/ 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://archive.org/details/vindicatiOOanna 
 
A VINDICATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 "Letters o^ Psalmody," 
 
 FROM T n E 
 
 STRICTURES OF JOHN T. PRESSLY, D. D. 
 
 B v 
 
 WILLIAM* ANNAN. 
 
 PITTSBURGH: 
 
 ruiNTv b WOOD kl 
 
'r&lHCETOH \ 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 The reasons which have led to the publication of this 
 volume, may be briefly stated as follows: 
 
 1. Our brethren of the United Presbyterian body earnestly 
 invite discussion of their principles. Thus Dr. Pressly, in 
 speaking of the discordant sentiments held upon the topic 
 
 Imody, observes : " To endeavor, in the use of all pro- 
 per means, to remove this cause of division, is a solemn duty 
 incumbent on all the followers of Jesus." * * "There 
 is a fault somewhere, * * and every one should ascertain 
 whether his principles and practice on this subject are con- 
 formable to the word of God."* We have endeavored to do 
 our part o*' this labor in the "Letters on Psalmody" and in 
 this u Vindicat. 
 
 2. The writer is constrained to regard the so-called ;. 
 
 of the "Letters" not only as having left unnoticed the 
 r part of the argument, but as in a great measure a 
 series of evasions, as far as it does go, of the real qui 
 at issue, and as thus adapted (we are far from saving in- 
 tended) to divert the mind from the true points to be S< 
 This will be made to sppc proceed. 
 
 3. The numerous injurious reflections of a personal char- 
 acter, which the reviewer has scattered so bountifully 
 through hi- ■■■in to demand some explanation be- 
 
 I 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 fore the Christian public. "A good name is rather to be 
 chosen than riches." And as Dr. P's. offensive personalities 
 have evidently originated in entire mistake on his part, it 
 seemed to be proper to furnish the sources whence he and 
 others might correct any unfavorable impressions that may 
 be still resting upon their minds. All good men desire to 
 stand fair in the moral judgment of their fellows. 
 
 To show how readily Dr. P. and others are " to take up a 
 reproach against their neighbor," and that too from the 
 slightest pretext, they take advantage of an oversight in the 
 "Recommendations" of the "Letters;" and contrary to the 
 express title of the book itself, and in defiance of its distinctly 
 stated "plan," they represent the author as proposing to 
 discuss "the exclusive use of Rouse's version." But it is 
 difficult to conceive how, with the means of ascertaining the 
 truth before their eyes, in the very title and " proposed plan" 
 of the "Letters" themselves, they could have made such a 
 mistake. 
 
 As I should be sorry to misrepresent Dr. P., I copy his 
 own words. He says : " There is on the part of our brethren 
 a want of ingenuousness, whether intentional or otherwise it is 
 not our province to determine, in the manner in which they 
 persist in presenting to the Christian public the real question 
 at issue." He here certainly refers to Drs. Paxton and How- 
 ard, who had given recommendations of the "Letters on 
 Psalmody." But whether Dr. P. intends to include the au- 
 thor of the " Letters" -among his "brethren," may perhaps 
 admit of a doubt. If not, then the statement just made is 
 inaccurate, so far as regards ourself. In other words, Dr. P. 
 did not charge the author with proposing to discuss " the 
 exclusive use of Rouse's version." 
 
 The H Letters," I admit, discuss the merits of Rouse, but 
 with what view? with what object? To argue against its 
 "exclusive use?" By no means; but to demonstrate that 
 this versification by Rouse is not " an inspired Psalmody," 
 
PREFACE, v 
 
 the word of God' 1 In the tense in which "our prose 
 
 10;" not ''the songs composed in heaven;'' but 
 an explanatory u paraphrase w of those tongs t at LeflBt to a 
 
 .-. extent. 
 
 is the author believes to have been established 
 in the early part of the "Letters," and on these is founded 
 the inference that these brethren, by singing Rouse, sing 
 omposition," and practically com- 
 mit all and several of the sins which in that aspect ti 
 in the habit of vehemently charging upon JProsbytei 
 Thus, while constantly professing to adhere "to tli 
 matter provided by God," as their "True Psalm jdy" 
 they sing " a paraphrase," part human, part Divine! And 
 this patchwork of Divine and human composition is called 
 '• the songs of the Holy Spirit," kc. Thus, this favorite 
 '•version'' of the brethren is a constant, practical refutation 
 of their own theory of " an inspired Psalmody,-'' is a " mill- 
 stone about its neck," and, until they cast it away and get 
 a better one, ought to silence their ceaseless denunciations 
 of those whom they call '• the friends of human composure !" 
 9, heal yourselves !" 
 I hope these brethren will not deny that this is a le- 
 gitimate line of argumentation, a lawful use to make of their 
 favorite versification, especially since their leading authors 
 affirm Rouse to be "a literal and correct version,"' "a fair 
 and literal version." as literal as the laws of Vers;:'; 
 will allow," -God's Psalm book. 
 
 The foregoing is only one of the strange misconceptions of 
 
 : and others. Numerous similar mistakes will 
 
 be exhibited in the follow The author of the 
 
 .< under the cog- 
 • of an Omniscient l be has endeavored to 
 
 Lhren fairly. He scorns the un- 
 .on of being "governed only by {.. 
 
 1* 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 of party success." May God forgive the authors of such 
 injurious reflections as this and others of the same sort. 
 
 We Have only a single further remark in this connection. 
 If it should be thought that the efforts now in progress by 
 the United Presbyterian body to prepare a new version of the 
 Psalms, are designed to supersede Rouse, it is sufficient to 
 quote the action of their last Assembly to disprove such a 
 supposition. The Assembly resolve, "That any version finally 
 receiving the sanction of the Church shall be incorporated 
 and published .with the present authorized version." This 
 proves that the Assembly have no idea of laying aside Rouse, 
 even after they shall have succeeded in framing a new ver- 
 sification. 
 
A VINDICATION. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 IS BOUSE 'S VERSIFICATION AX 
 INSPIRED PSALMOD 1 ' t 
 
 THERE is a class of persons in the Church 
 who speak of the controversy on Psalmody 
 as trifling, and unworthy of grave consideration by 
 Christian men. But in this they do not appear 
 to act wisely. So long as it forms one of the two 
 principal grounds of division and separate organ- 
 ization among large bodies of the professed fol- 
 lowers of a common Lord — so long as in connec- 
 tion with the doctrine of close communion, it is 
 vehemently maintained as a binding Scriptural 
 ral considerable denominations 
 I t liberty to think, write and utter sentiments 
 the most d to the ministerial and Chris- 
 
 nding of other lav 
 
 ich grounds as 
 doof from them as in a certain - 
 "common and unclean" — bo Ion lt as this schism 
 
8 rouse's versification 
 
 is perpetuated, the seamless robe of the Divine 
 Saviour rent in pieces, the zeal and resources of 
 our common Christianity vainly squandered in 
 separate and often hostile labors to advance sec- 
 tional instead of true ecclesiastical prosperity ; so 
 long as these results are commonly witnessed, it 
 is vain and foolish, or worse, to shut our eyes and 
 refuse to see evils of such magnitude. The breth- 
 ren who with great industry urge these and similar 
 grounds of ecclesiastical separation, are men care- 
 fully trained in this controversy, and some of them 
 of unquestionable talents and considerable learning. 
 Christian courtesy, therefore, no less than a desire 
 to extend the truth,' forbids us to pronounce their 
 plea a pure figment, a silly prejudice, &c. It is 
 our duty to prove by sound argument, that their 
 cause is untenable, and their position as separate 
 sects a criminal waste of the resources of the 
 Church, in upholding and propagating a schism. 
 Influenced bj such considerations as these, as well 
 as by a desire to contribute his share to so needful 
 a work, the writer published the volume entitled, 
 " Letters on Psalmody, a Review of the lead- 
 ing arguments for the exclusive use of the Book 
 of Psalms." This work was reviewed by John 
 T. Pressly, D. D., in the "United Presbyterian 
 Quarterly." It is upon this review that we now 
 propose to offer some strictures in the way of reply. 
 
NOT AX JHBPIRRD PSALMODY. I 
 
 It may bo proper to premise that it is nut a 
 tble feature of Dr. Pressly's review, that 
 amistakable indications of undue excite- 
 ment Every man lias, of course, the abstract 
 
 right to adopt such a style of composition afl 
 corresponds with hifl own character — but as by 
 common consent, the work reviewed did not offend 
 ist Christian courtesy, I venture to suggest 
 that such phrases as "disingenuousness," "mis- 
 dentation," "cannot but know," &c, &c, 
 might have better been omitted. They convince 
 :. tie, but rather serve to injure even a good 
 cause. B they expose their author to a 
 
 severe retort, under certain circumstances. An 
 example in point BUggests itself. In speaking of 
 what is known as " Rouse's version," some one 
 had used tke phrase " Rouse's Psalms." This 
 ■ roused the displeasure of this re- 
 r in a high degree. Accordingly in "Pr< 
 on Psalmody/ 1 page ITS, we read as follows: 
 "To call the Divine songs in this version, ' Rouse s 
 . IB to evince gross ignorance, or something 
 ■ ' so, then " tfa 
 of the i\ Assembly of the Church of E 
 
 land*' must be " ignorant, or something 
 
 L648, tl i "the minis- 
 
 f Bdinburj . imine the 
 
 corrections of the brethren appointed to r 
 
10 rouse's versification 
 
 Rouse s Psalms, and to confer," &c. If the re- 
 viewer has not the original minute,- he can find 
 the extract in Dr. Cooper's Evangelical Repository, 
 March, 1852. Thus this sort of weapon has two 
 edges, and often cuts friends as well as foes, not 
 excepting the hand that holds it. We are sorry 
 to be compelled to add, that a large part of " the 
 review" breathes a spirit equally remote from 
 the calm confidence of one who feels that he has 
 a good cause, and is able to defend it. And when 
 in "Pressly on Psalmody," we are repeatedly re- 
 ferred to "the fearful death of the sons of Aaron," 
 " profane ministers of religion, on account of a 
 disregard of Divine appointment in the worship 
 of God," and to "the awful calamity which befell 
 them," — when thus the great body of the Protest- 
 ant Church of Christ throughout the world are 
 distinctly warned of the extreme hazard of ven- 
 turing to differ on this subject w r ith a small frag- 
 ment as represented by this reviewer — we are 
 irresistibly reminded of the case of the disciples 
 w T ho proposed to' " call down fire from heaven" 
 upon " certain who followed not with them;" and 
 the mild rebuke of the blesse^ Saviour — "Ye 
 know not what manner of spirit ye are of."* The 
 
 * Other evidences of undue excitement on the part of the 
 reviewer are such as these : u garbled extracts," " wily 
 tactician," "artful evasion," "discharged his gall," u senti- 
 ments so utterly inconsistent with due reverence for the 
 
AN [NSPIBZD PSALMODY. 11 
 
 mploys the r rarces of an advo- 
 
 cate who baa a weak cause and is embarrassed with 
 J difficulties from which he vainly Btrii I 
 
 extricate himself. 
 
 Id attempting to dispel the mists in which the 
 
 reviewer has enveloped the true questions at i 
 
 we are encouraged by the fact that he and his 
 
 brethren have sly advised and coin, 
 
 such a course on our part. Agreeably to their 
 
 deliberate counsel, their solemn exhortation in 
 
 their Testimony, we propose " seriously to consider 
 
 grounds of their controversy with us — to give 
 
 them our prayerful consideration."* Tliis whole- 
 
 they of course wish us to follow, 
 
 v not lead to the results which they 
 
 I prefer. 
 
 In undertaking a satisfactory examination of 
 
 Q8 and arguments employed in the u Let- 
 
 " it was the dictate of common 
 
 that the reviewer should state accurately 
 
 what those positions and arguments really are, 
 
 and as far as possible, in the precise language em- 
 
 1 by the work itself. On page iil of "the 
 
 re," we find the "plan proposed to bepur- 
 
 roed in the discussion," embracing chiefly three 
 
 distinct i They are as follows : 
 
 word of G« 
 
 the truth and justrr* .tr in- 
 
 jurious all 
 
12 rouse's versification 
 
 I. " To examine the question whether our 
 brethren employ in praise i the songs of inspira- 
 tion, an inspired Psalmody' — or rather, whether 
 their system of Psalmody be not to a great extent 
 an explanatory paraphrase." 
 
 II. "The question of a Divine warrant for the 
 exclusive use of the book of Psalms, as the only 
 and perpetual Psalmody of the Church, under both 
 the Jewish and Christian dispensations, and to the 
 end of time." 
 
 III. " The more excellent way. Statement and 
 defence of the principles and practice of the Pres- 
 byterian Church." 
 
 It is proposed to inquire, as briefly as possible, 
 how the reviewer disposes of the facts and argu- 
 ment adduced under these several heads. 
 
 The pertinency of the "question" embraced in 
 the first part of the "plan proposed" above, must 
 be obvious to every one, we should suppose. This 
 reviewer, be it remembered, in behalf of himself 
 and his brethren, professes to praise God in " an 
 inspired Psalmody," while our system of praise is 
 "an uninspired one." The reviewer sings exclu- 
 sively "the Lord's songs" — "God's Psalm book to 
 the exclusion of all others" — "the book of hymns 
 which God has provided" — "a literal, correct and 
 true version" — "a faithful translation of the 
 original text " — " like the prose translation of our 
 
\'iT AN INSPIRED PSALMODY. 13 
 
 Bible, it is to be regarded as the word of G 
 
 are specimens of the laudations they employ 
 when speaking of " Rouse's versification of the 
 Psalms." Some of these writers even go so far as 
 
 to eall their Psalmody " songs composed in heav- 
 en" — "the Holy Spirit's Psalms" — while they un- 
 sparingly ensure our system as a " human Psalm- 
 ody" — "human composition in preference to that 
 of the Holy Spirit," fcc, &c. Assuming all this 
 to be true, these brethren proceed to denounce us 
 as guilty of "an impious rejection of the Psalms 
 which God has given and the substitution of hymns 
 of human composure" — " preferring our own ef- 
 fusions to the heavenly hymn book," &c. &c. 
 
 Now it is the avowed object of more than forty 
 pages of the " Letters on Psalmody," to prove 
 these arrogant pretensions of the reviewer and 
 his brethren to be utterly without foundation, so 
 far as regards their system of Psalmody, and their 
 harsh and unbrotherly inferences in disparage- 
 ment of ours, to be largely applicable to tfu m- 
 To instance only in one feature of the 
 . this revievet admits "that by a nice 
 calculation the author (of the Letters) proves, to 
 his own apparent satisfaction at least, that our 
 (the r reion of the Psalms, instei 
 
 .:.d faithful translation, is made 
 
14 rouse's versification 
 
 up* of " interpolations," " human inventions,'' 
 and "patchwork explanations;" and these " im- 
 provements upon David" are not mere " different 
 words," "different language," from the original, 
 but different thoughts and sentiments. 
 
 Now if the reviewer had read with any care this 
 part of the " Letters," he would have seen that the 
 author proposed to prove, and that he has proved, 
 much more than he has here indicated, to his 
 United Presbyterian readers. After a laborious 
 and careful induction of particulars, examination 
 of his "inspired Psalmody" in Rouse, and a 
 minute inquiry into the principles and practice of 
 the Scottish Churches, the sum of the matters 
 proved is stated as follows, on pages 65 and 66 
 of the "Letters:" 
 
 1. " We have shown by undeniable facts, that 
 the reviewer and his brethren, by using Rouse's 
 paraphrase of the Psalms, have taken away from 
 4 the songs of inspiration,' in which they say 
 6 God teaches his Church how to praise,' an 
 amount of matter equal to forty-jive songs of the 
 size of Ps. 117 ; and that they have added ' hu- 
 man composition' to the same amount." 
 
 2. " We have proved that the earliest speci- 
 
 * The a Letters" do not say "made up"— but on Dr. P's. 
 theory, greatly corrupted, so as to be in very many parts no 
 version at all, but a patchwork paraphrase. 
 
NOT AX INSPIRED PSALMODY. 16 
 
 in metre, I by our :- 
 
 tisfa forefathers, sung by their martyrs at the 
 
 . and by their early re; were not 
 
 1 upon the reviewer's literal principle, but 
 much more closely resembled the style and manner 
 of the Presbyterian system, 'being largely para- 
 phrastic and with numerous gospel turns, & 
 
 3. " We have proved that from the period of 
 itablishment of the Reformation down to the 
 minster Assembly, the Church of Scotland 
 
 employed in pnblic and private worship, a versifica- 
 :1ms (Sternhold and Hopkins') which 
 utterly ooi and repudiates the principle 
 
 jated by the reviewer^ — viz., 'a literal and 
 faithful version of the whole book of Psalms' — 
 being in many particulars more like the Pr 
 terian Psalmody than 'a fair and literal version. '" 
 
 4. <; We have proved that ' Rouse's ver 
 is ' the word of God' in a sense similar to t ! 
 which a piece of cloth interwoven with more than 
 five hundred patches of cotton or tow, ' 
 
 silk fabric. 1 ' Yet the reviewer prof i sing 
 
 in-pi; In their u True Psalm 
 
 [here to the very n >vided 
 
 . that 
 
 of a trans- 
 
 I will 
 allow. in, k * We rej< ct a bo the 
 
16 rouse's versification 
 
 system of praise which God has given to his 
 Church. " 
 
 But if the four conclusions above copied from 
 the " Letters" be correct, the affirmations of the 
 reviewer and others are without any foundation. 
 
 Now what reply does the reviewer condescend 
 to make to these facts, which so thoroughly ex- 
 plode his professions of " an exclusively inspired 
 Psalmody;" which prove that he and his brethren 
 have exalted into a term of communion one of 
 their own inventions, which had no countenance 
 from the mother Church of Scotland ; and which 
 convict them of the very sins and " strange fire" 
 with w T hich they denounce other Churches? Here 
 is his answer : " You know that this has nothing 
 to do with the question!''' With various expres- 
 sions of contempt, he professes to see no force or 
 meaning in this sort of argument ! He ventures 
 to affirm that it only proves that Rouse's "version 
 is in some respects imperfect !" But how could 
 the reviewer make such a statement ? One chief 
 design, repeatedly avowed by the author in his 
 first five " Letters," was to show that Rouse is no 
 version at all, and therefore not an " inspired 
 Psalmody," but a "patchwork paraphrase;" and 
 that those who sing it, necessarily are guilty of 
 offering " the strange fire" of " human composi- 
 tion." Yet this reviewer can see no relevancy in 
 
NOT AX IKSPIRRB fSALMODT. 17 
 
 in all this • the exclusive 
 
 . or tli" of his " metri- 
 
 cal translation !" But is it not something to the 
 
 purpoe ve that he and his brethren have no 
 
 "metrical translation,' 5 hut only a i; paraph 
 
 or mixture of Divine and human composition ? 
 
 at the Bubject in another light. Bays the 
 
 irer, " If the Psalms are sung in the worship 
 
 of God at all, of course some version must be 
 
 But if this be a correct statement, then 
 
 he and his brethren " ring the 1 
 
 all: M for it is proved in the "Letters" that they 
 
 ly "Rouse's Paraphrase of the 
 
 ssembly call it. 
 
 will not pretend that " the Psalms." and an 
 
 "explication" of the Psalms, are the same thing; 
 
 tat the General A- <f the Church 
 
 •tland v. ;nt as not to be able to 
 
 call things by their right nam ^. 
 
 in : the reviewer an I . •• We 
 
 I to the inspired, 
 
 pro\ ided by God." In- 
 
 ! k * Rouse's paraphrase" conl 
 to the inspii 3 I With somethi 
 
 ight talk of a con. 
 tary with v nii- 
 
 Letters 
 <>n Pftalmj 1 he will 
 
 2* 
 
18 rouse's versification 
 
 tish General Assembly spoke the truth when, in 
 sanctioning Rouse, they call it " a paraphrase ," 
 not less than twenty times, but never a version. 
 And these " additions" in Rouse are not merely 
 " different language from the prose" of our Bibles, 
 as the reviewer would have us believe (p. 26), but 
 the thoughts, sentiments, explanations, of Rouse 
 and his improvers — in other words, the " human 
 composition" of the poet, mixed largely with 
 " the inspired song!" Still the reviewer insists 
 that " Rouse's Psalms" is "the Word of God," 
 equally with the prose version of our Bibles. But 
 did the General Assembly of the Church of Scot- 
 land — did any man of common sense, ever call 
 our " prose translation of the Bible," a para- 
 phrase ? 
 
 The reviewer inquires with great apparent confi- 
 dence, u Does not Mr. Annan know that a transla- 
 tion might be given in many instances in different 
 words (from the prose version) and yet be equally 
 faithful ?" And he goes on to represent our objec- 
 tions as founded in the fact that Rouse " employs 
 different language from the prose translation" — 
 " words and phrases not in the prose." 
 
 We will reply to these strange misstatements, 
 simply by a brief exhibit of the points established 
 in the "Letters," omitting, for want of room, 
 most of the examples there cited under each head. 
 
HOT AN [NSPIRBD PSALMODY. 19 
 
 1. Vain repetition : 
 
 ■ their habitat! us. all round ibo tithe 
 
 And tints when they did 
 
 '2. Additions to the sense: 
 
 J del I did qoI Btar, n 
 
 A - 
 in To Him that Egypt ma 
 their Who did A in, 
 
 Lid kill all their tirstborn. 
 
 3. Rouse's improvements on David : 
 
 I am like a pelican in the wilder- Like pelican in wilderness, 
 
 Forsaken I hav> 
 I am like an owl of the desert. 1 like an owl in deteii am. 
 
 That nightly there doth moan. 
 -■ ntaman before them. 1 man hefore 
 
 By whom they should ; 
 Unto their teeth. Cut" their teeth, 
 
 I bloody cruelty. 
 
 There are more than one hundred and seventy 
 examples of these " improvements" in Rouse: 
 and any person of ordinary intelligence can per- 
 ceive that they do not consist in mere u different 
 words and phrases," as Dr. P. intimates. A full half 
 has been added in the paraphrase, in all except 
 the first example — added to the idea as given by 
 inspiration, not mere "words and phrac 
 
 4. Improvements in the sense to make metre : 
 
 Beboke the com] dtitude 
 
 Of bulls - 
 with the calTOfl of th< 
 
 till • 
 
 with | take. 
 
 Til. 
 
20 rouse's versification 
 
 There are more than three hundred and thirty 
 examples of this sort, and the objection to this 
 way of " writing better than David" lies especially 
 against such a use of the Divine NAMES as we 
 here find, where they are thrown in to lengthen a 
 line and make metre. Can this be a sacred use of 
 these awful titles of the Sovereign of all 
 worlds ? Yet this use of the peculiar names of 
 the glorious object of all religious homage, is 
 very frequent in Rouse, not less than eighteen 
 or tiventy examples occurring in the 119th Psalm, 
 as versified by Rouse ; for instance : 
 
 Prose Version. Rouse. 
 
 I have seen an end of all per- An end of all perfection : 
 
 fection. But thy commandment Here have I seen, O God; 
 
 is exceeding broad. Bat as for thy commandment 
 
 It is exceeding broad. 
 
 And on the principles of Dr. P,, an equally 
 unwarranted, if not profane liberty, is taken with 
 the Divine attributes, such as, " almighty," " eter- 
 nal," " most high," iC most gracious," &c. 
 
 5. Rouse attempts to " write better than 
 David," by transposing in more than forty in- 
 stances the inspired order of thought. As for ex- 
 ample : " Hide thy face from my sins and blot 
 out all my transgressions." Rouse has it : 
 
 " All mine iniquities blot out, 
 Thy face hide from my sins." 
 
 When this reviewer detects Dr. Watts in trans- 
 posing some of the verses of Ps. 119, he indig- 
 
NOT AH INSPIRES PSALMODY. 21 
 
 nantly inquires, " N the mind of the Spirit ex- 
 hibit* I ader it necessary 
 
 that the v " mnch tr; ."' ke. 
 
