took refuge in a sorry quibbling on 
 words. 
 
 In the 2d number of the 2d volume of his Preacher, 
 Dr. P. closes this discussion of twenty-two months con- 
 tinuance. The reader is aware that we are not account- 
 able for such an unreasonable protraction of the con- 
 troversy. He was the assailant, and we the defend- 
 ant ; we were therefore under the necessity of follow- 
 ing him in his course, however errant that course might 
 be. As it is the last, we would have been glad to 
 see in it something of the dignified and kindly spirit 
 of " the christian and gentleman," and not that of a 
 chagrined and disappointed controversialist, as his 
 readers cannot but have observed. 
 
 In taking his leave of us, he reminds us that we 
 have said that he has adduced 1 Cor. 2 : 13, as proof 
 14 
 
158 PSALMODY. 
 
 for his restricted system of Psalmody, whereas h^ now 
 says that it was not intended as proof for any system 
 whatever. We did not say that he offered it as direct 
 proof, but as inferential only ; and whether we were 
 mistaken in our interpretation of his design, the reader 
 will judge when he reads his own words. " The 
 praises of God," he says, " are exhibited in these di- 
 vine songs, not in the words which man's wisdom 
 teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." Now, 
 we would ask, how came it to pass that Dr. P. con- 
 nected the book of Psalms with the Apostle Paul's 
 expressions, " words which the Holy Ghost teacheth," 
 unless as a proof that the book of Psalms were design- 
 ed to be a restrictive system of Psalmody for the 
 church. Besides, this was in perfect unison with the 
 expressions, "inspired Psalms, and inspired songs," 
 which pervade the whole of the discussion, and which 
 every reader knows were designed to convey the idea 
 that no portion of the scriptures are to be used in the 
 praises of God but the book of Psalms. 
 
 A charge of a similar kind and character immedi- 
 ately follows this. That we have said in our 14th 
 number, "that his important proof for his exclusive 
 system of Psalmody consists in a brief scriptural his- 
 tory of Psalmody from the days of Moses to the reign 
 of Hezekiah ; but which he says was not designed for 
 that purpose at all. The reader will judge for himself 
 in this case, from the following introduction to that 
 history :— " If it can be made appear to the satisfac- 
 tion of the reader, that the songs contained in the book 
 of Psalms were given to the church to be used in cel- 
 ebrating the praise of God, it will then he admitted 
 that the present dispute is settled ; for with all who re- 
 ceive the Bible as the rule of faith, it is a received 
 principle that in the worship of God, divine appoint- 
 ment is our guide." That the above quotation is a 
 species of syllogism, will not, cannot be denied. We 
 concluded, therefore, that the following history of Psal- 
 
TWO YEARS WITHOUT PROOF. 159 
 
 mody, if not the whole, was at least the principal part 
 of the premises from which he drew his conclusion of 
 " divine appointment." Public preaching, praying, 
 and praising, are divine appointments in the worship of 
 God. And " line upon line, and precept upon pre- 
 cept," have been produced in proof of the two first 
 of these appointments, but will the reader believe it. 
 Dr. P., after nearly two years labor and research, can- 
 not produce a shigle text of scripture in proof of the 
 last of these appointments, as he understands the sub- 
 ject ; for he says that his scriptural history of Psalmo- 
 dy was not designed as any proof on the point. There 
 are indeed various places in the Old Testament, espe- 
 cially in the book of Psalms, where the church was 
 enjoined to sing Psalms of praise to God, and under 
 the present dispensation the Apostle Paul enjoins it on 
 her to sing not only Psalms but hymns and spiritual 
 songs, " in the name of the Lord Jesus," as the medi- 
 ator between God and man. But Dr. P. says that all 
 these are comprehended in the book of Psalms ; al- 
 though a single Psalm, or portion of a Psalm, has not, 
 and we believe cannot be pointed out, which speaks 
 of Jesus of Nazareth as that mediator. Some of our 
 readers may be ready to say, this is strange, very 
 strange indeed. For we were led to believe that the 
 advocates of a' restrictive Psalmody could at any mo- 
 ment produce scores of texts in proof of their restricted 
 system, but now" when pressed for the proof, they can- 
 not produce a solitary text — at least this is the case with 
 Dr. Pressly. Let the well-meaning but unlearned 
 reader, who wishes to know the truth on this subject, 
 keep his eye intently fixed on this circumstance, and 
 it will finally lead him into all necessary truth in the 
 case. We add only, that admhting that the two pre- 
 ceding charges are well founded, what would they 
 amount to — to misapprehensions only, but not to mis- 
 representations. 
 
