REVIEW 
 
 OF 
 
 DR. PRESSLY 
 
 ON 
 
 PSALMODY, 
 
 BY THE 
 
 EEV. GEORGE MORTON. 
 
 **Ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was 
 
 ONCE DELIVERED UNTO THE SAINTS/^ — Jude, 
 
 PITTSBURGH, 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR, BY LUKE LOOMIS, AG'T. 
 SHRYOOK & HACKE, PRINTERS, 
 
 1850. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2014 
 
 https://archive.org/details/reviewofdrpresslOOmort_0 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 It may not be improper to state the occasion, which has led 
 to the appearance of this work before the public. It is simply 
 this, that in the discharge of his ministerial duties, the author 
 was called to labor within the bounds of churches, where the 
 subject of Psahnody was much agitated by Psalmonites, — their 
 ministers dwelling much upon it as a theme of public discus- 
 sion; and with the usual aim of disturbing, and making inroads 
 upon the Presbyterian Church. And it was found that Dr. 
 Pressly's work on Psalmody was in circulation, and constitu- 
 ted the principal armory of the Psalmonites, from which they 
 were furnished with weapons to assail the cause of truth, and 
 to do injury to the interests of our own beloved Zion. In view 
 of these circumstances, the author believed it would subserve 
 the cause of truth, to put into the hands of our people, a plain 
 and pointed review of the Doctor's work, which might be used 
 as a shield to protect them against the continual assaults to 
 which they were exposed. 
 
 In the prosecution then, of this object, I have endeavored 
 to write in a plain style, that the plainest people might under- 
 stand. And that it might be especially advantageous to them, 
 has been a prevailing desire, in the preparation of the work. 
 Because it is well known, that they are much plagued and 
 harrassed on this subject, by the continual interference of 
 Psalmonites. In some sections of the country, they seem de- 
 termined never to let this subject rest; and are watching every 
 opportunity, which they think may be improved in any way 
 for the promotion of their own interests. And hence, Presby-* 
 teri^^ns are under the necessity of defending their own prin- 
 
iv. 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 ciples and practice ; and maintaining what they believe to be 
 the truth as it is in Jesus. 
 
 In exposing error and sophistry, I have employed great 
 plainness of speech; for in writings of this kind, it is be- 
 lieved, that honest christian candor is most becoming. I have 
 used no fulsome flattery, nor tender and endearing epithets; 
 because to me it seems like hypocrisy, to pretend great respect 
 and veneration for one, while you are exposing his fallacies and 
 erroneous views. And on the subject of Psalmody, there are 
 writings in which this is practiced to such a degree, as must 
 be disagreeable to every honest hearted christian. You may 
 find, perhaps in the very same sentence, the honeyed words 
 of love and kindness, and then the imbittered accents of worm- 
 wood and gall! But such a mode of conducting controversy, 
 I consider neither gentlemanly nor christian. And as to the 
 plainness I have used in exposing the character of the work 
 reviewed, I considered it such as the nature of the case de- 
 manded. When error, wrapping itself up in sophistry, and 
 setting itself on high, becomes bold, and haughtily arraigns 
 those who hold the truth, it is surely then incumbent to re- 
 buke it sharply;'^ and to lay it bare in its naked un worthiness, 
 that it may be seen and treated as it properly deserves. But 
 though I have been plain and pointed, yet I can say in honesty 
 of heart, that if there is a single misrepresentation of the au- 
 thor, it has been wholly unintentional. And if it is shown, 
 that in any matter I have been mistaken, with the utmost cheer- 
 fulness will I acknowledge it. Honesty and truth, candor and 
 fairness, are always commendable, and what I desire to prac- 
 tice and maintain. And the work is now sent forth to the pub- 
 lic, with the hope, that it may subserve the cause of right- 
 eousness and truth ; and by the Divine blessing, be instrumen- 
 ental in promoting the best interests and welfare of the church 
 of God. 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 No EYIDENCE THAT "^NeODISM IS SINFUL. — Dr. PrESSLY^S FX- 
 FAIRNESS IN HIS COMMENCEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT. 
 