 ••It would be," he adds, M an indignity to any 
 
 stable man to treat his writings in this way, 91 
 
 I . 1! & ems never to have suspected that he 
 himself was guilty, in substance at least, of offer- 
 u indignity" to the Holy Spirit, in 
 not less than forty instances perpetrated by B 
 
 and himself. And it is of this u logical connection 
 of clauses or sentences" that a writer in the United 
 ian of April 4. says, %> Even the words 
 of Scripture without the Divine order or arrange- 
 ment, is not Scripture" It follows therefore, that 
 in more than forty examples of this sort, the re- 
 viewer has all his life been singing, not WW] 
 but "human composition.'' 
 
 6. Another large department of I "im- 
 
 provements upon David" consists of single epithets 
 or qualifying adjectives, thrown in apparently to 
 save the credit of the verse ; such as. bashful, nia- 
 et, fierce, Bpitefully, fcc. The 
 4 * Letters" give near fifty examples of this 
 which have nothing in the prose version nor in 
 
 ►nd with them. And 
 qualifying epithets, be it ob 
 
 words and phi 'ions, 
 
 * Pressly oa Paalmody, p. 1 14. 
 
22 rouse's versification 
 
 ideas, which the author of the inspired text did 
 not see proper to express. Of course they are 
 mere " human inventions." 
 
 We must stop here. Many other specimens of 
 what is said to be " a true and literal version," 
 "a full and faithful version" — " like the prose 
 translation of the whole Bible" — " adopted by 
 those (the Church of Scotland) who regarded it 
 as a literal and correct translation of the original" 
 and " to be equally regarded as the Word of 
 God" — are adduced in the " Letters." Other 
 stronger illustrations of the paraphrastic nature 
 of Rouse will come before us as we proceed — but 
 surely the examples now adduced cannot be ex- 
 plained away as " different language," mere "sup- 
 plementary words and phrases! " If Dr. Pressly 
 had read the "Letters on Psalmody" with any 
 care, he would have discovered that the author 
 founds his objections to this feature of Rouse on 
 something more solid than "words and phrases," 
 viz., upon the thoughts and sentiments thrown in 
 by House in the structure of his paraphrase, by 
 which he has attempted " to write better than 
 David." Of course Dr. P. iustifies Rouse so long 
 as he sings his versification. 
 
 While speaking of "Rouse's versification" the 
 reviewer makes the following statement : " Sup- 
 pose that Mr. Annan has (had) accomplished all 
 
NOT AX [NSPIRED PS ZO 
 
 that he 1 , it would amount 
 
 only to this, that viewed in the light of ( ac 
 and faithful version,' our metrical version 
 some i imperfect." Ami that is all, ac- 
 
 cording to Dr. Pressly, which Mr. A. 
 
 7 to prove." Let us see what Mr. A. 
 has attempted to prove : 
 
 (1.) That neither Rouse, nor the previous \ 
 
 ion of Bternhold and Hopkins, (adopted by 
 the Church of Scotland,) nor the earliest Psalmo- 
 dy of the Scottish martyrs, Wishart and oth< rs, 
 (in the times of John Knox) — none of these were 
 formed on the principle of the reviewer and his 
 brethren, viz., "an exclusive inspired Psalmody;" 
 hut were all, without exception, viewed and adop- 
 ted as "paraphrases." Now, if Mr. A. "has 
 proved" this, (and we believe he has fully proved 
 nothing to do with the merits of the 
 
 bion?" Does he not thus prove what they 
 call their principle of "an inspired Psalm 
 to be mere ?//< >n of their own, v 
 
 their a set up, without authority or pre- 
 
 or common forefathers? Who, then, 
 are tl 
 
 Mr. A. has "attempted to that 
 
 while ■ and his brethren den( 
 
 tion," they are habitually doing thing. 
 
24 rouse's versification 
 
 And has this nothing to do with the subject? 
 What is their profession of a " correct and faith- 
 ful version " worth, if they habitually trample it 
 under foot ? 
 
 (3.) Mr. A. has attempted to prove that whilst 
 the reviewer claims that he and his brethren sing 
 "the word of God," " a correct and faithful trans- 
 lation" "sacred songs, of which God is the 
 author," "songs composed in heaven" — while the 
 reviewer and his brethren boldlv assert all this, it 
 is proved by the best authority, even that of the 
 Scottish General Assembly, and by careful exami- 
 nation of Rouse, that these brethren do not sing 
 the "sacred songs of the Bible," but only a 
 "paraphrase" of many of those songs! It is 
 further proved by Mr. A. that they " lay aside ^ 
 useless" the 20th verse of Ps. 72, and parts of 
 other songs sufficient to form fifteen whole Psalms 
 as large as Ps. 1. This, Mr. A. has certainly 
 "attempted to prove." And will the reviewer 
 still affirm that all this "has nothing to do with 
 the question at issue !" He and his brethren de- 
 nounce the Presbyterian and other Churches for 
 not singing "the songs which God has given," 
 for "an impious rejection of those songs," &c, 
 &c. But here it is proved that they themselves 
 do not sing those sacred songs, but a patchwork 
 paraphrase of many of them! And in addition 
 
NOT AN INSPIRED PSALMODY. 2$ 
 
 [e as useless" many parts of others ! 
 may talk as they piease about the sound- 
 >f their principle of "a correct and faithful 
 version," "the word of God," &c. Men of dis- 
 cernment will try them by their established prac- 
 n< I jud£e the value of their principle by u its 
 fruits." If, from Sabbath to Sabbath they utter 
 in praise, and thus sanction a mixture of "human 
 composition " with the Divine — human thought, 
 sentiment, "explication" by Rouse and others — 
 it is futile to claim to sing u inspired songs," "the 
 - composed in heaven," iV_c. By the use of 
 a paraphrase they violate their own principle and 
 pronounce it worthless. 
 
 Such is an imperfect summary of the points 
 clearly established, in the first five of the u Let- 
 >n Psalmody." Yet this n viewer s;iy> — "It 
 :its only to this, that our metrical version is in 
 some respects imperfect '" What strange blind- 
 Another curious illustration of the obli- 
 quity of the reviewer's mental vision occurs here. 
 When commencing the discussion of the points 
 which relate to k% Rous< A torsion," &c, as staled 
 
 above, the author of the "Letters" referred to "the 
 main proposition" of a leading writer, as follow^ : 
 ••.l it <m<1 faithful version of the whole book 
 
 of Pa in the lV.i 
 
 ot tne Oiiureh. Ut thifi "proposition " the re- 
 
26 rouse's versification 
 
 viewer says, "Mr. Annan turns his back upon 
 it" — "he is too wily a tactician to risk an attack 
 upon an impregnable fortress" — "he declines 
 an attack upon the main proposition," &c. But 
 how could the reviewer make such statements ! 
 Why more than forty of the succeeding pages of 
 the "Letters" are chiefly employed in attacking 
 this "main proposition," in proving that he and 
 his brethren sing no such "correct and faithful 
 version of the whole book of Psalms " — nor indeed 
 any version at all. The reviewer, as is abundant- 
 ly proved, instead of singing " a version or trans- 
 lation," uses " a paraphrase," Or " explication" of 
 many of the Psalms, in which are found some jive 
 hundred scraps of "human composition," varying 
 in size from two and a half lines dow T n to a single 
 word or phrase. Ail these, with very few excep- 
 tions, are not mere "words and phrases" but 
 man's improvements on the Divine thought — human 
 "additions to the very matter provided by God," 
 in the original Hebrew. The plain Christian can 
 see the proof of these statements by comparing 
 Rouse with the prose translation of our Bibles, 
 which even the reviewer admits to be "most ex- 
 cellent and faithful" and much greater men pro- 
 nounce to be "the best translation in the world," 
 and "as literal as can be, to avoid obscurity." 
 So far from " turning his back upon the main pro- 
 
NOT AN INSPIRED PSALMODY. 27 
 
 position," he has made this "impregnable for* 
 
 tress " to appear a very insecure refuge for hardly 
 pressed and bewildered polemics ! This notion of 
 k% a correct and faithful version of the whole bcok " 
 is found to be a myth, a shadow without the sub- 
 stance. This is abundantly established in the 
 kt Letters." Why does Dr. P. wish us u to make 
 a direct attack M upon a logical nonentity — ex- 
 cept so far as to prove that such is its character ; 
 and to show that this " main proposition," as held 
 by those who, like the reviewer, habitually in prac- 
 tice trample it under foot, is mere sound without 
 sense. When Dr. P. begins to use "a correct 
 version of the whole book " we will examine it. 
 From what has baen said, it is truly astonishing 
 to hear the reviewer seriously assert, " The sub- 
 ject of versions has nothing to do with the merits 
 of the controversy." But when he wishes to ex- 
 cite prejudice against Dr. Watts and the Presby- 
 terian theory of Psalmody, he ifl very profuse in 
 showing that we use no version at all, but only an 
 imitation of the Psalms. Many pages of his book 
 and of the review is consumed in the discussion of 
 this topic ; and most fearful epithets are hurled at 
 our head for " practically declaring that the ivork 
 of God needs to be mended.'' While he is harp- 
 ing on this favorite string, the great qu« 
 
 - to be u ver$ion or no ver9wn .'" Accordingly 
 
28 rouse's versification 
 
 he tells us — "The question is simply this — 
 shall we use God's Psalm book, or -ball we use 
 one prepared by uninspired men. ''•* r l hat is pre- 
 cisely "the question" discussed in the first five 
 "Letters on Psalmody." It is demonstrated that 
 the reviewer uses no version (or translation) of 
 God's Psalm book at all, but really a patchwork 
 paraphrase of that " book !" — a Psalmody in large 
 measure "prepared by uninspired men," viz., chief- 
 ly by Rouse ! We prove by the most undeniable 
 facts, that whilst professing to be very zealous 
 for "a true and literal version as of Divine ap- 
 pointment" — he habitually adulterates and cor- 
 rupts the pure stream of ir; spired song, with some 
 five hundred filthy rills of " human composition." 
 He is very wise in endeavoring to keep this ques- 
 tion entirely out of view. 
 
 The kt Letters on Psalmody" thus settle most con- 
 clusively, as we humbly conceive, the first "ques- 
 tion" in the "proposed plan," as stated by the au- 
 thor (p. 21). They prove to the satisfaction, as 
 we believe, of every fair and unprejudiced mind, 
 that the reviewer does not sing " the songs of inspi- 
 ration, an inspired Psalmody," but a "patchwork 
 paraphrase" of many of these songs. We might 
 next properly proceed to examine Dr. Pressly's re- 
 
 * Preacher, Feb 23, 1844. See also, Pressly on Psalmody, 
 pp 12, 108, 118, &c, where he denounces the Presbyterian 
 Psalmody, because it is no version at all. 
 
NuT AX ENBPIBBD PSALMODY. 26 
 
 view of the Becofid proposition of the "plan," viz., 
 u The question of a Diyixi: warkaxt for the ex- 
 clusive use of the book of Psalms as the only and 
 perpetual Psalmody of the Church." There are 
 still, however, a few things introduced in this part 
 of Dr. P's. review, apparently to excite odium and 
 urease prejudice, and which seem to call for some 
 slight notice. 
 
 It has always been a familiar piece of logical 
 strategy with the reviewer and others, to represent 
 Presbyterians as " impiously rejecting" the book 
 of Psalms from the praises of God. Accordingly 
 in this review we have the old song over again. 
 "If you deny," he says, "that we have Divine 
 appointment for the use of the book of Psalms, 
 why do you not say so?" "Deny Divine appoint- 
 ment for the use of the book of Psalms!" We 
 can hardly believe that any Presbyterian was 
 ever guilty of so silly and wicked a thing. If the 
 reviewer had read with care the book he professes 
 to review, he would have found our principle stated 
 more than once, as follows : u The whole Word of 
 God" (of course including "the book of Psalms,") 
 u t« oj direct os" in praisi (as well as in 
 
 prayer). This would have answered his question, 
 and Bayed his ink and paper. We most strenuous- 
 ly advocate 4 * the book of Psalms," and thai, too, 
 as of li Divine appointment." The real points of 
 
30 rouse's versification 
 
 difference are these : The reviewer professes to 
 sing "a true and literal version or translation;'' 
 but all the time he sings only an explanatory 
 " paraphrase," corrupted with hundreds of patches 
 of " human composition." We Presbyterians, on 
 the contrary, sing just what we profess, viz., a 
 paraphrase of the book of Psalms. Again, the re- 
 viewer "lays aside as useless" large parts of the 
 Psalms, thus improving upon " the very matter" 
 of " God's Psalm book." We omit certain parts, 
 also, as less suitable for praise than other portions 
 of the Scriptures. The reviewer and his brethren 
 call their "paraphrase," u the songs which God 
 has given," " an inspired Psalmody, literally and 
 truly," and excommunicate their elders and mem- 
 bers for singing anything else, even in family wor- 
 ship. Our Church, on the contrary, authorizes 
 their "paraphrase" (Rouse) to as many of our 
 congregations as choose to use it; but approves, 
 also, another paraphrase, including, in many of 
 the Psalms, New Testament explanations. For all 
 that we do in this affair, we claim "to have Divine 
 appointment" And yet Dr. P. seems to be aston- 
 ished \ because we do not deny " Divine appoint- 
 ment for the use of the book of Psalms ! ! " We 
 would just as soon think of denying the Divine 
 appointment for the use of all the rest of the Bible ! 
 We have thus stated the plain, unvarnished fads 
 
NOT AX LXSI'IRKD PSALMODY. 81 
 
 of the ease. The reviewer will probably retort, 
 u wily tactician/ 5 "artful," ''disingenuous?" but 
 
 that proves nothing to his purpose. The "Let- 
 n Psalmody" furnish abundant evidence of 
 all these statements, and Dr. P. will not find it 
 easy to refute even a small part of that evidence. 
 Again, says Dr. P., M If these Psalms are to be used 
 at all, surely it is proper to use them as translated 
 in w a correct and faithful version ;'" and he asks, 
 in great apparent bewilderment, "Is it to 'a cor- 
 rect and faithful version' that you (the author of 
 the * Letters') object." But this is mere trifling. 
 Prove, forsooth, that you have any version in 
 metre, and your question will be pertinent. As 
 matters now stand, the true question is this, " Is 
 your 'paraphrase' more agreeable to the Scrip- 
 tural rule on the subject than ours?" Is the use 
 you make of the book of Psalms the only right 
 >r is tmr use of the Psalms equally right and 
 scriptural — yea, much more so. 
 
 The reviewer repeats his former desperate effort 
 to .-h<»w that "Rouse's verification" of the Psalms 
 is an inspired Psalmody: " Like the prose trans- 
 lation "ft lie whole Bible" — "substantially correct 
 and faithful" — " to be regarded as the Word of 
 rrect and faithful translation," &c. 
 And he then i to misstate and oaricatore 
 
 the authur of the "Letters" in the manner before 
 
32 rouse's versification 
 
 intimated, viz., as having " made the important 
 discovery" that .Rouse " employs different language 
 from the prose translation,' ' — "has not in every 
 instance adopted the same precise language" — 
 "has an amount of supplementary words and 
 phrases" &c, &c. But this, we must be permitted 
 to say, is the merest trifling with the subject. If 
 the reviewer really thinks these statements credit- 
 able to his candor and intelligence, we have two 
 very plain and easy answers. 
 
 1. We consent to regard "Rouse's paraphrase" 
 as really and truly inspired equally with our Eng- 
 lish Bible, on the following condition, viz., so soon 
 as the reviewer will adduce any intelligent, well 
 informed man, or set of men, Jew or Gentile, in- 
 spired or uninspired, Papist or Protestant, ancient 
 or modern — elder, priest or bishop — session, synod 
 or general assembly, who have ever thought or 
 spoken of our common translation of the Bible as a 
 "paraphrase." Let such a person or persons be 
 produced, and we will fulfil our part of the agree- 
 ment. 
 
 2. We respectfully suggest, that the General As- 
 sembly of the Church of Scotland (1644 to 1650), 
 when giving their official sanction to "Rouse's 
 Psalms," never once speak of them as a "literal 
 version or translation." On the contrary, the offi- 
 cial title which they use not less than twenty times. 
 
NOT AN INSPIRKD PSALMODY. 33 
 
 : " now paraphrase" — w, our own 
 
 paraphrase," "the English paraphrase, ".&c, &c. 
 Yet this reviewer calls it "a true and literal trans- 
 lation, superior to anj/ other in the English lan- 
 guage," "framed on the principle of a translation 
 as literal as the laws of versification will allow," 
 <tc. Ralph Erskine shows what was the meaning 
 of the word, when he entitles his "Exposition of 
 the Song of Solomon" "a paraphrase, or large 
 explicatory poem." \Ye may safely assume that 
 Ralph Erskine and the General Assembly of the 
 Church of Scotland were not ignorant of the mean- 
 ing of the terms they employed. For abundant 
 illustrations of these points, we of necessity can 
 only refer to the first five of the " Letters on 
 Psalmody." We have space for only a single ex- 
 ample. 
 
 Prose Y>:< - Rouse. 
 
 Id To him that Egypt spa 
 
 their firstborn. Who rfi 
 
 Arul in hit 
 
 Dui kill ail their jirstborn. 
 
 Is that what the Church of Scotland meant by 
 "a true and literal translation?" 
 
 The reviewer, however, professes to have lighted 
 upon a chapter in the English Bible, in which, he 
 say.-, " the supplementary matter" employed "to 
 and faithful translation" is e<[iial to 
 nine lines of U<>u>e. J>ut why does he so care- 
 fully avoid any reference to the ] We 
 
34 rouse's versification • 
 
 should like to see that remarkable chapter ! But 
 suppose • that such a chapter exist, we are not 
 charging Rouse with adding " supplementary 
 matter, for the purpose of giving a correct and 
 faithful translation.' 1 Our charge is, that Rouse 
 is proved to be •* a paraphrase," in the sense that 
 Ralph Erskine understood the term, and that the 
 Psalms in his versification are to a large extent 
 " explicatory poems." This we presume no one in 
 his senses has ever said of any part of the English 
 translation of our Bible — which the reviewer ad- 
 mits to be "the best translation in the world," 
 " in general the most excellent" — " as literal as 
 possible to avoid obscurity." 
 
 No one questions that in our admirable prose 
 version " there are words and phrases, for which 
 there are no corresponding terms in the Hebrew 
 text." Thus, "The fool hath said in his heart, 
 There is no God;" "Thou hast enlarged me when 
 I was in distress." The italics show how much the 
 English supplies to the Hebrew in these and similar 
 extracts. This .is the sort of "supplementary 
 matter" employed in our Bibles. But now* look 
 at a few specimens of Rouse's " supplementary 
 matter," and which Dr. Pressly seems to wish us 
 believe " an absolute necessity for the purpose of 
 unfolding the meaning of the language trans- 
 lated." 
 
NoT AN UTBPIRBS psalmody. 35 
 
 Prosk Vek Dr. P's. Literal Version. 
 
 I delayed not. I did not wi long, 
 
 Ai IhOi that slothful ar> . 
 
 I thought on my ways. i thought upon my foitmm ways, 
 
 I try. 
 up again.-: ap in urath 
 
 To make of its their pmj. 
 The moon to nile by night. ,•• moOD 10 char. 
 
 Which shineth ui our sight. 
 Unto thee. To tlu-e mij kelp 
 
 nd8 
 
 All my complaint and moan. 
 
 Does the reviewer really think these specimens 
 and hundred* of others, u a literal translation?'* 
 Can he persuade himself that "like the prose ver- 
 sion," Rouse was "adopted by those (the Scottish 
 Churches) who regarded it as a literal or correct 
 translation?" Does he seriously think these and 
 similar examples are "as literal as the laws of 
 versification will allow?" Is it not plain that in 
 using and defending Rouse with all these patches 
 of ^ human composition," he virtually decides that 
 he has "improved upon David" — " can write 
 better than David?" And in view of such noto- 
 rious facts, what right has Dr. P. to harp perpet- 
 ually upon M the sin of singing human compo- 
 sure," whilst he habitually does the same thing ! 
 What low views of the nature of inspiration must 
 that man entertain, who can seriously and per- 
 sistently claim that " like the prose translation" 
 Rouse is M an inspired system, the veritable word 
 of God."* To add to the unaccountable mystery 
 
 * The only passage in our English Bibles, so far ns we re- 
 member, which even *^/n* to countenance the human addi- 
 
36 house's versification 
 
 of the subject, the United Presbyterian Quarterly , 
 when this reviewer was one of its editors, gravely 
 informs us, " We reject all additions to the system 
 of praise which God has given to the Church ;" 
 and the "True Psalmody" adds — "We adhere 
 to the very matter provided by God ! ! " Oh preju- 
 dice, how blind art thou ! These are certainly cu- 
 rious illustrations of the reviewer's theory, which, 
 he says, consists in " employing God's Psalm 
 book to the exclusion of others which have been 
 composed by uninspired men !" Rouse's poetry 
 an inspired Psalmody ! " Equally with the vulgar 
 translation in our Bibles !" 
 
 We trust enough has now been said to prove, 
 even to the dullest intellect, what it is we object 
 to in the proposition that a " correct and faithful 
 version of the whole book of Psalms should be 
 employed in the Psalmody of the Church, as by 
 Divine appointment." How simple, in this con- 
 nection, are the reviewer's questions, "With what 
 does Mr. A. find fault in' this connection ? Is it a 
 correct and faithful version?" Would he prefer 
 one which is incorrect and unfaithful ?" "To these 
 
 tions, improvements, &c., of Rouse and the reviewer, is 1 John 
 2 : 23, where the following is printed in italics, as not con- 
 tained in the original Greek, viz. H But he that acknowledged 
 the Son, hath the Father also." But Home says, a this 
 clause is established on unquestionable authorities, and 
 ought not to be printed in italics as an addition." Dr. 
 Doddridge takes the same view. Thus this passage fails the 
 reviewer as an authority. 
 
NOT a INSPIRED PSALMODY. 37 
 
 questions," he adds, u we detire to see an answer!*' 
 " We search for light, 91 he farther adds, u upon the 
 
 question, * Is a fair and full version of the Psalms 
 
 of Divine appointment.' " We fondly hope we 
 have now given him the "light" he seeks — for 
 we have proved that on his literal version theory, 
 it follows that lie has no Psalmody of " Divine 
 appointment," simply because he has no " fair 
 and full version" of the Psalms in metre, but only 
 a .patchwork paraphrase of many of them. So 
 obvious is it, that by his own admission, his Psalm- 
 ody lacks u Divine appointment!" Thus much 
 for the additions and improvements upon David. 
 We now turn to the omissions — the parts of the 
 inspired text which are excluded from Rouse. 
 
 This reviewer is very severe upon those who, 
 as he interprets them, u lay aside as useless " some 
 parts of God's Psalm book. " Do you think," he 
 says, M that the word of God has been given in 
 such a defective form that some parts of it may 
 be laid aside as useless, while portions may be 
 •ed,"-&c, kc. But the whole force of this 
 objection, so far as it regards the Presbyterian 
 principle, lies in a logical blunder, a begging of 
 the question. He assumes, without the shadow 
 of proof, that "the whole book of Psalms' 1 was 
 given to be lit* rally employed in matter and form . 
 K the exclusive and all-Stlffioient Psalmody of the 
 4 
 
38 rouse's versification 
 
 Cliristian dispensation, as well as the Jewish ; and 
 that to the end of time. This we of course deny, 
 and Dr. P. must prove it, not take it for granted. 
 Besides, even if it were true that Rouse has not 
 "laid aside as useless" any part of the one hun- 
 dred and fifty Psalms, has he not largely "added 
 to" the very matter and thought of the inspired 
 record ? Will the reviewer, on his principles, in- 
 form us which is the greater sin, to "take away 
 or add to the word of God/' In fact, Dr. .P. 
 consents to both these «, as can easily be shown. 
 The easiest method of testing the reviewer's prin- 
 ciples is to try him by his practice. Take these 
 examples : 
 
 Prose Version in our Bibles. Reviewer's Literal Version. 
 
 And God, even our own God, Our God shall blessings send ; 
 
 shall bless us. " even our own God," excluded. 
 