 But the comparison which we drew in our last num- 
 ber between the conduct of Dr. Watts and of Dr. 
 
160 PSALMODY. 
 
 Pressly and his brethren, in explaining the typical j)or- 
 tions of typical Psalms, for the purpose of accommo- 
 dating them to christian worship, seems to have incur- 
 red Dr. P.'s highest displeasure, and most marked 
 reprobation — so marked as to exclude us from all pre- 
 tension to a regard for moral rectitude. We have said 
 that when Dr. Watts met with the words, " the blood 
 of bulls and of goats," he substituted the words " the 
 blood of Christ," which they typified, and that Dr. P. 
 and his brethren did the same thing in their explana- 
 tions. On what we have said respecting Dr. Watts' 
 explanation, Dr. P. remarks thus : — "All this is said 
 with as little hesitation as though it were a reality ! 
 But there is not a single particle of truth in the state- 
 ment." On what, now, is this very severe charge 
 founded? Does he mean that the blood of the Jew- 
 ish victims was not typical of the blood of Christ *? 
 That would be contrary to the whole drift and design 
 of the Apostle in the 9th and 10th chapters of his 
 epistle to the Hebrews. On what, then, is it founded? 
 On this — that although the phrase, " the blood of 
 goats," is used in the Psalms — and, by the way, this 
 neutralizes the one half of the charge — yet the phrase 
 *'the blood of bulls," is not used in connection w^ith 
 it. It is, however, implied and involved in the 13th 
 verse of the 50th Psalm, and we remember that w^e 
 had that verse in view when we wrote the condemned 
 phrase. In that verse Jehovah is represented as say- 
 ing in reference to the Jewish sacrifices — " Will I eat 
 the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats." We 
 need now scarcely say, that before the flesh of bulls 
 could be prepared for sacrifice, their blood must be 
 previously shed, and this warrants the propriety and 
 appropriateness of the phraseology. And not only is 
 this the case, but we are persuaded that from that verse 
 the Apostle Paul framed his phraseology, " the blood 
 of bulls and of goats," in Heb. 9 : 13, for we do not 
 know of any other passage where bulls and goats are 
 mentioned together as sacrifices appointed by God. 
 
HYPERCRITICAL OBJECTIONS. 161 
 
 Some may think that the 15th verse of the 66th Psalm, 
 " I will offer bullocks with goats," contains a similar 
 phraseology. But be that as it may, we could not be 
 far wrong when we used the Apostle's phraseology; 
 and it is not alleged that we have changed the spirit 
 or the meaning of the passage ; on the contrary, we 
 have retained and preserved both. Dr. P.'s objec- 
 tions, then, come under the category of what is called 
 *' hypercriticism," or criticism stretched and wrenched 
 on a rack, and to which no man resorts but when de- 
 fending an untenable and sinking cause. Perhaps he 
 may say that w^e have overlooked his objection to our 
 saying, that Dr. Watts, in his versification of the 
 Psalms, substituted "the blood of Christ" for the 
 blood of the Jewish sacrifices, and which he seems to 
 deny. Let any man read Watts' versifications of the 
 51st Psalm, and deny it if he can. We will add only, 
 that we are not to be considered as complaining of 
 Dr. P.'s unqualified assertion, " that there is not a 
 single particle of truth in our statement, for, we repeat 
 it, it cannot do us the smallest harm ; but we would 
 remark, that in the meantime our comparison of Dr. 
 Watts, and of Dr. P. and his brethren, as explainers 
 of the Psalms, stands firm and unshaken. 
 
 In the 3d number of the 2d volume of his " Preach- 
 er," Dr. P. brings forward an objection to one of our 
 arguments for an evangelical Psalmody, taken from 
 Col. 3 : 16, and 2 Tim. 3 : 16, taken in connection, 
 and it is tlie only new objection in the whole number. 
 He says that the words, "All scripture is given by in- 
 spiration of God," in 2 Tim. 3 : 16, refers to the Old 
 Testament only. Why? Because it is said in the 
 preceding verse, " that Timothy, from a child, had 
 known the scriptures " — that the New^ Testament was 
 not then written^and that the usual language of the 
 New Testament writers, when speaking of the Old 
 Testament, was, " the scripture, or the scriptures." 
 It may be that none of the New Testament was writ- 
 14* 
 