 Every part of religious worship is pleasant to thepeo- 
 people of God. And to the pious soul it is especially 
 delightful to sing praises to the Most High. It is natu- 
 ral indeed, for the feelings of a grateful heart, to go 
 forth in a song of thanksgiving and praise to the Great 
 Giver of all good: and cheifly to the heart of a christian 
 thus to express his gratitude for the unspeakable bles- 
 sings of Redemption. And hence the universal senti- 
 ment of the Church is, that "Great is the Lord, and great- 
 ly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of 
 his holiness." But v^hile all are agreed, that w^e should 
 sing aloud unto God our strength; and make a joyful 
 noise unto the God of Jacob, it is cause of regret, that 
 there is not the same unity of sentiment in the Church, 
 as to the songs with which we shall praise the Lord. 
 All are agreed that in our praises, we should give 
 unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; but all are 
 not agreed as to the songs to be employed in giving 
 that glory. Some maintain that inasmuch as the glory 
 of God is revealed by the whole of the word of God, 
 therefore we should draw our song of praise from the 
 
 *Two new terms are used to avoid circumlocution. Neodism — 
 from neos and odee — pleads for a new Psalmody. Psalmonism — from 
 psalmos Sind monos — pleads for the exclusive use of the book of Psalms. 
 
6 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 whole of that word, or else by their use we cannot give 
 to him the glory due unto his name. While others 
 maintain, that no song of praise should be used in the 
 worship of God but tliose found in the Bible. And oth- 
 ers again contend, that in our praises we should be 
 confined to the songs contained in the book of Psalms. 
 The latter is the opinion held by Dr. Pressly, some of 
 whose views on this subject it is purposed briefly to ex- 
 amine. 
 
 The Doctor's position is, that the songs of praise con- 
 tained in the Book of Psalms should be used in the 
 worship of God, to the exclusion of all others. On page 
 69, he says, decidedly concur with those who plead 
 for the exclusive use of the Book of Psalms.*' And on 
 page 88, The fact that God, has provided for his 
 Church a collection of sacred songs which he himself 
 has denominated, *The Book of Psalms,' is with me a 
 conclusive reason, why these songs should be used in 
 the worship of God, to the exclusion of all others." — 
 The Doctor maintains then, that no songs should be used 
 in the worship of God but those found in the Book of 
 Psalms. And he intimates, that those who differ from 
 him, are justly exposed to no small measure of blame. 
 In his great zeal he represents Neodists as guilty of 
 open rebellion agianst the authority of Heaven: as arro- 
 gating to themselves the glory that belongs to God 
 alone. On page 8, he says, *'When men therefore take 
 this matter into their own hands, and undertake to de- 
 termine how God shall be praised, or with what he shall 
 be praised, do they not plainly arrogate to themselves 
 that glory which Jehovah declares he will not give to an- 
 other^' 'Now the question may well be asked, does tl.e 
 Doctor believe that Neodists are guilty of such an awful 
 sin as this? The sin of arrogating to themselves the 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 7 
 
 glory that belongs to Jehovah! The General Assembly 
 of the Presbyterian Church authorized a Book of Psalms 
 and Hymns to be used in the worship of God. And does 
 Di\ Pressly believe, that the Ministers and Elders com- 
 posing that Assembly, arrogated to themselves the glory 
 that belongs to Jehovah] Does he believe that there 
 was a single man of them, who wished to have given 
 Ifo himself the glory that belongs to God? I presume 
 he does not. And why then does he intimate that such 
 was the case'? Does the Doctor believe also, that all 
 who approve and sanction the doings of that Assem- 
 bly are guilty of this awful sin'? Does he believe that 
 such men as Dr. Alexander and Dr. Hodge, of Prince- 
 ton, and Dr. Elliot and Dr. Herron of Pittsburgh, "arro- 
 gate to themselves that glory which Jehovah declares 
 he will not give to another'?" Surely he does not so be- 
 lieve. Were the public to esteem him as thus believ- 
 ing, they could not for a moment consider him as pos- 
 sessing the spirit of a christian. And if the Doctor does 
 not believe so, why does he represent them as thus 
 guilty] For such is his representation every where 
 throughout his work. He maintains that we have no 
 authority to use any thing in the praise of God, but the 
 Book of Psalms. And he and we both maintain, that 
 we should worship God in no other way than that ap- 
 pointed in his word. Hence, according to his reason- 
 ing, our way not being appointed in his word, we are 
 undertaking to do what God alone has a right to do; and 
 thus ''plainly arrogate to ourselves that glory which Je- 
 hovah declares he will not give to another.'^ Now, Dr. 
 Pressly believes, either that these men are thus guilty, 
 or that they are not. Take for instance the case of Dr. 
 Swift ministering in the public congregation. He calls 
 upon the people to sing in the worship of God some 
 