 A testimony in Jacob. His testimony; "in Jacob" is 
 
 "laid aside as useless." 
 Israel had walked in my ways. Israel my ways had chose ; 
 
 "walked " omitted and chose sub- 
 stituted. 
 And it shall be well with thee. (Laid aside as useless by Rouse 
 
 Ps. 128: 2. and the reviewer.) 
 
 Which by night stand in the You that praise him nightly 
 
 house of Che Lord. there; the word " stand" is left 
 
 out, and " praise him " put in its 
 place. 
 And all judges of the earth. ("Laid aside as useless" in 
 
 Ps. 148: 11. second version. Rouse improves 
 
 upon David.) 
 The prayers of David the son (" Laid aside as useless") 
 
 of Jesse are ended. Ps. 72 : 20. 
 In the red sea. Ps. 136 : 15. (" Laid aside as useless.") 
 
 Some of these specimens of " writing better than 
 David " were cited in the " Letters" — but the re- 
 
NOT AN INSPIRED TSALMODY. 39 
 
 viewei tends to take do notice of them. He 
 
 strongly insinuates, however, thai Presbyterians 
 are constantly guilty of "offering strange fire be- 
 fore the Lord ;" and in stilted style he makes the 
 announcement, "From the throne of the Eternal, 
 the declaration comes forth, 'Whatsoever I com- 
 mand you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add 
 thereto nordiminisli from it /' "* Thus he pronoun- 
 ces his own doom. But the serious charge that we 
 Presbyterians "impiously reject the Psalms which 
 God has given to be sung M — u lay aside as useless 
 parts of the word of God," &c, recoils upon the 
 reviewer in another aspect. It is well known that 
 the titles prefixed to most of the Psalms are for 
 the most part admitted by all eminent Oriental 
 scholars to be parts of the inspired text as really 
 as the fir- of Isaiah and Paul's epistles, 
 
 and other books of the Scriptures. But they are 
 nearly all excluded from Rouse. Of course this 
 M "the impious rejection" of large parts of the 
 book which Dr. P. says is of Divine appoint- 
 ment to be tang \ 
 
 In proof of these positions Dr. A. Alexander 
 
 re 'found (most of them) in 
 
 the Hebrew, an 1 are integral parts of the com- 
 
 * Dr. tfl to inform his U. P. readers that this text 
 
 is in i :>art of the Levitical law : and 
 
 _.itory u the 
 which stoned a man for gathering sticks on the 
 ftc. 
 
40 rouse's versification 
 
 position " — " parts of the text and inseparable 
 from it." Home says, " We have no reason to sup- 
 pose that very many of them are not canonical 
 parts of the Psalms," though he admits that others 
 " are of very questionable authority, as not being 
 extant in the Hebrew manuscripts." "To omit the 
 titles," adds Dr. Alexander, "is to mutilate the 
 sacred text." Tholuck and Hengstenberg take 
 the same ground. Kitto receives all of them as 
 canonical, " except where there is strong internal 
 evidence against them." And e^en the United 
 Presbyterian paper, the Christian Instructor, edit- 
 ed by Dr. Dales, says, " the titles of the Psalms 
 * * * were written by the sacred poets 
 themselves." "The same thing occurs in the 
 prophets ; e. a. the prediction of Baalam, the Psalm 
 of Habakkuk, and the song of Hezekiah. That 
 David followed this custom, at least occasionally, 
 is evident from 2 Sam. 22, and Ps. 18. We 
 may also, with great confidence, ascribe to David 
 the titles of Ps. 22 and 56, which (titles) are 
 poetical in form."* But Rouse and. the review- 
 er "lay aside as useless" nearly all these inspired 
 titles, equal in the aggregate to fifteen sacred 
 songs of the size of the first Psalm. What 
 now becomes of the reviewer's "great principle," 
 which he says, " we hold," viz., that "a correct 
 * See Christian Instructor, March, 1855. 
 
NOT AN INSPIRED P6ALM0DY. 41 
 
 and faithful version of the whole book of Psalms 
 should be employed in the Psalmody of the Church 
 as of Divine appointment." What has become of 
 
 the ?' impregnable fortress/' since it is proved that 
 he lias abandoned it to the owls and the bats? He 
 professes to sing " the whole hook of Psalms/' and 
 yet he excludes inspired matter to the amount of 
 forty-five songs of the size of Ps. 117 !! A dis- 
 play of temper is a poor answer to these unques- 
 tionable facts. 
 
 But what explanation docs the reviewer devise 
 for this "impious rejection" of large parts of the 
 "songs composed in heaven?" He does not at- 
 tempt to refute Alexander and Home, who say 
 that u these titles are found in the Hebreiv text, 
 as far as we can trace its history, as integral parts 
 of the composition," and that u very many of them 
 arc extant in the Hebrew manuscripts." He does 
 not undertake to refute the Cltristian Instructor 
 of his own Church, which is constrained to admit 
 11 these titles were written by the sacred poets 
 themselves." lie has nothing to say to the State- 
 ment of Dr. Alexander, "that these titles, in all 
 Hebrew manuscripts, bear the same relation to 
 to ly of the Psalms that the inscriptions in the 
 and in Paul's epistles bear to the sub- 
 • of the composition :" and of course he had 
 no more right, on his principles, to exolade these 
 
 4* 
 
42 rouse's versification 
 
 titles than to exclude the first verses of Isaiah and 
 the epistles of Paul, when he reads them from the 
 pulpit. 
 
 What then is the reviewer's reply? Why he 
 refers to " a writer" who says, " Expositors are 
 by no means agreed" as to the inspiration and 
 importance of these titles, " some regarding them 
 as subsequent additions," others as U original parts 
 of the Psalms." This is certainly very cogent 
 argument ! Some writers regard the doctrine of 
 atonement as no part of Divine Revelation — ergo, 
 we ought not to receive it ! Of as little avail is 
 his reference to " ancient fathers," Augustine, 
 Hilary, &c, who, however, are not quoted as say- 
 ing that these titles are not inspired parts of the 
 text. 
 
 It is evident that the reviewer is sadly puzzled 
 at this conjunction of his affairs. Instead of 
 aiming his logic at the arguments of Alexander, 
 Home and others, and attempting to disprove the 
 existence of these titles in the Hebrew, as com- 
 ponent parts of the Psalms — instead of proving 
 the falsity of their statements, that " very many 
 of these titles are canonical parts of the Psalms," 
 "parts of the text and inseparable from it," he 
 quotes Home as admitting that " many of the 
 titles are of very questionable authority as not 
 being extant in the Hebrew manuscripts." But 
 
NOT AX INSPIRED PSALMODY. 43 
 
 who doubts it': The author of the "Letters on 
 
 Psalmody" made the same quotation from Home! 
 Alexander and Home, however, indicate the safe 
 and obvious test in the inquiry, viz., " are these 
 titles found in the original Hebrew. " Dr. Alex- 
 ander say- they are found "in the Hebrew text as 
 far a- we ean trace its history," and Home admits 
 that one hundred and twenty-five of the Psalms 
 have "titles in the Hebrew r Scriptures." The re- 
 viewer can be very jealous for the honor of the 
 original Hebrew, when it happens to suit his pur- 
 pose. Then he can exclaim, "Our test is the 
 original text." But when he discovers that this 
 "test" evidently compels him to admit the Divine 
 origin of many of the titles to the Psalms, as in- 
 tegral parts of the inspired record — of "the whole 
 book 1 ' which he insists is "of Divine appointment 
 to be sung " — under these circumstances his " test " 
 is thrown aside as worthless! The "Letters" 
 which he professes to review expressly adopt this 
 safe "test," viz., the original Hebrew text, to de- 
 cide the question how many of these titles are in- 
 tegral parts of " the whole book of Psalms." But 
 as the admission of this his own "test," would in- 
 volve him in the "impious rejection" of inspired 
 matter equal to about forty-five .-ongs of the size of 
 Ps. 117, he will have nothing to do with the " test " 
 in this connection. " The result th« JB the 
 
44 rouse's versification 
 
 reviewer, "the titles prefixed to the Psalms are 
 omitted (by Rouse and himself), * * * be- 
 cause it is a question whether they are component 
 parts of these songs." It is a question ! Does 
 the reviewer reject every part of Scripture about 
 whose Divine origin there "is a question?" It 
 is a question with some vfriters whether 1 John 5: 
 7 is of inspired origin, viz., "There are three 
 that bear record in heaven," &c, and so of numer- 
 ous other texts. " It is a question" whether the 
 doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, atonement, &c, 
 are component parts of revealed religion. Does 
 he, therefore, "lay all these aside as useless?"* 
 
 But the reviewer is in error in affirming that 
 there "is a question" about the larger part of 
 these titles. Some of them, we admit, are not 
 found in the original Hebrew, but the greater part 
 of them have precisely the same claims to Divine 
 inspiration as the body of the Psalms. The re- 
 viewer may raise a question about the inspiration 
 of these titles, because it suits a purpose. But 
 no scholar will deny that Alexander, Home, 
 Hengstenberg, Tholuck, Kitto, the Christian In- 
 structor, &c, are sufficient to settle the question, 
 so far as " the test of the original text" can do it. 
 
 *The "True Psalmody" employs the same fallacy, thus: 
 "The authenticity of these titles is not universally ac- 
 knowledged." Do Dr. Dales and his brethren reject all doc- 
 trines that are not "universally acknowledged ?" 
 
NOT AX IXSPIKKD PL ALMODY. 45 
 
 But the reviewer has another argument for his 
 u rejection 9i of these inspired titles. "When the 
 
 author of the Letters," he says, "shall r< 
 the fed which conceals the import of these myste- 
 rious inscriptions so that we can use them intelli- 
 gently, we shall be prepared," &c. He is waiting, 
 
 ys. M until the author of the Letters shall 
 remove the veil," before he will even u inquire 
 into the propriety of introducing these titles into 
 his metrical version." But when he is speaking 
 of Dr. Watts, and his labors in Psalmody, he is 
 very positive and abundant in showing, that to 
 omit parts of the book of Psalms from a system 
 of Psalmody, is the same as " to lay aside as use- 
 less portions of the word of God."* It follows, 
 therefore, that he even refuses to " inquire into 
 the propriety" of laying these titles "aside as use- 
 or which he says is the same thing, to in- 
 quire whether they are* u parts of the word of 
 
 " until the author of 4% the Letters" has re- 
 moved the veil ! To omit any parts of the inspired 
 Psalms from our Psalmody, is the same, he Bay?, 
 reject or "lay aside as useless parts of the 
 word of God." But here he rejects all these titles. 
 not only until kk the author of the Letters" proves 
 them to be the word of God — but until he "shall 
 have removed the veil" which hangs over them 1 
 *On Psalmody, p. 112. 
 
46 rouse's versification 
 
 But is not this a great want of due reverence for 
 the inspired oracles ? How would such a principle 
 affect those dark parts of the Prophecies, for ex- 
 ample, ^hich have almost as many different inter- 
 pretations as there have been expositors? The 
 reviewer, of course, will not inquire into their Di- 
 vine inspiration until the veil is removed ! If he 
 will show in Dr. Watt's writings anything so near- 
 ly approaching German Rationalism, we consent 
 that he shall expose it. 
 
 But suppose we try the reviewer's reverence for 
 the word of God by his own test. The " author 
 of the Letters," he says, must "remove the veil 
 from these inscriptions, so that we can use them 
 intelligently," and then he will he prepared to 
 ""inquire into the propriety of introducing them 
 into his metrical version, or to receive them as the 
 word of God." Very well. We agree to aid Dr. 
 P. in so difficult a hiatter. We first try to lift 
 " the veil" from the title of Ps. 102 : "A prayer 
 of the afflicted, when he is overwhelmed and pour- 
 eth out his complaint before God." The veil in 
 this instance is not a very thick and heavy one ; 
 and we fondly hope we have lifted it, so that 
 even the reviewer can now "sing it intelligently!" 
 Neither is it a very thick darkness which covers 
 the inscriptions, or titles, of Ps. 51 and Ps. 18 — 
 the former, " A Psalm cf David when Nathan the 
 
NOT AX INSPIRED TSALMODY. 47 
 
 prophet came unto him, after lie had gone in to 
 Bathsheba ;" the latter, "A Psalm ot David, the 
 servant of the Lord, wko spake unto the Lord the 
 1l)0I*k of this song in the day that the Lord deliv- 
 ered him from the hand of all his enemies and 
 from the hand of Saul." Equally unintelligible 
 are the titles of V>. 52, 64j 665 57, 59, 00, 90, 
 92. As to Psalm 3, its title is also under " the 
 veil/' as follows: "A Psalm of David when he 
 lied from Absalom his son." But of this title, as 
 of most others, Dr. Alexander says : " This is not 
 a mere inscription, but a part of the text, and m- 
 sej>arable from it" The titles of Ps. 7, 34, 36, 
 and many others, are under similar impenetrable 
 " obscurity !" But all these the reviewer rejects 
 from his Psalmody, not merely because he says 
 there u ia a question " whether they are component 
 of these songs — but until " the veil" over 
 them is removed, so that he "can use them intel- 
 ligently." Tfius it is plain that the reviewer re- 
 nounces his grand "proposition," abandons his 
 "impregnable fortress," viz., that "the WHOLE 
 BOOK of Psalms is of Divine appointment as the 
 Psalmody of the Church." lie "lays aside as 
 ~s" most of the inspired titles, as well as 
 other partfl of "the whole honk." And when we 
 i nt* into the Dbacittitj and «,<<'/<?</- 
 
 character which he charges upon all these 
 
48 rouse's versification 
 
 inscriptions, we find that of the whole one hundred 
 and twenty-five not more than twenty have the 
 least obscurity about them. What special dark- 
 ness can even a child discover in such as that of 
 Ps. 92 — "A Psalm or song for the Sabbath day." 
 And in regard to the small number of untranslated 
 terms, such as michtam, "a golden or excellent 
 Psalm," maschil, "for instruction," &c, it would 
 be easy to adduce much other phraseology in the 
 Scriptures quite as difficult to be comprehended. 
 But the reviewer flies to another refuge for his 
 doctrine. " The authors of our excellent trans- 
 lation of the Bible" he says, "have assigned to 
 these titles a position distinct from the Psalms 
 themselves, just as they have done with the sub- 
 scriptions (or postscripts) to the apostolic epistles, 
 which are not regarded as of Divine authority." 
 But there is no sort of parallel between the two 
 cases. 1. The postscripts to the epistles are pub- 
 lished separately in the Greek, and as no part of 
 the inspired record. But the titles to the several 
 Psalms are embodied in the Hebrew original, 
 just as the first verse of Isaiah is the title of the 
 prophecy ; and so in Paul's epistles. 2. Our most 
 judicious commentaries, such as Dr. Scott, omit 
 the postscripts to the epistles altogether. So also 
 Conybeare and Howson. Dr. Adam Clarke, whose 
 extensive learning has never been questioned, 
 
\\ INSPIRED PSALMODY. 48 
 
 : "The subscriptions (of postscripts) to the 
 Barred bookfl are of little or no authority, all hav- 
 ing been added in latter times, and frequently by 
 injudicious hands." "The postscript to the first 
 Epistle to the Corinthians," Home t<lls us, k * direct- 
 ly contradicts Paul's own declaration in chap. 16: 
 8." "The postscript to Galatians," he says, "is 
 evidently spurious." Dr. Clarke says of that to 
 the Romans, "It is evidently false" — of that to 
 Titus, wt There is not one of these postscripts of 
 j authority; and some of them are plainly 
 ridiculous" — and of that to 1 Corinthians, "The 
 ipt in the common editions of the Greek 
 l is palpably absurd." * What wonder, then, 
 that "our excellent translation of the Bible" sep- 
 arates these postscripts from the inspired text — 
 for even lh\ Pressly admits that they are " not 
 of Divine authority!" But is there any analogy 
 between these absurd and ridiculous postscripts, 
 and those titles to the Psalms which Alexander, 
 II Otjaerfi of our widest men and most dis- 
 
 till, ars. declare to be "parts of the 
 
 IPbp'W text Bind inseparable from it." 3. Besidfis, 
 this obvious reason foi | virion 
 
 of the titles to the Psalms in English; that is the 
 common usage in the English language. But it was 
 
 •.y ftuthoritj mb- 
 
50 ROUSE'S VERSIFICATION 
 
 otherwise in the Hebrew, which embodied the titles 
 in the song itself. And if all this were not sufficient 
 to prove the futility of this part of the reviewer's 
 argument, we might add that in the ten Hallelujah 
 Psalms, Home tells us, "the venerable translators 
 have rendered the word Hallelujah, ' praise the 
 Lord ' — which they (and Rouse also) have made 
 a part of the Psalms !" Yet the reviewer affirms 
 that " the translators have assigned to these titles 
 (he makes no exception) a position distinct from 
 the Psalms themselves. " The reviewer, however, 
 gives his reasons why he thinks the term " Halle- 
 lujah" is not a title to any of the Psalms: "It 
 must," he says, "be a title of a peculiar charac- 
 ter ; for it is found in the beginning, in the middle 
 and in the end of the same Psalm " — he refers to Ps. 
 147 and 148. But in this he only adds to the em- 
 barrassment of his position, and sinks deeper amid 
 his logical difficulties. He admits that Tehillim 
 is the Hebrew title of the "Book of Psalms. ,, 
 But is not the same word found in other parts of 
 the book ? See Ps. 78 : 4 — the very same word 
 except the plural termination oth instead of im. 
 But if it is not so very absurd thus to introduce 
 the general title of "the whole book, " why is it 
 absurd to use the separate titles in the body of the 
 separate Psalms ? * If he should venture to quib- 
 
 *The reviewer's acquaintance with poetry must be ex- 
 tremely small, else he would not think it strange or absurd 
 
NOT AN INSPIRED PSALMODY. &1 
 
 ble about the plural termination oth, instead of 
 Ml, We reply that Tchilloth is as really the same 
 word as w Tehillim," as in the 150th Ps. llalleluhu 
 is the same word as Hallelujah — a position which 
 the reviewer asserts as a part of his argument. 
 Thus his great argument to prove that Hallelujah 
 is not one of the titles often of the Psalms vanishes 
 into thin air. Yet these ten titles are all intro- 
 duced into his Psalmody, in Ps. 146, 147, 148, 
 fcc But he says, "we sing the songs themselves, 
 not the titles which are prefixed to them." But 
 Mr. reviewer, you do sing ten of these titles, which 
 you represent as unintelligible, u under a veil," &c; 
 and to embarrass your position still more, your 
 colleague, Dr. D. Kerr, says — "These titles were 
 never intended to be sung."* Of course to this 
 extent your Psalmody has no Divine authority. 
 
 We have thus shown, if we mistake not, that 
 the 6ystem of Psalmody adopted by the reviewer 
 stands justly convicted of the very worst faults 
 which he charges upon Dr. Watts' system, viz., 
 1. lie does not sing a version of "the sacred songs 
 themselves," but a paraphrase, mixed with many 
 
 that the title of a poem should be repeated in the body of it. 
 Nothing is more common among our best poets. Thus Ten- 
 rjboq'i piece with the title u Oriana,'' repeats thus : 
 
 ♦• W : 
 W€ to battle going, 
 
 Ori.i. 
 Aloud the hollow bugle blowing, Ac." 
 
 ♦See the Preacher, 1852. 
 
52 rouse's versification 
 
 large patches of " human composition. " 2. He 
 omits, "lays aside as useless," large parts of the 
 inspired text. 3. Of course his pretensions to "a 
 correct and faithful version of the whole book of 
 Psalms as of Divine appointment," are not well 
 founded ! His theory of Psalmody explodes under 
 its own pressure, vanishes in smoke. 4. He thus 
 " improves upon David." 5. In addition, he sings 
 ten of the titles of the Psalms, which he repre- 
 sents as unintelligible, and not " component parts of 
 the sacred songs;" and which Dr. David R. Kerr 
 affirms, "were never intended to be sung!" Of 
 course it follows that Rouse and the reviewer have 
 no "fair, correct and literal version of the whole 
 Book of Psalms in metre " — and the only question 
 of any importance between Dr. P. and Dr. Watts 
 relates to the degree in which either has been guilty 
 of so great "corruption of worship" — so greatly 
 "improving upon David." 
 
 Having now disposed of the first question in 
 "the plan proposed" in the "Letters," viz., "Is 
 Rouse's versification an inspired system of Psalmo- 
 dy ?" — we are prepared to proceed with " Question 
 II. of the plan," viz., Is there a Divine Warrant 
 for the exclusive use of the book of Psalms in the 
 praises of the Church."* This will next claim 
 our attention. 
 
 * In regard to the il exclusive use of the book of Psalms," 
 Dr. P. doe3 not seem to have very clear ideas of his own 
 
NOT AX INSPIRED PSALMODY. hd 
 
 theory. Thus, within the first ticelr? pages of u Pressly on 
 Psalmody" we rind the following discordant statements of 
 the u question" in dispute, viz., M The (question is simply this : 
 shall we. in the pi aise of God, employ the songs contained in 
 the book of Psalms ?" But a few pages before, he states his 
 theory as follows : " We have no authority to use any other 
 Psalms and hymns and spiritual soDgs than those which God 
 has furnished in his word.' 1 It is plain that the latter state- 
 ment speaks of all the songs in the Scriptures. But the 
 former speaks only of those which are contained in the u book 
 of Psalms." The Doctor confounds two things essentially 
 distinct, as though they were the very same, viz., M songs in 
 the book of Psalms," and " songs in God's word." The 
 book called the "True Psalmody," blunders several times 
 in the same way. 
 
54 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 PART II. 
 
 IS THERE A DIVINE WARRANT FOR 
 THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE BOOK 
 OF PSALMS? 
 
 THE second principal topic discussed in the 
 "Letters on Psalmody," is in these words : 
 "The question of a Divine warrant for 
 the exclusive use of the book of psalms."' 
 The doctrine maintained by the reviewer is 
 this : " It is the will of God that the sacred songs 
 in the book of Psalms be sung in his praise to the 
 end of the world ; and we have no authority to use 
 any other." Dr. Kerr adds — " We are under the 
 necessity of holding those who depart from this 
 appointment (the exclusive use of the Psalms), as 
 seriously corrupting one of the ordinances of God." 
 "We have no authority," adds Dr. P., "to use 
 any other than the songs contained in the book of 
 Psalms." How far these brethren have "corrupted 
 the ordinance of God," as they themselves have 
 stated it, by mutilating the sacred text, omitting 
 large portions of it, by singing a "paraphrase" 
 instead of a version, and by mingling with the in- 
 
BOOK 01 PSALMS EXCLUSIVELY. ■>■> 
 
 spired Psalms many Bootes of patched of --human 
 
 composition" — all this has been shown in our 
 
 former essay. It has bete demonstrated, we trust, 
 
 that to SO - not to felQg an inspired 
 
 Psalmody. The question now arises, have they 
 Divine authority for restricting their public and 
 private praise to the one hundred and fifty Psalms *: 
 
 In this, as in the former part, We confine our 
 strictures, in a great measure, to the statements of 
 the reviewer. For a more full discussion of the 
 topic we refer to Letters 6, 7 and 8 of the volume 
 he criticises. We are not re-writing the book, but 
 replying to the reviewer. 
 
 1. At the outset of this inquiry, it is a very 
 formidable objection to the exclusive theory, that 
 advocates, with all the industry and re- 
 search they have bestowed upon the subject, can- 
 not find a solitary text of Scripture to give direct 
 iony in its favor. We have ju>t been read- 
 ing two of these authors in defence of the Psalms 
 •exclusively, and it is remarkable that neither of 
 them pre' single text of Scripture in direct 
 
 proof of their theory. We concede with all Chris- 
 tian people, that the Psalms are inspired songs. 
 a, we freely admit that David, who was the 
 penman "f the Holy Ghost, for about seventy of 
 
 lied ** the IWOet Psalm- 
 ist of Israel." Again ; that Ezra, some fite cen- 
 
56 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 turies later, collected the Psalms into their present 
 volume form as a part of the sacred canon, is the 
 common belief. And finally, that the Church 
 (under the Jewish dispensation,) employed with 
 Divine approval these songs in praise. Thus far 
 all is harmony. But from the fact that God gave 
 to his Church (at a late period of the Jewish dis- 
 pensation) a book of Psalms, it by no means fol- 
 lows that it should be now used, literally and ver- 
 bally, to the exclusion of all others. We live under 
 the gospel which has " brought light and immor- 
 tality to light." We know that "the law was 
 given by Moses ; but grace and truth came by Jesus 
 Christ." And we require very clear and express 
 testimony of Scripture to prove that the New 
 Testament teachings on these great subjects of 
 " grace, truth, life, immortality," must be excluded 
 from our songs of praise. We should about as 
 soon believe that they are to be excluded from 
 the prayers and other parts of public and private 
 worship. We demand a " thus saith the Lord" 
 for so extraordinary a theory. 
 