162 PSALMODY. 
 
 ten while Timothy was a child ; but how was it when 
 Paul wrote his second epistle to him. According to 
 the chronology of Dr. Scott, that epistle was written 
 in the year 67 ; and according to the same authority, 
 the whole of the New Testament was written before 
 that year — the 2d epistle of Peter, the epistles of John, 
 the epistle of Jude, and the Revelation excepted. 
 And not only so, but the four gospels, and the Acts of 
 the Apostles, were written upwards of thirty years be- 
 fore that year. It is to be presumed that Timothy, as 
 a preacher of the gospel, possessed those writings ; for 
 if we are to believe Dr. P., they are not called " Scrip- 
 tures " in the New Testament. But that Peter called 
 those parts of the New Testament which were extant 
 in his day, " the Scriptm'es,^^ is evident from his sec- 
 ond epistle 3 : 16. In that verse, alluding to the wtI- 
 tings of his brother Paul, he speaks of certain unlearned 
 and unstable men, who wrested his " epistles, as they 
 did also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." 
 Now, whatever the other scrii^tures alluded to were, it 
 is here evident that Peter classes Paul's episdes with 
 them as scriptures. And had he even succeeded in 
 detaching 2d Tim. 3 : 16, from Col. 3 : 16, as a pre- 
 ceptive proof for an evangelical Psalmody,- still the 
 phrase, '* the word of Christ," in the latter passage, of 
 itself would prove the precept, even according to Dr. 
 P.' 3 own definition of the phrase. He says it means 
 both the Old and New Testaments. Be it so, and 
 what is the consequence ? That the Colossians were 
 from this "word" to teach one another in Psalms, 
 and hymns, and spiritual songs ; and that is all that we 
 have contended for, or now contend. In closing our 
 reply to the preceding objection, we cannot but ob- 
 serve, that" one would expect that a Professor of The- 
 ology would have been better acquainted with the chro- 
 nology of the book which he professes to teach. 
 
 By comparing Col. 3 : 17, " whatsoever ye do in 
 word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus," 
 
ABSURD INTERPRETATION. 163 
 
 with John IG : 24, we have thought that both passages 
 teach us, that in acts of worship we are to approach 
 God through Christ as a mediator, and " the only me- 
 diator between God and man." Dr. P., however, 
 understands the words, '* in the name of the Lord Je- 
 sus," as importing only, " that on the performance of 
 duty, whether civil, social or religious, we should have 
 respect to the authority of Christ as our rule." Un- 
 derstanding the words so, let us now see how they 
 will read in John 16 : 24. They are the words of 
 Christ, addressed to his disciples respecting the duty 
 of prayer, and are as follows — " Hitherto have you 
 asked nothing in my name." Now, if we will read 
 them according to Dr. P.'s interpretation, they will 
 read thus — " Hitherto have you asked nothing by my 
 authority — I authorize you to pray now ; ' ask and 
 you shall receive, that your joy may be full.' " We 
 deem it unnecessary to say a word on this point. 
 
 Dr. P.- also objects, or rather repeats for the third 
 time, that we have said, " that many of the songs in the 
 book of Psalms are typical, and cannot now be used 
 in the worship of God, and that the use of them tends 
 to introduce a Judaizing Christianity." * * * * 
 "And that we have said that they are the shadow of 
 good things to come." We have not said that the 
 book of Psalms should not be used in the praises of 
 God ; but we have said, that to sing the typical Psalms 
 " literally," or without affixing the spiritual meaning 
 to the typical word, is not only introducing " a Juda- 
 izing Christianity," but singing Judaism itself. * 
 
 *^ In the Stli number of the 2d volume of his "Preacher," Dr. P. 
 presents us with extracts from the commentaries of Henry, Gill and 
 Scott, in reg-ardto the excellency of the book of Psalms. We cordially 
 agree with those Commentators in respect to the general excellency of 
 those sacred songs, as a part of divine revelation, especially as it re- 
 spects devotion ; but we must be allowed to demur a little, when it is 
 said that they are " an abstract or summary of both testaments." We 
 have shewn in our " Inquiry" that some very important doctrines in 
 the Christian system are revealed but obscurely in the Psalms ; one 
 radical doctrine — the Trinity in Unity — is not mentioned at all, but 
 
164 PSALMODY. 
 
 And as for our saying that the typical portion of the 
 book of Psahiis, and indeed of the whole Jewish econ- 
 omy were the shadow of good things to come, we 
 have, the authority of the Apostle Paul for the asser- 
 tion in Col. 2: 16, 17, and Heb. 10: 1. In the first 
 of these passages the Apostle alluding to some of the 
 rites and ceremonies of the Jewish dispensation, says — 
 
 clearly revealed in the New Testament. They contain, however, all the 
 divine light that was necessary for that age of the church. 
 