 In the " Letters on Psalmody," 2 Chron. 29 : 30 
 was adduced as "the nearest approach" to any- 
 thing like direct Scripture authority for the ex- 
 clusive doctrine, viz., " Hezekiah the king and 
 the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise 
 unto the Lord with the words of David and Asaph 
 
BOOK OF MAIMS RXCLUBTTBI/r. f>7 
 
 the seer." But the reviewer appears to be anirry 
 with the author even for such a qualified use of 
 this text. H The quotation/ 1 b ~ does not 
 
 that the Church is restricted by Divine 
 authority to the use of the book of ] , salms ; nor 
 do we employ it for that purpose*" * Of course, 
 therefore, we agree that this text fails to bring 
 aid to the reviewer's exclusive system. But the 
 conclusion arrived at in the " Letters," from an 
 argument under three separate heads, is stated thus : 
 "These acts of Ilezekiah are no Divine warrant 
 for the book of Psalms as THE system of praise- 
 to be used in the Church of our day; much less as 
 of exclusive authority for that purpose." And 
 among the reasons for this conclusion are such as 
 these, viz., in verse twenty-five of the same chapter, 
 we read, k * Ilezekiah set the Levites in the house of 
 the Lord, with cymbals, with psalteries, and with 
 harps, according to the commandment of l>avid, and 
 of Gad, the k;! \ and Nathan the prophet : 
 
 fU the commandment of the Lord by his 
 
 *If the reviewer will look into the Banker of (hi I 
 nant for December 18, I860, he will bo* thai S3 Caron 
 
 3U has been used to prove the exclurivt use of the hook of 
 
 ! A con ■ • 
 
 .ent ot' these Psalms prohibit* the use of others. 
 pointed the one bandied and fifty Psalms to be 
 exclusively/ i: ip. In proof of this we qu I 
 
 29 : 3". think 
 
 refer to li Presslj on Psalmodj," 
 and consequently he falls into mittak* 
 
58 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 prophets/' Here is equal inspired authority for 
 choirs and instrumental music, called, " musical 
 
 INSTRUMENTS OF GOD " — " INSTRUMENTS OF MUSIC 
 
 of the Lord, which David the king had made to 
 praise the Lord/' 2 Chron. 7 : 6. Here the Church 
 was divinely commanded to use " cymbals, psal- 
 teries and harps" in praising God, as really as to 
 sing " praise with the words of David and Asaph." 
 
 Again, thirteen years afterward Hezekiah him- 
 self composed a Psalm for the house of the Lord, 
 and gave directions for the singing of his " songs 
 in the temple all the days of his life." See Isaiah, 
 38 : 9-20. Of. course, that pious prince did not 
 regard "the words of David and Asaph" as the 
 exclusive system of praise in his day. To this and 
 much other argument in the "Letters," the re- 
 viewer wisely maintains "expressive silence." 
 
 The reviewer dwells with great complacency upon 
 the statement "that the Church of God (he means 
 under the Jewish dispensation,) praised him in 
 the use of the Psalms of David, and therefore with 
 Divine approbation." * But did not the " Church 
 use with Divine approbation, and in accordance 
 with Divine appointment," the song of Miriam 
 at the Red Sea ; the song of Moses (Deut. 32) ; 
 the song of Deborah and Barak, &c. Of course 
 it follows, that " it is the will of God that thev 
 * See Pressly on Psalmody, p. 88. 
 
ROOK OF PSALMS EXCLUSIVELY. SB 
 
 should be sung " to the end of time I So the Church 
 reeeived of the Lord many peculiar usages of the 
 Mosaic law — such, for example, as the regulation 
 that required a man to be stoned for gathering 
 sticks on the Sabbath day, for cursing his parents, 
 &c. All these were of " Divine appointment." 
 Ergo, they are binding on us of the present day! 
 And it is of these same Levitical "statutes" that 
 God says, " Ye shall not add unto the word which 
 I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught 
 from it." Deut. 4 : 2. Let us apply here the re- 
 viewer's argument, viz., " From the fact that God 
 gave to his Church these ancient statutes and for- 
 bid her to diminish aught from them, it would ap- 
 pear to be the Divine will that they should be used 
 to the end of time."* So in like manner, all the 
 rest of "the law and the prophets" God gave to 
 
 Church for public instruction; but are we, 
 therefore, to use nothing else, no part of the New 
 Testament, in the pulpit ? If the reviewer had 
 taken a little pains to understand the book he pro- 
 
 - to criticise, he would have saved much valu- 
 able paper and ink expended in proving what is 
 
 *The advent of our Lord and his fulfilling the law, did 
 away only those typical ordinances which were u but tkadow* 
 of good thuvjs to come 8c I ;■ r l Mr. Doddfl In his book on 
 Psalmody, p. \(>8. But the case* of the stoning for gather- 
 ing .-ticks and tot cursing ■ parent were not of this -h.ulnwy 
 sort. Brgo, liif-'- awl are still in force ! This is a fair 
 inference from the premises of Dr. P. and himi 
 
60 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 not denied, viz., that the Church should employ 
 these songs in praise. We maintain this proposi- 
 tion as strenuously as he can do. But when he 
 builds on this narrow basis his literal theory, and 
 styles "Rouse's paraphrase'' " a literal version " 
 of those songs, and then proceeds to denounce the 
 use of the paraphrases employed by Presbyterians 
 as no better than " strange fire," &c, when offered 
 before the Lord — we venture to differ with him ! 
 It is abundantly proved in " Letters on Psalmody," 
 that such texts as 2 Chron. 29 : 30 do not serve 
 the reviewer's purpose. It is shown that not only 
 do they enjoin upon the Church the use of instru- 
 mental music equally with the use of the seventy 
 or eighty Psalms which were composed by David^ 
 and Asaph, but leave about half of " the book" 
 without their authority; while this we believe to be 
 proved beyond controversy, it is in the same con- 
 nection freely and frequently admitted, that we 
 Presbyterians are "far, from designing to exclude 
 the book of Psalms from the devotions of the 
 Church."* When the reviewer, therefore, shall 
 write another volume on the subject, we hope he 
 will assume as granted, that we " have Divine ap- 
 pointment for the use of the songs contained in 
 the book of Psalms in celebrating the praise of 
 God." The author of the "Letters" never had 
 * See Letters on Psalmody, p. 11, and many other passages. 
 
BOOK Of PSALMS EXCLUSIVELY. (Jl 
 
 the least doubt on that subject. He firmly believes, 
 as before Btated, that not only the book of Psalms, 
 
 but the whole word of God (of course he includes 
 ' the Psalms), is of use for this end. But whether 
 </t of using the Psalms, in "Rouse's para- 
 phrase, " which he facetiously calls u a literal ver- 
 sion or translation," be the Divinely appointed 
 and inspired mode — and whether the paraphrase 
 which Presbyterians use be little better than the 
 presumptuous offering to the Lord of " the flesh 
 of the pig" instead of " the kid," are quite other 
 tions. Let Dr. P. try his strength on these 
 points, and we will seriously atten 1 to his argu- 
 ment 
 
 Our first difficulty^ then, in the way of receiving 
 the exclusive theory of Psalmody, is that it has no 
 if Scripture to support it. It is at best mere- 
 ly an awkward inference from premises which are 
 > narrow to support the conclusion. On the 
 other hand, th< the Scrip- 
 
 ! which teach the directly opposite doctrine, 
 either directly or by plain and obvious inference, 
 as will be shown hereafter. 
 
 2. A 9ec<md difficulty relates to the assumed 
 Divh, lion of the number of the Psali 
 
 Let the reviewer tell us, if he can, the 
 
 [BE person who was appointed by God to 
 
 fix the number of the I it just one hundred 
 
62 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 and fifty, to the exclusion of all others, both inspi- 
 red and uninspired, or at least show us some Divine 
 authority for such limitation. This is a serious 
 matter, especially as in the opinion of Dr. P. it 
 involves the crime of Nadab and Abihu, who were 
 destroyed for encroaching on a Divine ordinance. 
 Bring us your authority, not for placing these one 
 hundred and fifty Psalms in the sacred canon, 
 but the Divine oracle, "a thus saith the Lord," 
 establishing these one hundred and fifty songs, in 
 preference and to the exclusion of all the other 
 forms of devotional poetry in the Scriptures as 
 the only, all-sufficient and inspired Psalter for the 
 Church to all ages. Here the reviewer's case 
 breaks down altogether. , 
 
 We shall not bandy words with the reviewer 
 in regard to the precise meaning of the apostle, 
 when in Col. 3 : 16 he exhorts : " Let the word of 
 Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admon- 
 ishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and 
 spiritual songs," &c. If there were no other 
 psalms, hymns, &c, in the inspired record, and 
 no inspired men at that time to compose them, 
 the inference might be that Paul refers to the one 
 hundred and fifty Psalms,* and to them alone. 
 
 * The celebrated Ralph Erskine, the father of the Associ- 
 ate Synod of Scotland, affirms that Col. 3 : 10, u Let the 
 word of Christ dwell in you richly, * * * in psalms, hymns 
 and spiritual songs," contains a Divine precept for singing 
 
BOOK ft] PSALMS EXCLUSIVELY. 88 
 
 Eut as B large part of the Scriptures, particularly 
 of the Old Testament, consists of devotional poetry, 
 of "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs;" and 
 one ivhole book, " Song of Solomon," is entitled 
 by God himself, "the song of songs," the most 
 excellent of songs — of which Scott the commen- 
 tator >a\>. " NO OTHER POXM IN THE WORLD * * 
 i adapted to excite admiring, adoring, grateful 
 love to our God and Saviour;" when we add that 
 the term humnos, hymn, is never found in the 
 Greek Septuagint (which the apostle used) as the 
 distinctive title of any of the one hundred and fifty 
 Psalms,* but both "song"jand "hymn" are repeat- , 
 edly employed to designate other parts of the sa- 
 cred writings, as for example Is. 42:10, u Sing 
 unto the Lord a new song 1 (humnon), and in Deut. 
 the poetical address of Moses in chap. 32 is three 
 several times called ode, a song — " write ye this 
 song" &c. In view of facts such as these, and 
 many others (for which we must refer to the "Let- 
 Solomon's Song." Letters on Psalmody, p. 104. We shall 
 refer again to this testimony, especially as Dr. P. is entirely 
 silent on the subject. 
 
 ♦The Septuagint, we concede, uses the dative plural 
 humnois, in several of the titles, as in Ps. B7, where it is the 
 translation of neginoth, stringed instruments. In Ps. 4 the 
 Septuagint translates negmotk by AoJmeif, Psalms. Should 
 Paul when he exhorts us to M teach and 
 admonish one another in psalms and hymns," as enjoin 
 the use of negia . <d instruments f Thi nly 
 
 a fair inference on the supposition that tin,- apostle had in 
 Greek tit'. 3< ptnagint 
 
66 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 guilty to the displeasure of Heaven as certainly 
 as it did the presumptuous sons of Aaron" (Nadab 
 and Abihu).* Verily, this reviewer's notions of 
 "tha sin of corrupting the worship of God" — 
 " offering strange fire" — are adapted to provoke 
 a smile; but the subject is too serious for mirth. 
 When it suits a special purpose, he utterly discards 
 his oft-repeated doctrine of the necessity of " Divine 
 appointment," as of very small importance. Then 
 he boldly asserts that to use " songs of praise" 
 without "divine authority," should make "little 
 difficulty." And is this what he means by the obli- 
 gations and terrors of the "second commandment," 
 which forbids " the worshiping of God by * * 
 * * any way not appointed in his Word?" For 
 himself, it seems, the want of Divine authority is 
 a "little difficulty," and "should not disturb the 
 peace of the Church " — but for Presbyterians, the 
 same want of Divine authority exposes them to the 
 heavy curse of breaking " the second command- 
 ment," the "sin of Nadab and Abihu," "offering 
 strange fire." This want of " Divine appointment" 
 is a very convenient rod to hold over the heads of 
 Presbyterians, in order to frighten them into the 
 Rouse camp ; but when once there, they find it is 
 "a little difficulty," which "ought not to disturb 
 the peace of the Church." 
 
 *On Psalmody, p. 9. 
 
BOOK OF PSALMS EXCLUSIVELY. 61 
 
 The oillating spirit and absence of fixed 
 
 principles, appear in the volume entitled " True 
 Psalmody." One page has it, "the book of 
 Psalms in a literal translation;" another, "die 
 Psalms of Scripture (all Scripture), to the exclusion 
 of all unitupired songs." At one time it is u the 
 of Psalms to the exclusion of all others," 
 both inspired and uninspired ; but again the ques- 
 tion is stated thus : "Have we liberty to make 
 and sing * * * songs other than those of the 
 Bible?" Amid the confusion thus created, it is 
 isible to tell at what precise point the "True 
 Psalmody" fixes the "pig and kid" crisis! Wheth- 
 er "Divine authority" terminates with the one 
 hundred and fifty Psalms, or includes all the songs 
 of the Bible. 
 
 4. Another very grave objection to the logical 
 ion of the reviewer is, that his doctrine draws 
 into lerions question the soundness of his ortho- 
 doxy on the subject of Inspiration. " The great 
 
 tion," he s-iys, "on which the contro 
 turns, is — have we Divine appointment in favor of 
 the use of the devotional compositions of unin- 
 I men in the worship of God*" We have just 
 j. is own statements, that lie regards 
 it of little or no importance whether we have ''Di- 
 or not, if we ring ik other - 
 of the Bible' 1 the one hundred and fifty 
 
68 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 Psalms. But for "the compositions of unin- 
 spired men" — he is very zealous in asserting the 
 absolute necessity of "Divine authority " for them! 
 And yet the reviewer has been singing exclusively 
 during a long life — what? A system of Psalmody 
 entitled by the mother Church of Scotland when she 
 adopted it, "Rouse's paraphrase of the Psalms/' 
 but not once does she call it a version. Of course 
 he regards what the Church of Scotland calls 
 " Rouse'-s Psalms," as inspired compositions! It 
 follows that, to be consistent, he must think and 
 speak of Rouse as an inspired paraphrase ! But 
 was ever before any person of sober judgment 
 found using such a collocation of terms ? 
 
 When Ralph Erskine prepared what he calls his 
 "paraphrase of the Song of Solomon," in obedi- 
 ence, as he tells us, to the "Divine precept" 
 in Col. 3 : 16 and Eph. 5 : 18, 19, " to sing psalms, 
 hymns, and spiritual songs," did he profess to 
 make "an inspired composition?" Take a single 
 specimen, chap. 1:4:" Draw me; we will run after 
 thee " — a line of seven words expanded into twelve 
 lines. This is what Erskine, a father of the Se- 
 cession Church of Scotland, meant by " a para- 
 phrase," and this explains what the mother Church 
 meant when twenty times in her Adopting Acts, 
 she speaks of "Rouse's paraphrase." The de- 
 monstrative proof that the noble old martyr Church 
 
BOOK 01 P0ALM8 EXCLUSIVELY. 
 
 had - tough to know the meaning of the 
 
 words, is found in the work itself. " Rouse's 
 Psalms" are no "literal version" — no " version'' 
 at all — no w inspired composition/ 1 They are (at 
 
 in large part,) "the devotional compositions 
 of uninspired men !" i: Yet Dr. P. says, " we have 
 no Divine authority to sing such compositions." 
 Of course he has sung Rouse all his life without 
 Divine authority ! 
 
 And now what sort of idea of Inspiration must 
 Dr. Pi entertain, who claims that he sings a an in- 
 spired Psalmody" — the identical " songs of the 
 Holy Ghost':" What measure of sense is there in 
 the terms, an inspired paraphrase ? He might as 
 well speak of his own u inspired sermons," or u in- 
 spired extempore prayers. " Truly, this is a strange 
 position for an author who is so zealous for the 
 honor of Inspiration ! If it be so great a crime 
 to sing u evangelical hymns," whole Injmns of un- 
 inspired men, is there no Bin in singing part* of 
 such hymns? Yet he uses, without the least 
 u compunctious fishings," a * k paraphrase " of the 
 Psalms, patched with hundreds of thoughts, and 
 eetitimeftts, and explications, of Rouse and other 
 u uninspired men!" This is abundantly proved 
 in the first five "Letters on Psalmody/ 1 If the 
 
 ♦Composed by Rouse and amended by the General As- 
 sembly. 
 
70 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 use in praise of a whole " uninspired hymn " be so 
 grievous a crime, why not Rouse's parts of hymns? 
 Was Rouse inspired ? When this reviewer gives 
 up singing the " human composure " of Rouse, it 
 will be time enough to attend to his so-called prin- 
 ciple of "inspired Psalmody.'' In the meantime 
 we shall continue to think that all the human 
 patchwork of Rouse was never " composed in 
 heaven !" 
 
 If anything further were needed to fix upon the 
 reviewer's sentiments the charge of a tendency to 
 loose views of Inspiration, we find it in his prac- 
 tice of explaining " Rouse's paraphrase." With- 
 out such an explanation of the Psalms, we learn 
 from Prof. Patterson, of Westminster College, "the 
 people KNOW nothing of their spiritual worth," 
 " and these well-springs of the God of Israel are 
 closed and sealed." In the vocabulary of the 
 reviewer, therefore, to sing "inspired composi- 
 tions" consists, 1. In using a "paraphrase" of 
 such compositions. 2. In " explaining " the para- 
 phrase, so that the congregation can utter the 
 words with the sense which- the minister puts upon 
 them, whether he be an Arian of Ulster, or Dr. P. 
 of Allegheny ! According to the reviewer, the 
 Ulster Arians who use Rouse explained by them- 
 selves, praise God in "a Divine Psalmody," "in- 
 spired compositions," just as really as he himself. 
 
BOOK OF PSALMS EXCLUSIVELY. 71 
 
 In such 0*868, 88 the worship consists in the senti- 
 ment, not the words, most persona will agree with 
 
 Dr. Ralston, that such compositions are "Press- 
 ly's Psalms "and "Arian Psalms" — just as his 
 expositions of other texts are really u Pressly's 
 Sermons." Yet he claims to sing only " the com- 
 positions of inspired men !" And he further main- 
 tains that even Arians (and the same principle 
 applies to Jews also), who regard Christ as an 
 exalted creature, or a mere man, u as a matter of 
 course sing the truth," provided they sing the 
 Words of the Psalms, though with an Arian or 
 Jewish explanation and understanding of them ! 
 By singing the words that contain the truth he 
 affirms that they sing the very truth itself ! But 
 the lansnia^e is but Bound — the truth is the Divine 
 sentiment, the thought — the worship is the utter- 
 ance, not of words, but the expression of the sen- 
 timent of the heart. Yet so enamored is this 
 reviewer with the mere forms of Rouse's Psalms, 
 that he ventures to affirm that an u Arian," who 
 does not believe in a Divine Saviour at all, but in a 
 mere creature, if he sing the Psalms, u will praise 
 Cxod with s.iitiments suitable and acceptable to 
 him, if he praises him with a suitable frame of 
 mind, if he make melody in his heart to the Lord.'! 
 And this from a man who professes to honor the 
 
 Sox : in; honors the Father! What 
 
72 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 sort of "melody in the heart" does he imagine an 
 Arian or Jew is capable of making to Christ? 
 What sort of " sentiments acceptable " to Him can 
 he offer who regards him as a mere creature, or 
 who curses him in his heart ? If there is no " loose 
 theology" here, where can it be found? 
 
 The case referred to in the " Letters," is that of 
 an Ulster Arian, who uses Rouse, and who explains 
 the second Psalm, for example, and tells the peo- 
 ple, " God's only Son," his "Anointed," is a mere 
 creature — and the congregation receive and believe 
 it and sing accordingly. They sing the words 
 of truth with an Arian meaning — with a false sen- 
 timent in the heart. Yet Dr. P. says, " they sing 
 the truth!" Truly, his notions of an "inspired 
 Psalmody" appear to lie in the shell — to go no 
 deeper than the outward forms. It must be a bad 
 cause which forces its advocate into such mischiev- 
 ous conclusions. Give us the Psalms as expounded 
 by the collective wisdom of the Church, rather 
 than a " paraphrase " explained by a minister who 
 may be secretly an ungodly person, or a heretic 
 in doctrine. 
 
 5. A fifth serious obstacle to the adoption of 
 the reviewer's exclusive theory is, that its chief 
 advocates have no common ground, no agreement 
 as to what is essential to " an inspired Psalmody." 
 One leading author advocates "a literal and true 
 
BOOK OF PSALMS KXrnrSIY KLY. 73 
 
 ion as of Divine appointment." With this the 
 reviewer harmonizes. Dr. Cooper, of Philadelphia, 
 
 on the contrary, Bays, "The only question is, has 
 the translator observed the inspired order and ar- 
 rangement of the original, and is the idea fairly and 
 fully brought out." Bat this abandons entirely the 
 
 : ine of "• literal and true version." On Dr. 
 
 theory, a paraphrase which observes "the in- 
 spired order and arrangement," and brings out the 
 idea, is a an inspired Psalmody." This also con- 
 demns Rouse, who often violates the u inspired 
 order." A third author rejects in toto all attempts 
 at "rhyming Psalmody" as a virtual repudiation 
 of " the pure word of God." "All supporters of 
 rhyming Psalmody, * he says, "are disqualified 
 for pleading the cause of an inspired Psalmody " 
 "We have no authority," he adds, "for making 
 or singing rhyming Psalms." But perhaps the 
 easiest and shortest method of reconciling these 
 conflicting views of " inspiration," is that suggested 
 by R< v. Mr. Gordon. He takes the ground that 
 in using the Psalms, "it is not necessaiyto under- 
 stand what we sing in that book." From this it 
 U ■ fair inference, that if the original Hebrew text 
 were pat in English letters, we should then have 
 a perfect system of praise — containing an "inspi- 
 red Psalmody!" We commend this method of 
 untying the dordian fatal to the reviewer's atten- 
 7 
 
74 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 tion as creating an infallible certainty of " singing 
 the truth." 
 
 6. A sixth formidable obstacle to the general 
 adoption of an exclusive literal version of the one 
 hundred and fifty Psalms, is that the theory is an 
 " innovation, " a discovery of modern times — an 
 abandonment of the doctrine and practice of the 
 mother Churches of Scotland, in the days of their 
 greatest prosperity and power. 
 
 It is a curious and suggestive fact that this 
 point, though largely elaborated in the " Letters 
 on Psalmody," is carefully eschewed by this re- 
 viewer; not a syllable have we on so important a 
 topic ! In Dr. P's. book,* however, we find some 
 statements in relation to the testimony of history 
 on the subject. "In the reign of Edward VI," 
 he tells us, "the version of Sternhold and Hop- 
 kins was introduced." But the "Letters on 
 Psalmody" prove by large quotations, beyond th 
 shadow of a doubt, that Sternhold and Hopkins 
 made no " version " (or translation) at all, but quite 
 a broad paraphrase, at least, in many of the Psalms. 
 In addition it is shown by numerous extracts, that 
 that ancient paraphrase adopts Dr. Watts' princi- 
 ples, viz., " to give 'a gospel turn' to David on all 
 suitable occasions." We have room for only a 
 couple of examples: 
 
 -"On Psalmody, p. 116, 117. 
 
BOOK OF PSALMS IXCLUBIVRLT. 
 
 Bll LD in IIorK ' Prose Vepsion. 
 
 If onee his wrath W \ his wrath is k i n ■ i '. • 
 
 ild kindle in a little, 
 
 all they t. 
 
 their trust In him. 
 The kings and rulen rt of the earl 
 
 themselYet end the mien 
 
 *uheLordan< - against the 
 
 Which he am Iti.rJ and against hifl enoin 
 
 These are from tlie 2d Psalm. The following 
 is from Pa 125:1, 
 
 wh<> do put their eonfl I 
 ■ r God only, 
 • 
 In all their need and m - 
 The>r faith U sure still to erutvre, 
 Groxr ft the corner- 
 
 tndeth still, 
 Mast like to the mount 8 
 
 Here it will be seen, three lines of the prose 
 version [four in House) are expanded into eight 
 in Sternhold, as shown by the italics. This is the 
 sort of poetry the reviewer ventures to call a "ver- 
 sion !" Yet he says, " a version is a translation !" 
 Even Dr. Beveridge admits that Sternhold is 
 
 / in some instances as exact as Rouse," while 
 in others, he says, it is u not anything like a ver- 
 sion.''* The attention of the reader is particu- 
 larly requested to the "gospel turns" in these paa- 
 
 — which are quite an abomination in the 
 of the reviewer — at least when introduced by Dr. 
 Watts and Presbyterians ! A- to the two doxolc- 
 I to the T. r >th and 125th Psalm, by 
 
 ihold and Hopkiu ihey are mere " human 
 
 * Eva ;>osi(ory, April, 1851. 
 
76 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 compositions," and of course " serious corruptions" 
 of Divine worship ! We have room only for the 
 shorter : 
 
 To Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
 
 All glory be therefore; 
 As in beginning was, is now, 
 
 And shall be evermore. 
 
 The other consists of eight lines. These are 
 queer illustrations of what Dr. P. is pleased to call 
 "a version or translation !" It was about a cen- 
 tury before the Church of Scotland adopted Stern- 
 hold and Hopkins that the martyr Wishart, the 
 friend and preceptor of John Knox, on the eve 
 cf going to the stake, sung the 51st Psalm, ex- 
 panding the fifty-three lines of our Bibles into 
 one hundred and forty. Here is a specimen : 
 
 Prose Version. Wishart's Hymn. 
 
 Thon delightest not in burnt Burnt sacrifice is no delight 
 offerings. Unto thy majestie, 
 
 ' Thou carest not of it one mite 
 For sin to satisfy, 
 For only Christ did make us quit 
 
 Of all enormitie. 
 To thy mercy will I go. 
 
 These examples must suffice at present, to prove 
 what sort of Psalmody Scotland's martyrs, reform- 
 ers and earliest Churches regarded as of " Divine 
 authority." Whether it gives more countenance 
 to Dr. P's. " true and literal version" theory, or 
 to ours, let common sense decide. One thing it 
 proves most clearly — that the exclusive literal 
 theory had no existence at that early period. 
 
-ALMS EXCLUSIVELY. » 1 
 
 After using the so-called " version" of Stern- 
 hold and Hopkins for M about a century, M Dr. P. 
 tells us, ** the version by Francis Rouse was adop- 
 ted." This was in 1649. "The General Assem- 
 bly of the Church of Sctotland," he adds, " intro- 
 duced Rouse as bciii£ 'more agreeable to the ori- 
 ginal text than any version heretofore prepared.' " 
 k *Tlils VERSION," he continues, "18 A TRANSLA- 
 TION of the songs of inspiration." But Dr. P. 
 forgets to inform his readers, either in his book or 
 in his review, that in the act adopting it, the Seot- 
 tish General Assembly never once called it a ver- 
 sion or translation, but uniformly " a paraphrase," 
 11 Rouse's paraphrase," &c. This paraphrase, Dr. 
 P. goes on to inform us, " is still retained in the 
 Church, because as a true a?id literal translation 
 of the original, it is decidedly superior to any 
 other in the English language!" Yes, these 
 are his precise words.* Rouse's paraphrase as "a 
 true and literal translation, is decidedly superior" 
 to the prose version in our Bibles — which " is in 
 the English language !" If Dr. P. had said " de- 
 cidedly more exact and literal 91 than any other 
 metrical paraphrase, something might be alleged 
 in his defence, but his actual statement is mon- 
 strous. Does he really believe that such men as 
 Gillespie, Henderson, Rutherford, and others, 
 tmodj, p. 117, second edition. 
 
78 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 "men skilled in Hebrew learning," as he admits, 
 adopted such poetry as the following as "a true 
 and literal translation:" 
 
 Prcse Version. Rouse. 
 
 I stretch forth my hands unto Lo, I do stretch my hands, 
 thee. Ps. 143 : 6. To thee, my help alone ; 
 
 For thou well understands 
 All my complaint and moan. 
 
 Or this: 
 
 Prose Version. Rouse. 
 
 To him that smote Egypt in To him that Egypt smote, 
 
 their first born. Ps. 136 : 10. Who did his message scorn ; 
 
 And in his anger hot, 
 
 Did kill all their first born. 
 
 Dr. P. goes on to tell us that, "if the prose 
 version be the word of God, the mere English read- 
 er may satisfy himself that the metrical version 
 (Rouse's) possesses substantially the same charac- 
 ter," viz., that " it is a true and literal translation." 
 Is not this wonderful ? If the reviewer can per- 
 suade himself, or any other person familiar with 
 the subject, that those just quoted, and several 
 hundred other paraphrastic forms of speech, were 
 admitted by the Presbyterian Church of Scot- 
 land, as "a true and literal translation;" or that 
 "Rouse's paraphrase" is "decidedly superior" to 
 our prose version as " a true and literal transla- 
 tion" — when the reviewer shall perform these logi- 
 cal wonders, we will believe that he can prove 
 white to be black and black to be white, at his 
 pleasure. 
 
 But what has the reviewer to say in reply and 
 
% BOOK OF PSALMS EXCLUSIVELY. 79 
 
 in explanation of all these and hundreds of other 
 facts, so fatal to his "literal" theory? Simply 
 this: ik Like the prose translation, our poetical 
 translation of the Psalms is the work of man, and 
 in some respects it might be amended." "No one 
 pretends," he adds, *? that this version (Rouse) is 
 perfect !" " We plead for the use of the songs of 
 inspiration/' continues the reviewer. No doubt 
 of it — but at the same time you sing "Rouse's 
 paraphrase," with all its sins of " human compo- 
 sition" on its head. Yon plead for what you say 
 is right ; and at the same time practice what you 
 denounce as profane and impious ! 
 
 The reviewer's position is analogous to that of 
 the preacher who ascends the pulpit to preach 
 against idolatry, and as he mounts the steps kneels 
 before a huge idol ; or to the conduct of him who 
 vehemently declaims against intemperance, while 
 himself fuddled with drink ! We also "plead for 
 the use of the songs of inspiration" — but we have 
 this advantage over the reviewer — our practice 
 and our profession are in harmony, not in violent 
 contrast 
 
 The reviewer pleads for one thing, and employs 
 the opposite. Presbyterians, on the contrary, 
 " plead for the use of the ' songs of inspiration,' " 
 JtlSt as inspired apostles used them. For example, 
 TIILILE IS ROT A SOLITARY DTSTAHC1 IX TBI N«W 
 
80 no divine warrant for the 
 
 Testament of the singing of a Psalm of Da- 
 vid in A " literal" form. On the contrary, the 
 apostles used the book of Psalms in quite a differ- 
 ent mode in the only two cases in which they em- 
 ployed them in social praise. One of these is 
 Luke 19 : 38. The disciples took part of a verse 
 from Ps. 118, but sung it with alterations adapted 
 to their circumstances. The second case is in Acts 
 4 : 24. The beginning of the second Psalm is sung 
 by Peter, John, and their company — then an ad- 
 dition, in the beginning — then a narrative of what 
 David spoke — then an application to Herod, Pon- 
 tius Pilate, &c. — then an enlargement by consider- 
 ing the hand of God in the whole, and finally the 
 song concludes with desires suited to their circum- 
 stances. This is an inspired pattern for making 
 New Testament Psalms. It groups together parts 
 of the Psalms along with other inspired matter, just 
 as Dr. Watts and Presbyterians do. These are 
 examples of " gospel turns" earlier than even those 
 of " Sternhold and Hopkins' ' and the martyrs and 
 Reformers of the Scottish Church. Even if Rouse 
 were "a true and literal translation," it could not 
 stand against these examples of inspired men. We 
 fix our foot firmly and unhesitatingly upon this 
 express " Divine appointment." On such author- 
 ity as this we hold up the reviewer's "literal" 
 theory as a mere modern invention, an innovation 
 upon ( both inspired and uninspired authority. 
 
BOOK OF PSALMS EXCLUSIVELY. 81 
 
 Nor is the evidence of this Bpirtt of innovation 
 on the pari of the reviewer less clear in regard to 
 
 the use of " other songs" than those of the book 
 of Psalms. Besides the proof already adduced, 
 that from the days of AVishart, and Sternhold and 
 Hopkins, the Church of Scotland never adopted 
 the "literal" theory — as early as 1047 action was 
 taken to add to the one hundred and fifty Psalms 
 " other songs of Scripture" for purposes of praise. 
 In 1701 the General Assembly of the Church of 
 Scotland recommended those versified by Patrick 
 Symp&OB, u to be used in private families, in order 
 epare them for the public use of the Church." 
 So also in 1747 Ralph Erskine was ordered by 
 his Presbytery (the Burgher) "to verbify the other 
 Scripture songs" — and as his further authority he 
 quotes the acts of the General Assembly of the 
 Church of Scotland, August 28, 1647, as enjoining 
 
 U TM TURNING OF ALL THE REST OF THE SCRIP- 
 TURE BONOS INTO METRE AS THE PSALMS 01 DaVID 
 ARE, AND FOR THE SAME PUBLIC USE" — and this, 
 
 he adds, u im one of the most noted periods of 
 Reformation." For much other information on 
 e must refer to the " Letters " them- 
 Whether the venerable Church of Scot- 
 land, and the jJurgher or Seceder Presbytery at a 
 later period, were guilty in all this matter u of 
 iiljf corrupting the ordinance of God" — or 
 
O'J, NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR TIIE 
 
 whether the reviewer is not chargeable with inno- 
 vation upon established Scriptural usage, let the 
 serious reader decide. Dr. P. was wise to pass all 
 these by in profound silence. 
 
 If any further testimony were needed, we would 
 cite the modern example of the Free and Estab- 
 lished Churches of Scotland — the hymn book* of 
 " the United Presbyterian Church" of the same 
 country — and the further fact that the only body 
 of Presbyterians in Scotland who adopt the ex- 
 clusive theory, is that of the Covenanters, consist- 
 ing of perhaps less than fifty churches, and even 
 these do not all adopt the exclusive views. So 
 that the proportion against exclusivism is near 
 three thousand to fifty. And a large proportion 
 of their hymns, be it remembered, make no pre- 
 tensions to be "inspired compositions" in the re- 
 viewer's sense of the terms, but are mere " human 
 effusions." The advocates of the exclusive doctrine 
 are therefore clearly "the innovators. "f 
 
 * This hymn book contains 468 pieces, a large part of 
 them from the pen of Dr. Watts ; besides 23 doxologies. 
 
 f We invite the attention of that large part of the u United 
 Presbyterian Church " who were formerly members of the 
 " Associate Synod of North Amerioa," to the following from 
 "the Testimony of the Associate Church in Scotland," isr 
 sued in 1804. They say : 
 
 1. "That the Psalms contained in the book of Psalms, 
 and other Scripture tongs, were given by Divine Inspiration 
 to be used in the ordinance of praise under the Old Testa- 
 ment." 
 
WOK 01 PSALMS E.xci.rsiVKLY. 83 
 
 7. A uoenth insuperable objection to the theory 
 
 of "the book of Psalms exclusively," is : 
 upon the (Occasional glimpses which the Holy Spirit 
 : ven us of the nature of the worship of heaven. 
 
 Thus, when Isaiah "saw the Lord sitting upon 
 a throne high and lifted up," and heard the Se- 
 raphim offering their praiees, what did they e 
 A Psalm of David! No, "Holy, holy, holy is 
 the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his 
 glory." chap. G : 2, 3. 
 
 Again : When "the beloved disciple" received 
 those inspired visions in the isle of Patmos, he saw 
 the Lord Jesus seated " on a throne in heaven," 
 and heard the songs of its blessed inhabitants. 
 Were they Psalms of David ? Hear them : u Wor- 
 thy is the Lamb that was slaix," fcc. &c. &c. 
 Scott, that very judicious and pious commen- 
 tator, says, u though heaven is the scene of these 
 visions, * * * the ntaU of the Church on 
 earth is particularly adverted fco." •* They had 
 continual reference to the temple and its worship.' 1 
 Such are the "serious corruptions of a Divine ordi- 
 nance " which are represented as used in heaven, 
 or " in the New Testament Church adoring Christ 
 
 2. • T: %i thOM Psalms and songs are of the same Divine 
 authority tinder the N >ll as 
 
 others contained in (he Mw Testament, may lie BUBg 10 the 
 ordinance of praise." Yet I>r. Presi 
 so authority to sing these New Testament songs. 
 
84 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 as actually come." Such is the " new song (chap. 
 5 : 9) in respect of the occasion and composition" 
 which is thought worthy of Seraphim and glorified 
 spirits of the just — and which the Spirit of Pro- 
 phecy indicates as suitable for the Church under 
 the Christian dispensation. Yet our reviewer can 
 think of no better designation for such worship, if 
 offered on earth, than ""sacrificing a pig instead 
 of a kid" For other examples, see Rev. 19 : 1, 7. 
 8. We object to the exclusive doctrine, because, 
 when rigidly carried out, it breaks the harmony 
 of the ordinance of praise with the inspired char- 
 acteristics of the other parts of worship. All 
 Christians agree that the New Testament, especi- 
 ally the writings of Paul, form a perfect and in- 
 fallible standard at least for prayer and preach- 
 ing the gospel. But how constantly is the atten- 
 tion of all worshipers turned to the cross ! How 
 does Paul love to dwell upon that dear name which 
 is above every name — to place the crown upon the 
 head of his Saviour ! Take a single example, one 
 out of many : In the Epistle to the Ephesians, that 
 name in its various forms, including Lord, Head, 
 Master, Beloved, occurs sixty-three times in one 
 hundred and fifty-five verses. But the peculiar 
 name Jesus, given by special revelation, is not 
 found in the Psalms — the term Saviour only 
 
BOOI Of PSALMS -IVKLY. 
 
 once,* and then, pi rring to the 
 
 I the name C 
 . an&inU I : . to 
 
 the Messiah. Yet the 
 between three and four 
 
 the Bphesians and Phi- 
 Upptana together. Can this be the only way to 
 
 or our adorable Redeemer in the ordinano 
 
 praise! The same reasoning applies to the third 
 
 person of the Blessed Trinity — the Psalms mention 
 
 the Holy Spirit not more than five or sir times. 
 
 D that hook be the .true and only Psalmody 
 
 under what is emphatically and distinctively called 
 
 11 The i int." This reasoning 
 
 .rhened by the fact, that the literal 
 
 • of certain parts of "the book of Psalms" 
 
 . leads to the strange result that congr< and 
 
 . individuals offer i>rajjers in song which no one ever 
 
 thinks of using without it. 
 
 For example, Pa. 59, where David i< speaking 
 of his political enemies as the king of Israel and 
 the protector of the Church : 
 
 _- !'-t thou them roturn, 
 Making ^r<-.tt ooise and soundi 
 Lik- Ren walk 
 
 and. 
 
 And this : 
 
 * In i |j thus in tbe pr< . how- 
 
 them, thai 
 
 8 
 
86 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 Do to them as to Midian ; 
 
 Jabin and Kison strand; 
 And SisTa; which at Endor fell, 
 
 As dung to fat the land. 
 
 These and many other specimens we suppose 
 the reviewer never uses in public prayer. But he 
 teaches the people that they are inspired patterns 
 of prayer, if only used with a tune ! 
 
 9. A ninth, and one of the most grave objec- 
 tions to the exclusive theory, is that it comes short 
 of the New Testament pattern in some of the fun- 
 damental doctrines of the gospel. The reviewer 
 Avill not affirm that the great distinctive truth, 
 Jesus of Nazareth is .the true, the long 
 promised and looked for Messiah, is any- 
 where taught in the Psalms. This was the chief 
 stumbling block of the Jews, and for teaching it 
 Christ and his followers were bitterly persecuted.* 
 "Hereby know we the Spirit of God," says the 
 beloved disciple ; "every spirit that confesseth not 
 that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of 
 God." And a denial or want of confession of this 
 doctrine, is declared to be a mark of " the many 
 deceivers who have entered into the world." But 
 so far as the distinct confession of this fundamental 
 principle of Christianity is concerned, the review- 
 er might as well be a Jew, to the extent that his 
 public praise (when the Psalm is not explained) 
 
 * Itseerrs to have become a common proverb, "Can any 
 good thing come out of Nazareth ?" 
 
BOOK OF PBALM8 EXCLUSIVELY. 
 
 Even the malignant Jew 
 
 can unite with him cordially thus far! Can this 
 1 e a full atld scriptural obedience to the command, 
 "that all men should honor THE Sox even as 
 they honor the Father?" It thus appears that in 
 
 'rtJ/s of the puhlic worship conducted by Dr. 
 P. (the first Psaltn only of the morning Sabbath 
 .services being explained)) his trumpet gives so 
 uncertain a sound, his testimony for the great vital 
 truth of Christianity is so vague and feeble, that 
 Arians and Jews cordially hold communion with 
 him! Can this be right? Where in the Psalms 
 are we taught that " the babe of Bethlehem " was 
 "the child born, the son given" of prop]. 
 Where in that book do we learn (as taught by 
 the prophets,) that he should be horn of a virgin, 
 and that Mary of Nazareth was to be his mother? 
 
 re is the institution of the Lord's Supper, 
 and the change of the Sabbath to the Lord's Day, 
 from expr&fe regard to the resurrection of Christ, 
 tatight in the PsalmS? No where. Are all these 
 preci<»u- Divine truths to be ignored in the system 
 of public and private praise adopted by Christians, 
 ignored as entirely as by the Jew.-, those bitter 
 enemies of the CROSS? Let common i 
 
 ling of Christian propriety answer the 
 
 ;ion. 
 10. A tenth objection to the exclusive theory 
 
05 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 is, that it is a tree which bears bad fruit. It was 
 not to be expected that the reviewer would under- 
 take anything like a fair and full investigation of 
 the mass of evidence adduced in the " Letters" 
 to overthrow his exclusive doctrine. That was a 
 task which prudence, "the better part of valor," 
 placed entirely out of the question. But it was 
 reasonable to expect that if unable to meet the 
 array of facts and arguments fairly, he would at 
 least treat a courteous argument with correspond- 
 ing courtesy. In this, however, he has sadly dis- 
 appointed all just expectations. He seems to have 
 forgotten that "the servant of the Lord must not 
 strive, but be gentle to all men — patient, in meek- 
 ness instructing those that oppose themselves" — 
 "showing all meekness to all men." This is his 
 preaching — but alas for his practice ! But it was 
 hardly to be supposed that the writer of the "Let- 
 ters" would be dealt with courteously, when, as 
 we have shown, such ministers as Drs. Paxton 
 and Howard are charged with "a want of ingenu- 
 ousness," which Dr. P. says "it is not his province 
 to determine whether it was intentional or other- 
 wise !" He is not willing to say whether these min- 
 isters intended to deceive the public or not! This 
 is the style in which Dr. P. can speak of acknow- 
 ledged brethren, who are every way (years ex- 
 cepted,) vastly his superiors. These are not the 
 
BOOK OF PSALMS AXCLUSl VKLY. 
 
 clusters of Eehcol, but fruits of a very different 
 vine. They reflect darkly upon their author. 
 They lack the odor of sanctity. They Would he 
 very bad from the pen of hyum-singers — hut what 
 must they be from the advocate of the only pure 
 
 Psalmody? 
 
 Btlt the unwholesome fruits of the ecclesiastical 
 m of which the exclusive literal theory of 
 Psalmody is a main pillar (the other being "close 
 communion"), are acknowledged by some of the 
 most active and useful ministers of the United 
 Presbyterian dencmination; anoVthey do not hesi- 
 tate to express their opinions pretty freely on the 
 subject. Thus, in refuting Dr. P's. tract on Church 
 Fellowship (close communion), the Rev. W. C. 
 M'Cune, of Cincinnati, says: "In view of the 
 many excellent gifts and graces in the ministry of 
 the United Presbyterian Church, must we not con- 
 fess that her ministry, for some cause, is sadly 
 inefficient in calling men to repentance and the 
 faith of the gospel?" "Why is it," remarks Mr. 
 M'Cune, "that * * * * while the record 
 of every evangelical denomination is very sad and 
 humiliating in this regard, our record, notwith- 
 standing our large accessions from the other side 
 of tie- it mtich worse, than that of - 
 
 other.-':"' " La not our want of suet-- due, h(A to 
 our exces-ive purity, hut to some corruption either 
 8* 
 
90 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 in our preaching, or in our Church polity." Mr. 
 M'Cune is evidently on the right track — and if 
 we are not greatly mistaken, it will not be long 
 until he shall discover that these acknowledged 
 evils in the United Presbyterian Church are 
 traceable in a large part to their narrow views of 
 Psalmody, which in a great measure ignore the 
 brighter and more glorious displays of " grace, 
 truth, life and immortality,' ' as brought to light 
 in the gospel. 
 
 The same writer, extending his views beyond 
 the narrow circle jf his own denomination, forcibly 
 portrays the wide-spread desolations which the 
 cause of our common Christianity is made to suffer 
 from the same schismatical sources. We quote a 
 few particulars: 
 
 (1.) " These divisions enable infidels to say that 
 the Bible must be a very obscure or a very contra- 
 dictory book, when men who profess to be born 
 of the Spirit and to be guided by the Spirit, can- 
 not sufficiently agree concerning its meaning, to 
 live together in one organization. " 
 
 (2.) "These, divisions shamefully and recklessly 
 waste the labors and means of the Church, and 
 greatly enfeeble her, by building in almost every 
 village and neighborhood, twice as many church 
 edifices and sustaining twice as many ministers as 
 are really necessary. " 
 
BOOK 09 PSALM* 3IYBLT. ( J1 
 
 -inful schisms make the evange 
 tioo of our large cities almost impossible. Nearly 
 
 all the unconverted have their sectarian prejudices, 
 And sometimes nearly every sect (there are fifty of 
 them) has its representatives on the same square 
 mile." * * * "These Bchisms in the one 
 Church of Jesus Christ have been her discou 
 ment, her weakness and her disgrace." And to 
 enforce these humiliating conclusions, Mr. M'Cune 
 adds : ** The great mass of the people in this land, 
 notwithstanding our Sabbath schools and prayer 
 meetings, our Bibles, our ministers, our churches 
 and our profession of Christianity, go down to 
 perdition, generation after generation, unforgiven, 
 unrenewed and forever lost." 
 
 We quote these paragraphs, not as expressing 
 their author's views of Psalmody — but as a relia- 
 ble testimony of the bad fruits in the United 
 Presbyterian denomination of that narrow exclus- 
 ive theory which Dr. P. has adopted — including, 
 as we verily believe, the evils which flow from 
 "close" Psalmody, no less, if not in a far higher 
 e, than ''close communion." At all events 
 the evils are there, felt, acknowledged and mourn- 
 ed over even by some of the most active mini 
 of the United Presbyterian Church. Some trace 
 them to " close communion." We have not a 
 doubt that is only half the true solution, i:' 
 -<• much Bhould be conceded. 
 
92 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 In view of such truths as those just quoted, it is 
 surely not too much to say that Dr. P's. exclusive 
 theory is a bad tree and produces very much bad 
 fruit. Infidels and the ungodly of every class are 
 led to treat with scorn Christianity itself, which 
 they confound with this " tithing of mint, cummin 
 and anise." The subject is by no means exhaust- 
 ed. But until these ten grave objections to the 
 exclusive theory are obviated, it is hardly neces- 
 sary to pursue the topic further. 
 