 But as it is evident from references and quotation in this article, that 
 i^ was written against us, we demur altogether against " the conse- 
 quence " which he draws from the above recommendations. The con- 
 sequence is this — " that the principle which maintains that the use of 
 the scripture Psalms in the worship of God, tends to introduce a Juda- 
 izing Christianity, is emphatically New School Divinity." As it re- 
 spects ourself, we demur against this " consequence," for the following 
 reasons. 1. Our readers know, and Dr. P. should have known, that 
 in this discussion we have repeatedly said that the book of Psalms 
 ought to be used in the praises of God. 2. We have not said that the 
 use of the Psalms in the worship of God tends to introduce " a Juda- 
 izing chi'istianity," but that the abuse of them, or singing the typical 
 Psalms literally, has this tendency. 3. We have not known, nor heard 
 before this, that Psalmody was the cause of the late division in the 
 Presbyterian church, into what are called Old and New School men, 
 and that we are classed with the latter. Now he should have proved 
 all this, and disproved what we have said respecting '' a Judaizing 
 Christianity," before he drew his "consequence;" and until he does so, 
 his consequence falls to the ground, notwithstanding he has ordered the 
 words "New School Divinity," to be printed in capital' letters. 
 
 We will close this note by observing that this is nx)t the first time that 
 we have had reason to express our surpi'ise at Dr. P.'s dialectics, or 
 logical syllogisms. Objectionable, as we have shewn, many of his 
 " consequences" or conclusions are in this discussion, yet the one which 
 we have been examining is so palpably absurd, that we have been aston- 
 ished that any man of common sense would allow it to be seen by the 
 public eye. Nor can we account for it on any other principle than that 
 he expected to discredit our book by representing its author as having 
 embraced "the New School Divinity" — a word so indefinite in its 
 meaning as to include any kind of doctrine, good or bad, sound or un- 
 sound. This is no new thing in the controversy on Psalmady ; for as 
 remarked in the close of our " Inquiry," all the writers before us on the 
 same side of the question have been represented by their opponents as 
 " Semi-Infidels, or Semi-Socinians, or virulent enemies to the book of 
 Psalms," and therefore we did not expect to escape without some 
 charge .against us of unsoundness in the faith. But as these pitiful, 
 and worse than pitiful controversial tricks are now too old and stale to 
 do any harm, and will finally recoil on the heads of their authors, and ' 
 the cause which they support, we will dismiss the unpleasant subject 
 with something of a hope that they will not be repeated. 
 
DIFFEREXCE STATEl). 1(3-5 
 
 " Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body 
 is of Christ," or Christ is the substance of those shad- 
 ows. The reader will have seen that the difference 
 between Dr. P. and ourself in singing the typical Psalms 
 is this : he prefers singing them " literally," in a literal 
 translation, such as Rouse's ; while we prefer singing 
 them in what is called a free translation or version,- 
 and in New Testament language, like that of Dr. 
 Watts ; inasmuch as they contain blessings purchased 
 by the blood of Christ, the " body " of all the Jewish 
 types, or shadows. Or as it is expressed by John in 
 the first chapter of the Revelation; we prefer to 
 sing of him, and by his name " Jesus Christ, who hath 
 loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own 
 blood, to make us kings and priests unto God and his 
 father." The reader need not be told that this is a 
 New Testament song of praise to Christ as mediator 
 and redeemer, and of itself, should settle the point at 
 issue. 
 
 We have now replied to every thing that was deemed 
 material and relevant on the subject of Psalmody, as 
 advanced by Dr. Pressly. And in the close we would 
 say, that notwithstanding he assailed us when in a very 
 feeble state of health, and protracted the discussion be- 
 yond all reasonable bounds : and notwithstanding he 
 has endeavored in the discussion to fix upon us un- 
 soundness in the faith, without a shadow of proof, and 
 to exhibit us to the public eye, as destitude of moral 
 rectitude, we freely forgive him, and wish him well — we 
 wish him long life and good health, and " grace, mercy, 
 and peace, from God our Father, and Jesus Christ our 
 Lord." 
 
 THE EXD. 
 
,^ 
 
.^^ 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 ^^^^ 
 
 m^ 
 
 
 
 U^MMMi 
 
 wm-^-'-- 
 
 
 
 ^^^^m 
 
 0Mmm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 jti 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DEMCO 38-297 
 
^v •*•> 
 
 'p 
 
 
 / 
 
 • •!»