 Meanwhile it is gratifying to observe that with 
 the single exception of less than fifty Covenanter 
 congregations, all the venerable mother Churches 
 of Scotland are more and more repudiating the 
 contracted notions of Dr. P. The Free and Es- 
 tablished Churches, as before stated, have always 
 sanctioned such " human compositions" as those 
 of Addison, commencing, "When all thy mercies, 
 my God" — " The spacious firmament on high," 
 &c; as also sixty-five versifications of parts of 
 Isaiah, &c, which they call u paraphrases," and 
 which make no pretensions to be " literal ver- 
 sions" — but are of " human composure." 
 
 During the present year, moreover, on motion 
 .o'f Dr. Candlish, an overture was addressed to the 
 Free Church Assembly, to authorize the use of a 
 Selection of Hymns. This overture was debated at 
 the meeting of the Synod of Lothian and Tweed- 
 
BOOK OF PSALMS EXCLUSIVELY. 93 
 
 dale. Wl came b rfTore the Free 
 
 was delivered by 
 Dr. Candlish, of which the Rev. Richard L 
 Lawrenceville, who was present, has famished to 
 
 the Banner the following abstract. Dr. C. said : 
 u He loved the Psalms as much as any man living, 
 granted their inspiration and fitness for pr 
 bat denied that God ever gave to the Church in 
 any age, the book of Psalms alone for praise. 
 That the assertion that he ever did, was false and 
 gratuitous. That the Psalms was as much a book 
 of prayer as a book of praise. That many by 
 their mode of defending the Psalms alone, dishon- 
 ored the beautiful sonars of the angels at the birth of 
 Christ, and other Bible poetry, telling the people 
 that 'Worthy is the Lamb that was slain,' should 
 not be sung. That the spiritual life of the Church 
 required other words than David's in its expres- 
 sion, viz., the name of Jesus, Calvary, kc. That 
 the Church for hundreds of years had five hymns 
 and many paraphrases in their Psalter, and no 
 harm had resulted, and who will make the trouble 
 Not we who ask for the hymns, for we will 
 let y. Psalms and join you as ever. But 
 
 you, who curtail our liberty, you who wish to bind 
 our c ith your conviotioi if any 
 
 . will make the trouble. Is it meet thai 
 rob us": We fought the Liturgy as a book of 
 
&4 NO DIVINE WARRANT FOR THE 
 
 prayer ; we are not confined to Bible prayers, and 
 you cannot confine us to the Psalms in praise." 
 
 Other speakers followed in the same strain, con- 
 demning the exclusive theory: "One man said 
 he loved the Psalms so mtrch that he repudiated 
 the error in the first line of the version, and asked 
 all the Professors to state if David ever said 
 'That man had perfect blessedness;' that when- 
 ever he gave that out he felt the necessity of an 
 explanation/' Another said, that every scholar 
 knew that hymns were always used and had always 
 been used, in the Church of Scotland, and would 
 continue to be used, even if the Assembly should 
 stultify itself by asserting that God commanded 
 the Church to sing exclusively the Psalms. Our 
 great and good men, Luther, Knox, Buchanan, 
 &c, and pious women, had made and sung hymns; 
 against the tyranny of exclusion, the children, 
 and very stones would cry out; that it was about 
 time to say to exclusive bigotry, which threatend 
 trouble to all who differed from- it, that there was 
 also danger in attacking liberty of opinion and 
 action." 
 
 These facts and arguments are very interesting, 
 as showing the style of scorn in which the greatest 
 and best men of Scotland treat the exclusive theory. 
 The result was, that it was resolved, by a large 
 majority, to appoint a committee to consider the 
 whole subject. 
 
BOOJf 01 PSALMS EXCLUSIVELY. 95 
 
 At the last meeting of the Assembly of the 
 Established Churcb (May, 1806), pesolui 
 
 1 unanimously^ to and improve "the 
 
 k of Hymns, prepai B Committee of the 
 
 Church/ 1 and which u has already come to be 
 by various The committee were 
 
 "instructed to admit only such hymns to the vol- 
 ume as have found genera] acceptance among 
 Christian people," and "in the exact words of their 
 authors." Such is the power, such the progress 
 of truth, in the two principal bodies of Presbyteri- 
 ir old orthod ind, -'beloved for 
 
 the father-' - s well as for her. own. \> 
 
 for the "United Presbyterian Churcb of Scotland," 
 their "Hymn Book" has been sanctioned and in 
 use for ten or twelve years. It contains four hun- 
 dred and ninety pieQ< >f which have no 
 connection with the * k book of Psalms." And now 
 we are further " tJh • English Presbyterian 
 Synod hymn book, with 
 
 hundred and thirty songs of prai 
 
 -: we omit a$an interesting piece of histo? 
 • vent- nearer home, the recent action of the 
 f the B Presbyterian Church." 
 
 nt of the Prei • says : ■ 
 
 ': of the r : 
 
 and i: ■■ i. A resolution to cull : 
 
 count certain | mmon r 
 
96 NO DIVINE WARRANT, &C. 
 
 with the use of hymns, was rejected with indigna- 
 tion. A very large number, both of the ministers 
 and members, of the Reformed Presbyterian Church 
 use hymns when worshiping with other Christians, 
 regarding any prohibition as a rule of order apply- 
 ing only to worship in their own churches. Once 
 and again, the General Synod has refused to 
 condemn or censure, and they feel at liberty to 
 continue to sing hymns as heretofore, and they 
 intend to do so." 
 
 In view. of such cheering facts as these, both at 
 home and a.broad, a fit conclusion of this whole 
 argument is found in the noble lano-uag-e of George 
 II. Stuart before the Free Church Assembly. 
 Alluding to the debate on Psalmody, he said : " I 
 am a Psalm singer; but like you, I sometimes sing 
 hymns. Oh, sir," he continued, " this singing 
 should not keep us apart. , I mean to devote my 
 whole life to a union of all Presbyterians; then we 
 would be the grandest body the world ever saw." 
 This brought down the house, who clapped, laugh- 
 ed, and in many ways evinced their joy. 
 
DR. p's. PUtSOKAIATlKS, AC. 07 
 
 PART III. 
 
 DB. PS. PEBSONALITIES AND MIS- 
 STATEMENTS. 
 
 A A J E have now examined, in brief, the strie- 
 \ ▼ tares of the reviewer so far as they bear 
 upon the question, whether Roi reification 
 
 is an "inspired Psalmody," and the further ques- 
 tion of u a Drvixi-; warrant for the ezelurii 
 of the one hundred and fifty Psalms in public and 
 private praise/ 1 We next propose to notice several 
 things of a more pergonal nature — especially as 
 this will furnish a suitable opportunity to expose 
 a number of the misstatements and illogical rea- 
 sonings of the reviewer. 
 
 I. Concerning "Gall." 
 
 t more than once alleges that the 
 author of the "Letters" had, as he express 
 u du ' i gall against Rouse's paraphrase. 91 
 
 if this w he would have done nothing 
 
 me of the United P 
 
 Thus in an article in the 
 
 >//, published last Pebmary, from 
 
98 DR. P'S. PERSONALITIES 
 
 the pen of Rev. Andrew Ilerron, we read, "It 
 has grieved me much to see the undisguised con- 
 tempt which some of the writers have poured upon 
 our venerable and time-honored version." These 
 writers, he adds, were discussing the subject of a 
 new version in their own paper. If such be the 
 low estimate which even United Presbyterian cler- 
 gymen have formed of Rouse, Dr. P. should look 
 with some leniency upon the expressions of others. 
 But the language of the reviewer is an entire 
 misstatement. The " Letters" present facts which 
 Dr. P. has very unsuccessfully attempted to set 
 aside, in regard to the mixed cfcracter of the 
 versification of Rouse. Those unquestionable facts 
 overthrow a large number of the logical positions 
 assumed in his book and in his review. If there 
 be any "gall" in the case, possibly it may be found 
 in his own breast. The author of the " Letters" 
 had none of it, and therefore could not discharge 
 it. If the "Letters" had employed such expres- 
 sions as " Watts' Whymes," &c, they would have 
 had something of "gall" about them. 
 
 II. Mr. A's. "Artful Evasions." 
 
 Dr. P. charges the author of the " Letters" 
 repeatedly with "artfully evading'' the "main 
 proposition," viz., " Is a fair and full version of 
 the Psalms of Divine appointment?" But if he 
 
AND MISSTATKM1 : 99 
 
 ha 1 read with any care the book he reviews, he 
 would have seen that the object in the first five of 
 ters" is stated to be "to demonstrate that 
 this '.proposition 1 does not give a correct repre- 
 sentation of the position practically held by him- 
 self and other authors."* This, as before stated, 
 is proved by such incontrovertible facts as these: 
 1. They have no fair and literal version — no ver- 
 sion at all — but a patchwork paraphrase. 2. 
 They have not even a "full" paraphrase; for they 
 4 'lay aside as useless" large parts of the inspired 
 Psalmti — "songs composed in heaven." 3. Of 
 course the assumption of "Divine appointment 
 for a version of the whole book" is a mere shadow 
 without the substance. The reviewer sings a 
 
 amount of "human composition" — profanely 
 mutilates GhxTa Psalm book — and then very com- 
 
 ntly denounces others for the very acts 
 of which he himself is guilty ! Is there no 
 "evasion" in this case? People of sense will laugh 
 to scorn the man who with great gravity in word 
 and manner, points to "the sin of Nadab and 
 Abihu," talks of the crime of "offering strange 
 fire," fci sacrificing a pig instead of a kid," 
 and then after leveling these and other maledic- 
 
 st the head- of ; rians, turns q 
 
 ly round and "impious" example! 
 
 * Letters on Psalmodf, p, 
 
100 PR. P'S, PERSONALITIES 
 
 III. " Teaching our Blessed Saviour." 
 
 The reviewer accuses us with "undertaking to 
 teach our blessed Lord what language He should 
 employ in declaring the truth." But here again 
 Dr. P's. zeal overleaps his discretion and exceeds 
 the truth. The case to which he refers is this : 
 In speaking of the Greek title of the book of 
 Psalms — Biblos Psalmon — the "Letters" admit 
 that it is used by Luke (chap. 20 : 42) to designate 
 that book. At the same time it is stated that the 
 original inspired Hebrew title is Tehillim — which 
 means simply "praises," whether in prayer or 
 otherwise, with no exclusive reference to psalms 
 at all, this latter word (jisalms) commonly referring 
 to the accompanying instrumental music, being 
 derived from a Greek w r ord signifying "to strike 
 the chords of an instrument," and hence "to sing, 
 to chant, with such an accompaniment," 
 
 .Now, whilst we admit that Luke reports one 
 of the addresses of our Lord as using the title 
 Biblos Psalmon — this being the title employed by 
 the Septuagint, which was generally quoted by 
 the inspired apostles — this fact, certainly, does 
 not set aside the original title of the Psalms in 
 Hebrew, viz., Tehillim, praises — and the "Letters" 
 add, "that the propriety" of the more general 
 title originally chosen by the Spirit of God, is 
 
AND MI- MS. 101 
 
 obvious : became b tm< t of the Psalma arc 
 
 prayers, as the ninetieth, "the prayer of Moses" 
 
 — fvrtij are OH general topics of instruction, ten 
 are prophetical, and a few are historical. These 
 
 are the facts on which tlie reviewer charges the 
 author of the u Letters' 1 with undertaking "to 
 
 teach our Lord what language he should employ." 
 But even if we were to admit that our Lord did 
 086 the Greek title, and not the original inspired 
 title of the Hebrew, would there be anything very 
 
 me in saying, as the " Letters" do, that the 
 original title chosen by the Holy Spirit seems, 
 from its being u more general," to have a greater 
 "propriety" than the Greek title of the Septu- 
 agint, even if it were used by Christ? In that 
 
 both would of course be considered as inspir- 
 ed, and there would be nothing rash or impious 
 in Baying that the one. the Hebrew title, being 
 more general, se-ms to indicate the more com- 
 mon characteristics of the book of Psalms, viz., 
 u praises," whether in prayer, or by singing, or 
 with trumpets, and the dance; and that the Greek 
 title — Bibloi Ptalnum — rather seems to convey 
 the idea of '-the common musical accompaniment" 
 with which the Psalms were originally sung. Such 
 is the whole "head and front" of the dreadful 
 offence committed by the author of the "Letters,* 1 
 which Dr. P # I ; our blessed Lord 
 
102 DR. P'S. PERSONALITIES 
 
 how to speak !" But the fact is, Dr. P. is entirely 
 mistaken in saying "that our blessed Lord desig- 
 nates the Psalms by the title ' Biblos Psalmon.' " 
 He does no such thing! Dr. P. certainly knows 
 that our Lord did not teach in the Greek language. 
 He surely knows that the vernacular of the Jews, 
 spoken by our Lord, was the Syro-Chaldaic, not 
 the Greek. How then could he employ the Greek 
 title "Bibles Psalmon ¥" That is the title used by 
 Luke in translating the Saviour's discourse into 
 Greek. Now as Dr. P. tells us " the Greek Sep- 
 tuagint was the translation used generally through- 
 out the Church," it was natural that Luke, who 
 was writing Greek, should use the very title of the 
 Psalms in the Septuagint, viz., Biblos Psalmon. 
 But how ridiculous in the reviewer to represent 
 our blessed Lord as teaching in a language which 
 not one in a thousand of his hearers could under- 
 stand ! All who can read the Greek Testament, 
 know too, that the apostles, acting under Divine 
 inspiration, did ordinarily quote the Septuagint 
 when referring to the Old Testament, and that 
 too in various instances where the translation of 
 the Septuagint was in some respects quite errone- 
 ous, but sufficiently correct in the matter referred 
 to. If any proof of this is needed, look into 
 "Home's Introduction." Now as "Biblos Psalmon" 
 used by the Septuagint, is no translation of the 
 
AND misstati:mi:.vis. 103 
 
 Hebrew title TehUUm in the Old 
 
 it id plain that our Lord certainly used the 
 
 Ohaldaic or Hebrew title in addressing the Jews 
 
 in their own tongue; and Luke, writing in the 
 Ghneek language, appears to have quoted the Sep- 
 
 tuagint as sufficiently aeeurate to indicate the 
 book referred to. What then becomes of the 
 reviewer's statement, "that our Lord designates 
 /-alms by the title Biblos P&almon, "book 
 of Psalms.' ' Our Lord demonstrably did no such 
 thing, for the plain reason that he wished his 
 rs to understand him. 
 
 While, however, we maintain that Luke and the 
 Others wrote under Divine inspiration, we know, 
 too, that this did not prevent the four evangelists 
 from often reporting the discourses of our Lord in 
 l anguag e greatly differing from each other. Of 
 eoiUfoe they did not all report the precise terms 
 which he employed on any given occasion, nor any 
 ise Greek translation of them. :: 
 
 In view of these familiar facts, the revi 
 will scarcely venture to repeat his charge that we 
 profanely "undertake to teach our Lord what 
 language he should employ ]" 
 
 * A familiar examph 
 Lord e heed how ye hear.'* Another I 
 
 " Take heed who.- 
 
104 DR. P's. PERSONALITIES 
 
 IV, "You and Dr. Watts." 
 
 Dr. P. does the writer of the " Letters" too 
 much honor (though he thinketh not so) in coupling 
 his name with that of Dr. Watts, thus — " you and 
 Dr. Watts, par nobile fratrum," L 0., a noble 
 pair of brothers. We are bound to be especially 
 thankful to Dr. P., since he himself calls Dr. 
 Watts " this distinguished writer" — "this cele- 
 brated writer;" though our modesty recoils from 
 the distinction. Few men have been more grossly 
 slandered than Dr. Watts ; and it is remarkable 
 that while repeating his old song about the "prin- 
 ciples" adopted by that writer in preparing his 
 versification of the Psalms, the reviewer carefully 
 avoids the smallest notice of the exposure made 
 in Letter XIV., of the gross and inexcusable mis- 
 representations of his sentiments. There are some 
 things exposed in that Letter which look very 
 dark, and should cause shame to redden the cheek 
 of some persons. As to what Dr. P. has so often 
 asserted, viz., that the Presbyterian Church must 
 of necessity approve certain principles of Dr. 
 Watts, this no more follows than that he and his 
 brethren must adopt Rouse's principles, agreeably 
 to which he makes David say the Christian u hath 
 perfect blessedness," which implies perfect holi- 
 ness, and teaches the error of " sinless perfection ;" 
 
I j.mknts. lOt 
 
 principles which led Rouse to n present the atone* 
 and Batifi Christ as a compulsory 
 
 work: as in Ps. 69: 4, "To ebndeb fobosd wab 
 1." Thus, Dr. Watts says, "1 hate entirely 
 omitted some whole Psalms." But is this tn 
 the Presbyterian Pbalmody! Even our little chil- 
 dren know that it is not. That such writers Sfi 
 
 reviewer are incapable, through prejudice, of 
 treating Dr. Watts fairly, appears from many 
 examples such as the following: On page 96 of 
 "Pressly on Psalmody'' Dr. Watts is quoted as 
 Baying that some parts of "the matter and words 
 of the Psalms are almost opposite to the spirit of 
 the gospel." But just four pages farther on, Dr. 
 P. represents Dr. Watts as " producing the im- 
 
 ion that there is something in the Psalms 
 
 7/ to the spirit of the gospel." See 
 
 how the objectionable matter grows in his hands 
 
 from ••almost opposite" to "entirely contrary." 
 
 He appears to observe no difference ! 
 
 Again : Dr. P. is wry severe upon Dr. Watts 
 
 he represents ** David as having uttered 
 
 rsdnal enemies." And 
 
 [aires — * k Could the Psalmist then have been 
 under the influence of the Holy Spirit':" The 
 
 ver is so blindly prejudiced that he oai 
 
 stinction ; spirit of private r« . 
 
 and proper personal hostility on the part of David, 
 
106 DR. P'S. PERSONALITIES 
 
 acting as the Judge of Israel and the Protector of 
 the Church ! It is in this latter character that Dr. 
 Watts speaks of "the Psalmist's personal ene- 
 mies," and "his resentment'' toward them. 
 
 Suppose that Dr. Chalmers were tried by the 
 same blind and prejudiced standard which Dr. 
 P. applies to Dr. Watts. Thus: "We have no 
 doubt," says Dr. Chalmers, "that this Joab was 
 often in the eye of the Psalmist, when he penned 
 his complaints and maledictions against his ene- 
 mies." Again says Dr. Chalmers: "Let the 
 spirit breathed forth by him in the Psalms guide 
 and actuate us, save when he indulges in the vin- 
 dictive strain. * * * * For nothing can he 
 more adverse than is the spirit which often seems, 
 at least, to break forth in the Psalms, to the 
 spirit of our own Christianity."* Truly this is 
 almost as bad as Dr. Watts ! The reviewer should 
 snatch his thunderbolts and hurl them at the 
 head of the late venerable leader of the Free 
 Church of Scotland ! Again : Dr. P. in his blind 
 prejudice inquires: "Do you think that (accord- 
 ing to Dr. Watts) the language which the Holy 
 Ghost uttered can have a tendency 'to sink our 
 devotion and hurt our worship.'" We answer: 
 Certainly not, unless grossly perverted from the 
 original design for which such language was em- 
 * Sab. Scrip. Readings, vol. 2, pp. 401, 447. 
 
and misstatements. 107 
 
 ployed. The Holy Ghost uttered, Dent 23:1, 
 M He that is wounded," fcc< It is i part of holy 
 
 Scripture, "profitable for doctrine, reproof, and 
 instruction in righteousness," — and "of use to 
 
 direct us in praise and prayer." But suppose 
 Dr. P. should introduce that text into one of his 
 public prayers — does he not think it would have 
 "a tendency to sink the devotion of his congrega- 
 tion and hurt their worship." Or suppose he 
 should announce that text as the foundation of a 
 sermon ! Would it not sink their devotion ? Would 
 it not hurt their worship? Or does he think it 
 would refine and Bpirifoalize it ? Certainly instead 
 of being spiritually benefited, Dr. P. well knows 
 that by such a use of Deut. 23 : 1 his people would 
 be constrained to think the preacher crazy, and 
 his elders would rush to the pulpit to arrest his 
 folly, and sink him out of that sacred place ! And 
 all this simply from using "the language which 
 the Holy Ghost uttered !" 
 
 We suppose, therefore, that it is plain to all 
 persons of common sense (perhaps we may except 
 this reviewer) that there are some parts of " Scrip- 
 ture given by inspiration," which if introduced 
 into the public service of the sanctuary, would 
 tend "to sink devotion and hurt the worship. M 
 Dr. Watt- was of this opinion in regard to 
 of the Psalms, just as other 
 
108 DR. P'S. PERSONALITIES 
 
 men of sense apply it to some other parts of the 
 " language which the Holy Ghost uttered." He is 
 speaking of certain Jewish peculiarities which he 
 admits to be " the beauties and perfections of 
 Hebrew song," but ill-adapted to praise under 
 the gospel. He thinks " that in the use of 
 such passages the unthinking multitude go sing- 
 ing in cheerful ignorance, across the river Jordan, 
 through the land Gebal, Ammon and Amelek, * 
 * * they join with the high sounding cymbals, 
 their thoughts are bedarkened with the smoke of 
 incense and covered with Jewish veils." "Some 
 dreadful curse against men is proposed to our 
 lips" — such as " consume them in wrath, con- 
 sume them that they may not be" — Ps. 59 : 13. 
 " Thou hast given me the necks of my enemies, that 
 I may destroy them that hate me'' It is in reference 
 to a number of such passages he inquires, "Why 
 must I join with David in his legal or prophetic 
 language to curse my enemies, when my Saviour 
 has taught me to love and bless them?" Dr. 
 Chalmers felt the same difficulty, as before quoted. 
 Dr. Watts says he designed the "Jewish Psalmist 
 plainly to appear ', yet leave Judaism behind.''' 
 "What need is there," he adds, "that I should 
 wrap up the shining honors of my Redeemer in 
 the dark and shadowy language of a religion (or 
 dispensation) which is now forever abolished ; espe- 
 
AND MISSTATEMENTS. 109 
 
 cially hemently Earned 
 
 by Paul a ." u For why 
 
 should I now address G "1 my Saviour in a 
 with burnt sacrifices of fatlings and the incense of 
 
 rams': Why should I pray to be sprinkled with 
 p, or recur to the Wo »d of bullocks and 
 . or hind my sacrifices with cords to the horns 
 of tin fcc. 
 
 Now it is obvious to every candid mind that 
 in thus ''accommodating the book of Psalms to 
 Christian (as distinguished from Jewish) worship," 
 as Dr. Watts expresses it, his plan could have 
 reference only to those parts of certain of them 
 which contained i 1 rish peculiarities. And 
 
 in this he only proposed to do in good po* tni what 
 Dr. Pressly and other ministers of the tJ 
 
 •yterian Church do every Sabbafh day in 
 .. explain these passages as interpreted 
 by the New Testament. Yet Dr. P. has the bold* 
 . K It would appear in the estimation 
 of this man (Dr. Watts. ) that the teaching of the 
 Spirit which the Psalmist enjoyed, Was very 
 icient, and that it was necessary that one in 
 modern times should undertake the office of teach- 
 ing him I tike a Christian/' M Th< 
 I on such a principle," add 
 I\. *• i i pun the Spirit of 'inspira- 
 tion. 1 ' plain that W not a whit 
 
 10 
 
110 DR. p'S. PERSONALITIES 
 
 more guilty in this matter than Pressley— the dif- 
 ference consisting in this, that the one " teaches'' 
 in verse, the other in very plain prose. Such are 
 the candor and fairness with which Dr. Watts has 
 been dealt with by the sticklers for an exclusive 
 theory ! By this method how easy to rob almost 
 any writer of his reputation ; as for example, when 
 D'Aubigne says of Luther, that "he undertook the 
 difficult task of making these Divine teachers (the 
 
 O v. 
 
 apostles) speak his mother tongue," viz., the Ger- 
 man language.* Of course, the inference must be 
 that these "Divine teachers" were very slow in 
 receiving instruction ! ! So Dr. Watts uses the 
 expression — "teach the inspired Psalmist to speak 
 English;" i. e. by translation. Another "fearful 
 indignity to the Holy Spirit ! ! !" 
 
 It is not denied that a few phrases employed by 
 Dr. Watts, in order strongly to convey his meaning, 
 are injudicious, because liable to be misunderstood. 
 But the examples now adduced, and others in the 
 "Letters," demonstrate that if read with candor 
 and that fair and charitable temper which should 
 govern all Christians, especially in controversy with 
 each other, he would be found to have said nothing 
 worse than Dr. Chalmers, Dr. John Owen, and most 
 other ministers have said in relation to " the lan- 
 guage of the Holy Spirit." Nor is there the slight- 
 * History of Reformation, vol. 3, p. 31. 
 
AND HI80EAXBMRHT& 111 
 
 est inconsistency in his declaring : "I esteem the 
 book of Psalms as the n ible part of the Old 
 
 "Nothing li more proper to furnish 
 our souls with devout thoughts, and lead us into a 
 world of spiritual experiences. The expressions 
 that are not Jewish and peculiar, give us constant 
 in prayer and praise." "If we find our 
 hearts very barren," he adds, "it has been often 
 very useful to take a book in hand, * * above 
 all the Psalms of David, some of the prophecies of 
 Isaiah, &c. Thus we may lift up our hearts to 
 God." Yet this is the man who is said to have 
 spoken u disparagingly of the book of Psalms." 
 This is the man whose intention is said to have 
 been M impiously to reject the Psalmist from the 
 Church," though he expressly says his object was 
 -•to lead the Psalmist of Israel into the church 
 of Christ, without *any thing of a Jew about 
 him." And thifl is what Dr. Watts means by 
 11 teaching the Psalmist to speak like a Christian" 
 — ue.ns distinguished from the phraseology and 
 of Judaism employed in some of the Psalms. 
 Yet the plain reader of Dr. P's. book and review, 
 Would suppose Dr. W. had been guilty of I B] 
 of blasphemy ! I And bo Rr. P. charges upon Dr. 
 tfl and all who employ his paraphrases of the 
 Psali 
 
112 DR. P'S. PERSONALITIES 
 
 V. "Such Crude Statements." 
 
 The reviewer goes far astray in attempting to 
 correct what he styles "such crude and inconsider- 
 ate statements'' — by the author of the " Letters. " 
 Copying the error of "the Testimony of the Uni- 
 ted Presbyterian Church," he seriously affirms: 
 " This precious collection of Psalms was given 
 by the instrumentality of the sweet Psalmist of 
 Israel." "A collection given by David !" Does 
 not Dr. P. know that David wrote only a little 
 more than seventy of the whole "collection" of one 
 hundred and fifty pieces ? A number of them were 
 composed long after David's death, and some dur- 
 ing the seventy years' captivity, and after it. The 
 reviewer is rather "crude and inconsiderate" here. 
 He says "the collection was given by David," 
 though David had been in his grave between four 
 and five hundred years before Ezra formed "the 
 collection," and placed it in the inspired canon! ! 
 
 VI. Dr. P's. Bewilderment. 
 
 Dr. P. betrays his sad bewilderment and the 
 embarrassment of his position, in nothing more 
 than when he claims our "endorsement of Rouse's 
 versification as a correct and faithful version of the 
 Psalms." He arrives at this sage conclusion from 
 the following facts : In refuting the shameful 
 
AND IOS8TATSMB] 1 18 
 
 charge "that Presbyterians are guilty of impi 
 
 ; - Psalm book," the "Letters' 1 quote 
 the act of the supreme judicatory ui' our Church, 
 17 s 7. u We are FAB from DISAPPROVING of Rouse's 
 version, commonly called the old realms" — while 
 act authorizes the system of Dr. Watts 
 as amended. Of course this was not exactly the 
 lame iou%hj rejecting the Psalms." Per- 
 
 ceiving, however, the mistake made in calling 
 Rouse " a version or translation," the author of 
 ays — "our supreme judicatory 
 authorised the use of R nox," not 
 
 his version. Yet the reviewer exposes his own 
 great simplicity by dwelling upon this as k * an 
 endorsement of Rouse as a correct and faithful 
 n of the R-alms I" Does he not know the dif- 
 ference between a version and a versification? And 
 to render the reviewer'.- lapsus altogether marvel- 
 ous, five lines from tfa ious inference he 
 himself quotes the " Letters'' as calling Rouse " a 
 Yet almost in the same breath he 
 accuses the author with teaching that Rouse is "a 
 correct and faithful version." Thus he flounders 
 on from point to point without either rhyme or 
 - n. 
 But if we were to concede in this instance all 
 that the revieu upon the author of the 
 u Let: ;»'iit and contradictory, it 
 10* 
 
114 DR. P'S. PERSONALITIES 
 
 would not be more "impious" than the following 
 from a United Presbyterian paper: "Jones' ver- 
 sion sometimes leaves out a part of the inspired 
 original ; the Scottish version (Rouse) very often 
 adds to #."* Thus by adopting and singing Rouse, 
 Dr. P. " practically declares that the work of God 
 needs to be mended." And here again his own 
 religious associates plead guilty to the very horri- 
 ble thing which he so frequently disclaims, viz., 
 that "uninspired men have authority to compose 
 songs of praise (or what in principle is the same, 
 parts of songs), to be employed in the worship of 
 God." And this daring attempt "to write better 
 than David," occurs not once nor twice, but by the 
 admission of his own brethren, "very often." 
 Let him take the beam out of his own eye, before 
 he volunteers to take the mote out of ours. 
 
 YII. Dr. P. on "a due regard for Scripture." 
 
 "The Letters on Psalmody," says Dr. P., "em- 
 ploy language respecting the Psalms, which is 
 inconsistent with a due regard for the word of 
 God." What are the pretexts for this grave accu- 
 sation? It may be proper to premise that the 
 reviewer's "regard for the word of God" does not 
 rank very high with any person of reflection, who 
 knows that he unhesitatingly proclaims "Rouse's 
 
 * Presbyterian Witness, July 28, 1860. 
 

 AND ftUSfffATRMBNTO. 115 
 
 paraphrase," with ; unin- 
 
 liment, as u a true and literal 
 the original — the Qod as really as the 
 
 translation of our Bibles."* While such a 
 
 record stands against him under hifl own liand and 
 seal, hi- zeal foi that word most necessarily rate 
 beh»w par. But perhaps his preaching 18 b 
 than his practice. Let us sec. 
 
 •• The author of the Letters," he says, "cnn 
 sucli dubious language as the following : 'It is not 
 denied, tl the most part the Psalms 
 
 given to the Jews to be used in their worship.'" 
 Dr. P. means that to say any part of the Psalms 
 not given to be sung," is little short of pro- 
 fane! Put why so? Because * ; the Holy Spirit 
 appropriates to this collection the title 'Book of 
 i and Psalms are songs which are to be 
 
 sung."t But this is not very profound logic. Sup- 
 H o reason thus : u The Holy Spirit in the Old 
 ament calls the Psalms T.Jtilnm, *pri 
 and gives one of them the title, ; a prayer of 
 Therefore it follows that the 'particu- 
 lar use for which all these prajprs and parts of 
 prayers w r ere Intended WBS to praise God by singing 
 tin m Does Dr. P. s'ng his public pray 
 
 Our Catechiss at "in our pxi 
 
 prais* God/' If this logic be n<»t as sound ai 
 
 *Pre«ly on Psalmody, p. 117. r Pretsly, pric 
 
11G DR. P's. PERSONALITIES 
 
 P's. he can detect the flaw. And what w ill he do 
 with the closing song of Moses? Deut. 31. "Moses 
 spaee in the ears of all the congregation of Israel 
 the words of this song." The Hebrew word trans- 
 lated song, is the same used in the titles of thirty 
 of the Psalms ; and Dr. P. says, " they are songs 
 which are to be sung," But Moses did not sing 
 this song (Deut. 31), nor have we any evidence 
 that it ever was sung. Yet it is*a "song" of the 
 same nature, and bears a similar title with thirty 
 of the one hundred and fifty Psalms. From this 
 appears how feeble the argument from the titles, 
 whether general or particular, to prove their special 
 use. So in Ps. 18, "David spake unto the Lord 
 the words of this song, and said" &c. 
 
 Again, "Psalms are songs to be sung." But 
 was not the song of Moses and Miriam at the Red 
 Sea actually sung? The same is true of the songs 
 of Deborah and of the Hebrew women in celebra- 
 ting the victories of David. Is not "the Song of 
 Solomon" a song? Of course it should be sung. 
 It bears the same title w^ith thirty of the Psalms, 
 and is the most excellent of them all — the very 
 "song of songs." According to the reviewer's 
 logic, it is quite profane to say it is not to be sung. 
 If "Psalms are songs which are to be sung" — 
 as saith the reviewer — so are the Hebrew shirirn 
 " songs which are to be sung;" for thirty of the book 
 
AND IflBf 117 
 
 of Ps ilms Nel jo, replies 
 
 Dr. P. u For the i " the 1 1 Mm, 
 
 at aot all ! Such is Dr. Ps 
 
 &rd for the word of God!'' such th 
 dinar which he employs. On such Blight 
 
 pre te x ts as these Dr. P. founds the grave accusa- 
 tion tgainst us of u a disregard for the word of 
 
 God." Believing, as we do. that u the whole word 
 
 of God is of use to direct us in prai< as well as 
 
 in prs is no more profane to regard some 
 
 of the Psalms as not intended to be sung by 
 
 the Jews in their public worship, than to regard 
 
 their numerous other songs spoken and sung by 
 
 •lurch, as not now to be sung — which is Dr. 
 
 I »ctrine. Besides all this — if the titles of the 
 
 i as prove that they must all be sung, as Dr. 
 
 P. reasons, do not the express command and cx- 
 
 8 of 2d Chronic! - : .ove that the 
 
 11 Lamentations of Jeremiah" must be Bung, M 
 
 Jeremiah lamented for Josiah; and all the sir 
 
 men and the rii men -pake of Josiah in their 
 
 lamentations to this <ln/. and made them an OIIDI- 
 
 LBL: and, behold, they are written in 
 
 • • This is mneh better authority 
 
 of the term Ptafcu, El appears 
 
 ■■. that the t; 
 
 and particular, of the "book of Psalms 91 do not 
 
 prove that they were all sung in Divine worship 
 
118 DR. P'S. PERSONALITIES 
 
 by the Jews. And if the author of the " Letters' 
 has sinned in suggesting this truth, he is at least 
 in excellent company. Thus Dr. Joseph Angus, 
 in his " Bible Hand-Book," uses the following 
 language : " Most of the pieces were intended not 
 only to express religious feeling, but to be sung 
 devotionally in public service."* "Most of the 
 pieces' 9 — not all. Yet Dr. P. says this is " loose 
 theology," and " a disregard for the word of God." 
 
 VIII. Dr. P's. "reverence" for the Word. 
 
 The reviewer elsewhere repeats the grave accu- 
 sation of a a disregard for the word of inspiration," 
 and in more emphatic language. Thus, along 
 with the Synod of Pittsburgh, the author of the 
 "Letters" is charged with "sentiments utterly 
 inconsistent with due reverence for the word of 
 God." And he exclaims, " Shame on the minister 
 of the gospel" — " Shame on the reverend Synod !" 
 
 The horrid crime which has so vexed the review- 
 er's righteous soul, is this: "The ' Letters' state 
 that there are portions of the inspired writings 
 w T hich no minister of common sense ever reads from 
 the pulpit, or uses as v a text for a sermon !" This 
 fact is believed to be a strong defence of the Pres- 
 
 * This learned work is highly recommended by Prof. 
 Jacobus, u as a guide for the class room" — " it makes a great 
 advance," he says, "upon Home as an outline of Biblical 
 science." 
 
LTSM1NTS. H9 
 
 bjterian theory, which omits some parts of the 
 Psalms from our -; , "Readii g the 
 
 Scri] - a part of Divine worship as really 
 
 I the omission of parts of the 
 Psalms in the one case is just as proper at 
 
 ion of parts of the other Scriptures in the other. 
 The parts referred to are a few texts in the Leviti- 
 cal law.. To utter such a statement, however, Dr. 
 P. denounces as " inconsistent with due reverence 
 for the word of God." But it is difficult to believe 
 him' serious in the matter. Take for example, 
 Deut. 23 : 1. We quote from the Latin Vulgate : 
 hitrabit cunuehus, attritls vel amputate te$tu 
 culis aut abscisso veretro, ccclcsiam Domini. Truly 
 Dr. P. must be hardly pressed in argument, since 
 he is driven to defend such a passage as "profitable'' 
 to be read to the congregation or used as a text 
 for a sermon ! 
 
 That there is no "irreverence" in assuming the 
 position of the " Letters," can be shown thus: 
 The word of Grod is perfect, as are all his works 
 of nature, which' are fearfully and wonderfully 
 Yet our fallen and corrupt state renders 
 i some instances a Christian duty, 
 as iii dress. Just so with a very f 
 
 :>rd of God. They arc for private use. If 
 I publicly to the Jews, it was at a 
 y of manners and in B 
 
120 DR. P'S. PERSONALITIES 
 
 different state of society. But the progress of 
 refinement and delicacy of sentiment under the gos- 
 pel has made some, yea, many things inexpedient 
 to us, which were proper to the Jews. For abun- 
 dant proofs, read the Levitical law. We find no 
 such texts as the one above quoted, in the New Tes- 
 tament. The exigencies of his argument, however, 
 evidently drove Dr. P. to assume a position which 
 on further reflection he will probably concede to 
 be practically indelicate, if not worse. We have 
 already said that even he dare not make such an 
 experiment upon the good sense and Christian 
 conscientiousness of his congregation. Dr. P. 
 may mount his ecclesiastical stilts and vapor about 
 "nice sensibility," "refined delicacy, "transcen- 
 dental purity," &c. This may serve a purpose in 
 argument, but a little common sense, " the sober, 
 second thought," will in practice lay a decent re- 
 straint even upon him. 
 
 IX. Dr. P. speaks in his haste. 
 
 Dr., P. in his carelessness, mistakes the "Let- 
 ters" as teaching " that we are no more obligated 
 to sing the whole of the 150 Psalms than we are 
 to sing every other part of the inspired records." 
 That is not the doctrine taught in the " Letters." 
 They argue that we are no more obligated to sing 
 the whole of the Psalms (in the ordinance of praise) 
 
AND MISSTATBMBN 121 
 
 than w«' are oblig d to read (not Bing) the whole 
 of the Bible from the pulpit, in the ice of 
 
 public instruction. Dr. P., like a much greater 
 ami better man, sometj a things u i 
 
 A quarterly reviewer and grave professor ought 
 
 ler Bingular illustration 
 of the review lent inac- 
 
 curacy, is as follows: "The great question/ 1 he 
 says, "is, Ha Divine appointment for the 
 
 .' the devotional comp of uninspired 
 
 men in th warshi If" Dr. P. of course 
 
 irs in the negative. But does he i 
 ia D ship, the prayer and propheci 
 
 Balaam, recorded Num : 7—24 ? 
 
 • rea I th of the 
 
 people? i he will Bay, Balaam wasro- 
 
 '. Well, then take the e - of Job's 
 
 friends, of whom God Bays, "Ye have not sj 
 of me tht* thing which is right." Or take th 
 
 ►na of the New Testament "devils,' 1 that Je- 
 sus was the true M- ssi th, 4 * the Holy One of ( 
 
 Dr.»P. never read these pass "the 
 
 public I > >d ':" Th in here he commits 
 
 n/ sin of using "the compositions of unin- 
 
 i men," yea, of <L w&, in the worship of I 
 And in that they 
 
 [positions' 1 — ci 
 of " the devils" were not ! Th 
 n 
 
122 DR. P's. PERSONALITIES 
 
 this, and yet he intimates to us the danger of offer- 
 ing " strange fire," if we use in worship the com- 
 positions of uninspired men — if we dare to sing 
 such a hymn as, 
 
 All hail the power of Jesus' name ! 
 
 Let angels prostrate fall ; 
 Bring forth the royal duidem, 
 
 And crown him "Lord of all. 
 
 Nor is this all. A literal interpretation of the re- 
 viewer's language as above quoted, would plainly 
 exclude from " the worship of God" all his ser- 
 mons and all his extempore prayers — for obviously 
 both classes are " the compositions of an uninspired 
 man!" He doubtless designed to limit.his remark 
 to singing praise as one form of "worship" — but 
 instead of that, he employs terms which if prac- 
 tically applied, must shut his own mouth and that 
 of all his ministerial brethren as to preaching and 
 prayer — and confine the instructions of the pulpit 
 simply to the utterance of the letter of the Holy 
 Scripture. Dr. P. may certainly confess with Da- 
 vid — " I said it in my haste !" 
 
 X. Dr. P's. great Inconsistency. 
 
 Similar precipitancy and consequent error ap- 
 pear in the reviewer's comments upon the action 
 of the Associate Reformed Church in 1793. Her 
 highest judicatory is quoted sanctioning Rouse 
 as "a safe translation." Dr. P. calls this an 
 
AND MISSTAUMBS £&. 123 
 
 "explicit statement, which," he Bays, "has been 
 before the public for more than half a century/' 
 lie thru adds, " In all thai has fc > n writh n on the 
 subject, the same position has been occupied." 
 saf* translation!" Bat is that the Bame as ; 
 "that as a true and literal translation of the origi- 
 nal, it (Rouse) is decidedly superior to any other 
 in the English language : And does that mean 
 merely that "it (Rouse) is a safe translation V 
 Here evidently the reviewer spake in the Bame 
 l * haste' 1 with which he has written his review. 
 In his judgment, " Rouse's paraphrase' 1 is not 
 y "a safe translation," but "superior as a 
 literal translation" to the prose version 
 in our English Bible.-! Yet he now assures us in 
 his review, that this outrageous st. incut is i% the 
 same" 3 ly merely that " it (Rouse) is a safe 
 
 translation !" 
 
 Another hasty announcment is this — "Accord- 
 ing to him (author of the " Letters") there IS (in 
 llou>< kissiOn of much important matter." 
 
 " The ground" he adds, w -of this charge (against 
 that the titles prefixed to many of the 
 Psalma are omitted/ 1 Observe; Dr. J*, says "tJit 
 ground of the c f omission.' 1 But it' he had 
 
 read the " Letters' 1 with any oare, he most have 
 
 und of the oha 
 
 * Pr- -alraody. p. 117. 
 
124 DR. P's. PERSONALITIES 
 
 against Rouse. Numerous other specifications be- 
 sides the omission of the titles are adduced in the 
 " Letters," but the reviewer wisely lets them alone 
 and "passes by on the other side." 
 
 XL Dr. P's. " hasty Logic." 
 
 The following is a specimen of the reviewer's 
 hash/ logic, as well as hasty language. "Do you 
 admit," he inquires, "that these songs were given 
 to the Church to be used in the worship of God?" 
 Certainly we do. Presbyterians gladly worship 
 Giod by reading the Psalms in public and private, 
 and repeating them in prayer. But if Dr. P's. 
 question refers only to ivorship by singing, we 
 give "the direct answer" he demands as follows: 
 Read the "Letters on Psalmody," pp. 77-79, and 
 you will find it. For the present, we say we have 
 never doubted what Dr. P. asserts, viz., that 2 
 Chron. 29 : 30 proves most conclusively that "the 
 Church of God (under the Jewish dispensation) 
 praised the Lord in the use of the Psalms written 
 by David," and Dr. P. might have added, "in the 
 use of the Psalms written by Asaph the seer" — for 
 both David and Asaph are included in that text. 
 But if Dr. P. will look back just six verses in the 
 same chapter (2 Chron. chap. 29) he will read as 
 follows : "And he (Hezekiah) set the Levites in the 
 house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and 
 
AND MISSTATEMENTS. 125 
 
 with harps, according to the eommrnndtnent of Da- 
 vid and uf Gad) the kin< fa seer, and Nathan the 
 
 prophet: pob bo was thm dommahdmbhi oy the 
 
 Lord 1JY BIS PR0PHHT8." And when the i'ounda- 
 tion of the second temple was laid (Emra, chap. 
 3:10), we read — "They set the priests in their 
 apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons 
 of Asaph with cymbals, t<> praise the Lord after 
 the ardinand of David king of Israel." 
 
 Now W€ take up the argument of the reviewer 
 just where he has seen proper to drop it; and in 
 the use of much the same language, we ask, u Do 
 yon admit that these musical instruments were 
 given to the Church to he used in God'.- worship! 
 To this question we would like to have a direct 
 answer*' — especially as in 1 Chron. 16 : 4- M these 
 trumpets, harps, cymbals, v^c are called musical 
 1X8X1 pmehts oi GpD," and again, "instrumi 
 of music of I I WHICH David tiii: kl\«; had 
 
 madi: ro praise the Lord." Thus it is demonstra- 
 ted, to copy again the language of the reviewer, 
 * k that these harps, cymbals, trumpet.-, fcc,, were 
 ceptablyby the Church in public worship" — 
 they were modi by David, "the sweet Psalmist 
 
 used after " the ordinance of 
 i id" — " therefore thej •■ n D vim ly • 
 
 "1 Is Dr. P., *• the 
 
126 DR. P'S. PERSONALITIES 
 
 second commandment forbiddeth the worship of 
 God in any way not appointed in his word." 
 
 Now mark the perfection of Dr. P's. logic : 
 1. The foregoing text (2 Chron. 29:30) proves 
 that " the Church (under the Jewish dispensation) 
 used these songs (written by David and Asaph, 
 from seventy to eighty-five of the whole book) with 
 Divine approbation." Ergo, we have the same 
 Divine appointment for the remainder of the one 
 hundred and fifty Psalms. In other words, the use 
 of those written by " David and Asaph" demon- 
 strates the same use of all the rest, though a num- 
 ber of them were composed long after both were 
 dead; and some during and after the Babylonish 
 captivity ! 2. u The words of David and Asaph 
 the seer," says the reviewer, "Hezekiah the king 
 commanded the Levites to sing in praise to the 
 Lord." "This historical fact,*' he adds, "proves 
 most conclusively that the Psalms are of Divine 
 appointment." But u the same commandment of 
 the Lord by his prophets" just before, (chap. 
 29 : 25) " does not prove that cymbals, psalteries 
 and harps are of Divine appointment in the Church 
 of God !" Hezekiah's commandment, according 
 to the reviewer's logic, is good proof in favor of 
 the continued use of u the songs," but altogether 
 futile and contemptible as proof for "the instru- 
 ments of God" as suitable to be continued in the 
 

 ANh lfI88TATBMBNT8. 127 
 
 f the Church! Copying the reviewer's in- 
 imitable logic, we Bay — u as cymbals, psalti 
 harps and trumpets are instruments which God 
 commanded his Church to employ in his worship, 
 ami which he gave to his Church for thai express 
 purp< - . fan we conclude that it is his will 
 
 that l these instruments oj God, 1 dike the 'day 
 of the Lord 1 and the 'Supper of the Lord 9 ) should 
 be still used in his worship/ 1 It follows, therefore, 
 that in rejecting these instruments, Dr. P. ventures 
 to improve upofa David, and pretends to be wiser 
 than hifl Maker ! And as to the second command- 
 ment, it is nowhere ! 
 
 XII. Dr. P. on "the Soul in the GftAVN." 
 
 The reviewer in celebrating the praises of what he 
 
 calls u our metrical version," u our true and literal 
 translation" (meaning u Rouse's paraphra 
 Bays that "in §&me instances it is more faithful 
 than the prose version of our Bibles." The only 
 example he gives in this connection is Ps. 16: 10. 
 *' For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell." In 
 Rouse, he says, " it is in the grave 9 * — which he 
 thinks u decidedly the better translation." Bui 
 SO author* who is quoted approvingly by Dr. ]\ 
 lays: "Hell is here to be taken in its wide old 
 English sense, as corresponding to the Hebrew 
 
 ♦Alexander on iIh- Psalm-. 
 
128 DR. P'S. PERSONALITIES 
 
 Sheol and the Greek Hades, i. e. the invisible 
 world or state of the dead." This is plainly the 
 true sense — for how could David's soul (not his 
 body) be left in the grave? Dr. Watts has given 
 the correct rendering: 
 
 Though in the dust I lay my head, 
 
 Yet, gracious God, thou' wilt not leave 
 My soul forever with the dead. 
 
 How much more accurate, theologically consid- 
 ered, is this than that of Rouse and the reviewer, 
 which runs thus : 
 
 Because my soul in grave to dwell 
 Shall not be left by thee. 
 
 "My soul in grave to dwell." Does Dr. P. 
 adopt the "principles" which must have governed 
 Rouse in this case? If he does, then he teaches, 
 (1.) That the soul goes down into the grave with 
 the body. (2.) That the human soul of our blessed 
 Lord was thus buried with his body. (3.) That 
 " his heart was glad" because his "soul .was not 
 suffered to remain in the grave!" These are the 
 "principles" which by singing and approving 
 Rouse, Dr. P. sanctions. Is not this "loose 
 theology?" If any further proof of Dr. P's odd 
 mistakes be necessary, we find it in Dr. Scott's 
 admirable* Commentary. He says: "Both the 
 Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades denote the 
 state of man when no longer seen on earth. When 
 spoken of the body, they signify the grave; when 
 
AND MI8BTATBMSNT& 189 
 
 of the sou?, they refer to that state in which the 
 soul is without the body." "These wordi 
 mkhade* an >■ J," adds Dr. Scott, a when 
 
 the burial or grave of an individual is spoken of." 
 •* s; '."' be I'M-, quoting Campbell, " is never 
 rendered by the Greek taphoe or mnema, a tomb 
 or grave, nor construed with thaptn % the Greek 
 term for fturjf." 
 
 These authorities are surely sufficient to prove 
 that both TCouse and Dr. P. have made a singular 
 mistake in burying the soul of either David or 
 Christ, the type or the anti-type, in the same grave 
 with the body ! 
 
 Kill. Mil. A's. DlSINOBNU0U8NS8$ 
 
 We must not omit an additional specimen of the 
 reviewer's convulsive struggles to sustain his sink- 
 ing cause. u Mark." he e iys, •• the disingenuous- 
 nesa of the author of the 'Letters.'' This 
 serious charge, and from a "grave and reverend 
 
 'iior" ought to have a solid foundation in fact. 
 Let us see. 
 
 " Letters" quote Dr. P. and another wri- 
 ter, as follows: "LOcethcproi of the Bible, 
 it Rouse's paraphrase] is remarkably literal" — 
 "it is :i literal and true version/ 1 4 'lt was adopted 
 upon the principle that it is a faithful transla- 
 tion. I proft translation * * * it 
 
130 DR. P'S. PERSONALITIES 
 
 is substantially correct and faithful — both are to 
 be regarded as the word of God." From these 
 and similar forms of expression, the author of the 
 " Letters" very naturally inferred that "our prose 
 version" of the Bible was indicated as one of the 
 accepted standards or tests of the literalness and 
 excellence of Rouse, and of its containing "the. 
 genuine songs of inspiration." "A test" is defin- 
 ed in English lexicons to be, " that with which 
 any thing is compared, in order to prove its genu- 
 ineness." And it is obvious that in the extracts 
 from Dr. P's. writings given above, Rouse is favor- 
 ably compared with "the prose version," in order 
 to prove it to be the genuine "word of God." 
 The obvious propriety of using this u test" is shown 
 by the fact that Dr. P. himself will admit that 
 "our prose version" is "the best translation in the 
 world" — that it is "our most faithful transla- 
 tion" — and "of all versions it must in general be 
 accounted the most excellent." Such, then, is 
 "the head and front" of our offending. We said 
 that Dr. P. had offered the prose version as a test 
 of the literalness and excellence of Rouse's para- 
 phrase. But the reviewer, on such grounds as this, 
 utters his kind and Christian charge : "Mark the 
 disingenuousness of the author of the ' Letters/ ' 
 Now if we had in view only the advancement of 
 our cause and the defeat and dishonor of his, we 
 
AXD KI89TATBMBNT& 131 
 
 should delight to witness more and more of this 
 sort of logic ! We should thank him tor thus ex- 
 po$ing the weakness of his argument, and his con- 
 sequent loss of temper. u Like the pn><e ven 
 — "like die prose translation!" "Both are the 
 word of God !" If this is not the same as offering 
 the "pr se rersion" as a "test," what words 
 would express that idea I 
 
 XIV. Dr. P. ox making Songs oi Praise, 
 
 But there is one argument which is a main pil- 
 lar in the reviewer's logical edifice, and which he 
 i often that he obviously regards it as 
 absolutely conclusive. a The question is," he 
 says, "were the Scriptures given to direct us how 
 to 77?<7/;. songs of praise?" Again — "Prove that 
 we have authority to make our songs of praise, 
 collecting the matter of them from the whole word 
 of God." And as if this were not enough, he 
 prints it in flaming capital- at the close of his re- 
 view — "Where has God in his word authorized 
 any uninspired man to prepare songs of praise to 
 be employed by the Church in the worship of 
 In reply to this argument SO vauntingly 
 and repeatedly pressed upon our attention, we 
 ve : 1. It is formally stated and refuted in 
 the - L • -," p. 157. See also pp. 92, 98. Dr. 
 P., however, very prudently M passes by on the 
 
132 DR. p's. PERSONALITIES 
 
 other side." 2. Can the reviewer show any ex- 
 press authority from Scripture to make sermons? 
 We have-the command, " Preach tue word" — 
 which of course implies that our discourses must 
 be composed. So we have the precept to "sing 
 praises," and the inspired examples of those who 
 composed and sung other songs than the one hun- 
 dred and fifty Psalms — and those, too, composed 
 very much as we compose them, as to their mat- 
 ter. And this of course implies that the songs 
 are to be made. It may be said that we have no 
 book of inspired sermons, but have a book of 
 Psalms ? But this is a mistake. The book of 
 Ecclesiastes is a book of sermons, " the words 
 of the Preacher." And a large part of the pub- 
 lic addresses of Moses, Solomon, Ezra, Nehemiah, 
 Job, and all the prophets — and especially the 
 discourses of our Lord and his apostles, consists 
 of inspired sermons. Yet Dr. P. "lays all these 
 aside as useless," and preaches his own effusiors 
 instead of the productions of Infinite Wisdom ! 
 3. The reviewer proposes a false issue, when he 
 asks, " Where has God authorized any uninspired 
 man to prepare songs of praise for the Church?" 
 Presbyterians answer, no where ! Our doctrine 
 is that individuals may employ the noble poetical 
 talents with which the "Author of every good 
 and perfect gift" has endowed them, in compos- 
 
\\l> MI8STATBMSS 133 
 
 ing hymns, agreeably to the i sample in A.cte 
 4:24 of b song of praise gathered partly from 
 Pa 2 and partly from other portions of the sacred 
 records. But u to prepare these Psalms for the 
 
 Church." is not the prerogative nor the privilege 
 of "any uninspired man," which Dr. P« insinuates 
 to be the Presbyterian doctrine This is the 
 
 province of the Church herself, as represented by 
 her supreme judicatory. She examines, ami where 
 f.umd needful, ami fids these productions, ami then 
 g her sanction to their adoption in public wor- 
 ship, JQ8t as the Scottish General Assembly Banc- 
 But, replies Dr. P., "there is no 
 : the iniluences of the Holy Spirit to 
 
 ring these Psalms."* But are 
 there not precious and abundant promises to THE 
 Church ob Christ, that the presence of the Holy 
 
 Spirit shall be witli her public councils? Has lie not* 
 promise i to be with hei " to the end of the world V 
 
 Ami have we not ; as good groun 
 
 - gracious presence with the collective 
 
 . when die Church is amending 
 
 and authorizing th ae songs of praise, a- when 
 
 I men of tin- United Presbyterian per- 
 
 i ' ' i v ■ use to their i 
 
 ting into their hearts the sentiments 
 
 ill feel when uttering the Language 
 
 'salmodj, i>. 85. 
 
 ]> 
 
134 DR. P'S. PERSONALITIES 
 
 of the paraphrase ? The preacher who explains 
 the Psalm may be an unconverted person — he may 
 be worse — a heretic, an Arian of Ulster, a drunk- 
 ard. But in the best possible case, suppose him 
 to be a true Christian and a faithful pastor ; is it 
 certain that the Psalm as explained by him and 
 sung by the people, will be equally in harmony 
 with a the influences of the Holy Spirit" and under 
 his direction and by his aid as the Psalm ex- 
 plained by the collective wisdom and piety of the 
 Church, and the hymns which she sanctions as 
 agreeable to the inspired oracles? Surely this ques- 
 tion is easily solved. 4. " We have no authority, " 
 says Dr. P., u to make songs of praise, collecting 
 their matter from the whole word of God." This 
 proposition, as explained by himself, means, that 
 we have no authority to sing in worship aught but 
 • the one hundred and fifty Psalms, and these in a 
 literal version. But without repeating what has 
 already been proved, in regard to the paraphrastic 
 nature of Rouse, or inquiring too closely who made 
 his " paraphrase," we adduce the authority of an 
 intellectual giant, an original Seceder, the cele- 
 brated Ralph Erskine. This distinguished di- 
 vine, the chief leader of the Associate Presby- 
 tery of Scotland, plainly contradicts Dr. P. Thus 
 in the preface to his poetical paraphrase of " the 
 Song of Solomon," Erskine says in defence of 
 
AND MISSTATEMENTS. 135 
 
 "his mmg upon this subject," and of " his little 
 
 book to help the Church to ding away her sor- 
 rows" — "Wl have a DlVINl PRECEPT too much 
 forgotten and neglected, in Ephes. 5 : 18, li> ;nid 
 Collos. 3:16." "That you may be able," he 
 adds, "to ring it (the song) with understanding, 
 
 I have endeavored to lay open its mysteries" — 
 and he further says, that k * lie had east his para- 
 phrase in the mould of common metre," for 
 the convenience of singing. Here it will be seen, 
 Ralph Erskine interprets Paul's exhortation to 
 sing u Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs,' as 
 a Divine precept to "make songs of praise' 1 
 out of the Song of Solomon !* Thus he answers 
 Dr. Ps. confident " question"—" Were the Scrip- 
 tures given to direct us how to make songs of 
 praise, collecting the matter from the whole word 
 of God '.'" lie will thus perceive that his question 
 in flaming capitals, does not "remain unanswer- 
 ed.'' It was answered by one of the most cele- 
 brated fathers of the United Presbyterian body. 
 And until Ralph Erskine's interpretation of 
 Collos. 3:16 and Ephes. 5:18,19 is proved 
 false, we may safely match his judgment against 
 that of this reviewer. 
 
 •With what astonishmont WOVld Er>kin- 
 the following announcement; u The metrical rendering of 
 other 9 iriptnre * * * very gr*at1j 
 
 the cause of truth and righteousness!" — tilakie'.* Phil 
 of Sectarianism, p. 7 4. 
 
136 DR. P's. PERSONALITIES 
 
 But the reviewer, if he had ever seen it, treats 
 the statement of llalph Erskine with great con- 
 tempt. u Such a supposition," he says, " is a 
 pure gratuitous assumption." u It cannot be 
 proved," he adds, u that the apostle (in Eph. 
 5:19 and Coll. 3 : 16) has reference to the devo- 
 tional compositions of uninspired men" — " it is 
 altogether inconclusive." But Erskine thought 
 it w T as no " gratuitous assumption" at all, but that 
 those texts are a plain Divine precept for ma- 
 king and singing what Dr. P. calls " uninspired 
 compositions." Whether Erskine, with no special 
 end to subserve but the glory of God and the spir- 
 itual ccmfort of the Church — or Dr. P. with all his 
 sectarian prejudices and prepossessions, were the 
 more likely to form a correct judgment in the case, 
 we leave to every candid and sober mind. It is 
 certain that Erskine's " paraphrase of the Song of 
 Solomon," for which he thus found a " Divine pre- 
 cept," is no more an inspired song than the great 
 body of the psalms and hymns adopted by the 
 Presbyterian Church. It is not surprising, there- 
 fore, that the reyiewer, in this instance also, finds 
 it most convenient to employ strong contempt- 
 uous denial, instead of proof. But when he shall 
 have demonstrated that Ralph Erskine was guilty 
 of a great blunder, let him next try his hand at 
 convicting " the United Presbyterian Church" of 
 
AND MISSTATKMKN I-. 137 
 
 Scotland of the same kk gratuitous assumption.' 
 
 For in the title page of their u hymn book 91 of near 
 500 pieces, they quote these *ery words of the 
 
 [e (Coll. .°> : 1»J an<l Kph. 5 : 18) as fcheif au- 
 thority. Si.rt)j-i;r, of these United Pi isbyterian 
 kymiifl are from the pen of Dr. Watts; and more 
 than 120 are the >ame substantially with those 
 Presbyterians use. Like Ralph Erskine, there- 
 fore, "the United Presbyterian Church" of Scot- 
 land claim to have discovered express ik Divine 
 precept for mal;in<j songs of praise for the 
 Church." 
 
 XV. Other Psalms and Hymns. 
 
 In reference to the other u Psalms and hvmns" 
 alluded to by Paul, Dr. P. says, " When the au- 
 thor of the ' Letters' informs us where these 
 Psalms, hymns, kc, are to be found, we may be 
 prepared to answer his question," viz., " are they 
 unfit to be sung." " If Mr. A*," he add-. " will 
 produce those to which the apostle directed the 
 ion of his brethren, we shall receive them 
 cordially and use them cheerfully." 
 
 Ir might he sufficient, in reply, to refer Dr. P. 
 
 to the Presbytery of original Seceders in Scotland, 
 
 illy to their greatest man, Ralph Erskine, 
 
 and to the " United Presbyterian body," also of 
 
 Scotland. As already quoted, these are good au- 
 
 12* 
 
188 DR. P*Sk personalities 
 
 thorities on the question — what did Paul mean by 
 "Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." Dr. P. 
 need not be told that large portions of both Testa- 
 ments (as well as " the Song of Solomon") are 
 written in strains of the most sublime and beauti- 
 ful poetry — often the very Psalms and songs in 
 which the most eminent saints praised God and 
 called upon the Church to praise him. Thus Isaiah, 
 chap, 5, " Now will I sing to my well beloved a 
 song of my beloved." Again, look at chap. 25, 
 "In that day (the times of the gospel) shall this 
 song be sung," &c. So also the song of Hezekiah, 
 chap. 38. And in v. 20 that pious king says — 
 " We will sing my songs to the stringed instru- 
 ments all the days of my life in the house of the 
 Lord." These were surely not the Psalms of Da- 
 vid. See also "the prayer of Habakkuk" (chap. 
 3) directed to " the chief singer on my stringed 
 instruments," just as many of David's Psalms 
 are. Such are merely specimens — but similar 
 admirable examples are thickly scattered through 
 many parts of the Bible, especially the prophecies, 
 book of Job, Proverbs and Lamentations, where 
 they glitter like starry spangles in a winter's night. 
 But perhaps we can in no method better illus- 
 trate the Divine excellence of such passages, and 
 their fitness to compose a part of the high praises 
 of Israel's God, than by the following contrast : 
 
IND MISSTi : 
 
 
 A man m - - had 
 
 hi estinui 
 
 \ .. _ lifted up 
 
 Hi-.. 
 
 Bilt all .it 01 
 
 And ham 
 . >wn the carved work th< 
 
 II.- n to foil ; 
 
 • in he «li'l pal 
 A frhame perpetual. 
 
 The land in plenty brought forth 
 
 of 1 
 lice 
 In all their 
 
 And thus th- i their 
 
 • vainly changed they. 
 
 Tha :..iv. 
 
 - my trashing pot — my 
 
 I'll <>vor Edom ti. 
 Ovrr the land of Palestine 
 I will in triumph 
 
 \ 
 For he hath merci 
 -. the king of* I - 
 
 3 a rely shall 
 Thy tender Utile 
 Who shall lay bold 
 them 
 Shall dash 
 
 <» serve: According to Ralph Erskine, u the 
 United Presbyterian Church," the " Free Church," 
 and the •• Established Church" of Scotland, we have 
 
 Divine authority to versify and sing this beautiful 
 song in Isaiah. M Not so," says this rev. : 
 w We plead for the exclusive use of the book of 
 
 I>U LB, Ch M'. IX 
 , ihat day thon si 
 
 hough 
 thon wast angry with me, thine 
 - turned away, and thou 
 me. 
 
 Id, God is my salvation : 
 
 trust, and 1 
 for tin- L »i» JErU >YAH is my 
 
 - 
 
 shall ye 
 
 Ami in that day shall 
 
 the Lo*Dj call apon his 
 • hi> doings among 
 make mention that 
 
 ;•. for he hath 
 
 this is 
 urth. 
 
 •. thou inhabi- 
 
 I 
 
140 DK, p's. PERSONALITIES 
 
 Psalms."* To sing hundreds of such verses as those 
 copied from Rouse would be highly acceptable in 
 praise to God; but the sublime and beautiful 
 conceptions of Isaiah are not appointed in his 
 word.f To sing them would be "a disregard of 
 Divine authority" — u would subject "the guilty to 
 the displeasure of Heaven as certainly as similar 
 conduct did the presumptuous sons of Aaron !" 
 Besides, to all such arguments as the foregoing, Dr. 
 P. has one all-sufficient and never-failing response — 
 " The Psalms of David were given to the Church 
 to be sung" — " we have no authority to sing any 
 other !" 
 
 It is a plain dictate of common sense, that to 
 versify such passages of the other Scriptures as 
 Is. 12. is no more " to make songs of praise" than 
 to versify the one hundred and fifty Psalms after 
 the manner of Rouse. Such sublime and beautiful 
 portions of the sacred records are songs of praise 
 already made, and whether they be found in the 
 New or the Old Testament, they are admirably 
 suited to the worship of God. It would be easy 
 to collect twice the number of the Psalms, of such 
 
 * Pressly on Psalmody, p. 69. 
 
 f The Hymn Book of the " United Presbyterian Church" 
 of Scotland, contains not less than seventy-five of these beau- 
 tiful pieces from Isaiah, versified for public and private 
 worship, and the Free and Established Churches have twelve 
 of the same "corruptions" among their "paraphrases." 
 
AND MISSTATEMENTS, 141 
 
 admirahle compositions. But is it lawful to use 
 them in praising ( tod ? What Bays the Holy Ghost 
 by the writers ol many of those passag 3: " 
 unto the Lord" — "In that day (gospel day) 
 shall this bong be sung"— -*• Sing unto the L nrd 
 a new song" (Is. 42:10), compared with Rev. 
 6 : 9, "And they sung n /. Thou art worthy 
 
 to take the book," && — " In that day (gospel -lay) 
 sing ye unto her," fcc. — "Now will I Bing to my 
 Beloved a song of my Beloved" — and the song 
 follows. Will Dr. P. pretend that all this l 
 to the Psalms of David, and to them alone? 
 
 Hero then, as Ralph Erskine said of the other 
 . we have u a Divine precept" to do what 
 Dr. P. calls k * making and Binging Bongs of pr 
 which are not among the one hundred and fifty 
 Ptalms. 
 
 And if there be any "disregard of Divine au- 
 thority*' in the case, it is the crime of those who, 
 limiting the praises of the Church to one ' oo/r. thus 
 bast contempt upon such express Divine pre< 
 as those we have quoted, and Bet at nought the 
 example and inspired productions of many or the 
 eminent and highly gifted penmen of the 
 
 Holy Ghost. It :- i repeat the old plea — 
 
 "Ptoalms are songs which are to be Bung," 
 
 *• we iiave DO authority to sing any Other;" hut 
 
 we think the authority of Isaiah is quite b iffl 
 
 if there were qo Other. 
 
142 DR. P'S. PERSONALITIES 
 
 And to crown all, Dr. P., when speaking of the 
 Psalms, says, u These divme songs abound * * 
 with urgent calls to the Church, and to all 
 classes of men, to engage in this delightful exer- 
 cise." The same is true of the songs of Isaiah. 
 It therefore follows, that u their peculiar design 
 is the celebration of God's praise." And to these 
 may be added the affecting song of David upon 
 the'death of Jonathan and Saul, 2 Sam. 1 — the 
 song of Deborah — the song of Hannah — the song 
 of Mary the mother of our Lord — and of Zacharias 
 and Elizabeth — the song of the angels at the birth 
 of the Saviour, and the numerous sublime hymns 
 of praise in the Revelation. It is of these and 
 scores of similar beautiful specimens of Divine 
 poetry in the Scriptures, that Ralph Erskine says, 
 "The design was proposed to me of making the 
 Scripture songs adapted to the common tunes, so 
 as it may be practicable to sing them as we do the 
 Psalms of David." With such a guide we think 
 it is easy to point out the " Psalms, hymns and 
 spiritual songs" to which Paul alludes in Eph. 5 : 
 19 and Coll. 8:16. 
 
 If it be inquired, why were David's Psalms col- 
 lected into a separate book, unless it was for an 
 exclusive system of praise? w r e answer, because 
 it would be unwise to mingle together prose and 
 poetry, occasional songs and familiar narratives. 
 
AND MISSTATEMENT.-. 14-°, 
 
 No uninspired writer of a friend's life ever does 
 so. Take for instance the life of Cowper or other 
 Christian poet Al8 b matter of course his poems 
 are grouped together. 
 
 XVI. More of Dr. Fa Misstatement.-. 
 
 The reviewer is quite astray in his reference to 
 Dr. Ralston, whose volume, he says, received the 
 "endorsement of a reverend Synod," i. e. of Pitts- 
 burgh, and advocated "a Psalmody prepared by 
 men, the matter of which they, in the exercise of 
 their own discretion, collected from the New Testa- 
 But here Dr. P. betrays his usual haste. 
 Dr. Ralston (p. 32) states his proposition as fol- 
 low- : M li [a the privilege of the Church to draw 
 her songs of praise from BOTH the Old and the 
 New Testament," — "and to enrich them well 
 from the word of Christ." This differs slightly 
 from Dr. P's. statement. According to him, Dr. 
 Ralston and the Synod excluded the Old Testa- 
 ment entirely, and of course "laid aside" the 
 Psalms as out of date or useless! As to our 
 Imody being prepared by men" — Dr. P. had 
 better look at home, lie can tell us whether the 
 five hundred patches of " human composition" 
 which Et0U8€ has tacked to the inspired Psalms, 
 11 irere prepared by man." 
 
 This, too, suggests the subject of the "new \vr- 
 
14-4 DR. P'S. PERSONALITIES, AC. 
 
 sion" which has employed the labors and studies 
 and sacrifices of the United Presbyterian General 
 Assembly for so many years. Dr. P. can inform 
 us whether it will be "prepared by. men," or some 
 higher order of beings. We congratulate these 
 brethren, however, on the proposed change in the 
 first Psalm, from "that man hath perfect blessed- 
 ness," into "how blest the man." Dr. Watts has 
 it — " the man is ever blest," or "blest is the man." 
 As to this whole question of " preparation by 
 man" — among the twenty-five new versifications 
 adopted and authorized by the recent United Pres- 
 b^ terian General Assembly, take the example of 
 the 61st Psalm. We compare as follows : 
 
 United Presbyterian Version. 
 
 Lord, hear my voice, my prayer attend, 
 From earth's remotest bound 1 send 
 
 jly supplicating cry: 
 When troubles great o'erwhelm my breast. 
 Then lead me on the Rock to rest * 
 
 That's higher far than I. 
 
 Dr. Watts' Pabape 
 
 Lord, hear my voice, my prayer attend. 
 From earth's far distant coast I bei 
 
 With supplicating ery : 
 When the dark storm oerwhelms my breast. 
 Then lead me on the Riick to rest 
 
 That's higher tar than 1. 
 
 We have no room for other examples — but Dr. 
 P. can probably inform us which of these was 
 "prepared by men." Also, which is "the true 
 and literal translation" of David's sixty-first.