8 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY, 
 
 hymn from the Assembly's collection. And does Dr. 
 Pressly believe, that Dr. Swift, in doing this, is influ- 
 enced by such haughty impiety, and satanic pride, as is 
 implied in **arrogating to himself that glory which Jeho- 
 vah declares he will not give to another]" I am fully 
 persuaded were Dr. Pressly publicly to answer this 
 inquiry he would answer, No. He would say he does 
 not believe Dr. Swift guilty of such daring impiety. — 
 And in saying so, he would admit all that for which we 
 contend. Because he would admit, that Dr. Swift has 
 authority for conducting the worship of God in the 
 manner in which he does. And thus without advan- 
 cing far, we come to what might be the end of the con- 
 troversy, namely, that we have authority to use in the 
 worship of God songs of praise not found in the Book 
 of Psalms. Dr. Pressly must admit this, or else hold 
 Dr. Swift guilty of the great wickedness implied in arro- 
 gating to himself the glory that belongs to God. This 
 dilemma can not be avoided by alleging that Dr. Swift 
 may be acting without authority, and yet not be guilty, 
 inasmuch as he believes he has authority: because a 
 man's believing he is right, never justifies him in doing 
 wrong. Saul of Tarsus believed he was right when 
 persecuting the Church of God; but that did not make 
 him innocent. The Saviour said to his disciples, *'The 
 time cometli that whosoever killeth you, wull think that 
 he doeth God service." But their thinking, that they 
 were doing God service, in murdering his people, did 
 not render them guiltless. And so in the case of Dr. 
 Swift; it matters not w^hathe may think. If he is acting 
 without authority, his thinking otherwise does not alter 
 the matter. He still has no authority; and undertakes 
 to do what God only has a right to do; and thus **ar- 
 rogates to himself that glory which Jehovah declares 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 9 
 
 he will not give to another/' But Dr. Pressly holds that 
 he is not thus guilty; and hence admits that he has 
 authority: and thus proves that his own belief is con- 
 trary to his own reasoning! 
 
 What the Doctor next brings forward as an argument, 
 is the case of Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, who 
 "offered strange fire before the Lord, which he comman- 
 ded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord 
 and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.'^ — 
 That this is designed as an argument, and that Neodism 
 is represented as similar to the sin of Nadab and Abihu, 
 there can be no doubt; for on page 9, he says, The 
 application of this historical fact to the subject under 
 discussion is very apparent." And on page 10, he rep- 
 sents Neodism as the very identical sin of Nadab and 
 Abihu. It is alleged that Psalmonites can take no part 
 with Neodists in the delightful employment of singing 
 God's praise, because they believe the songs that are 
 used have not the sanction of Divine appointment. — 
 "They are compelled," he says, "to remain silent lest 
 they should be chargeable with offering strange fire be- 
 fore the Lord." Thus he attempts to range a large por- 
 tion of the Christian church in company with Nadab and 
 Abihu; as partaking of their sin and exposed to their 
 punishment. And he declares that punished they will 
 be, just as surely as that God is unchangeable. On page 
 10, his language is, "It will not be supposed that God 
 has less regard for the purity of his worship now, than 
 he had in the days of Aaron. And though he is not con- 
 fined to any particular mode of manifesting his displea- 
 sure against the corruption of his worship, yet that the 
 sin is now as abhorrent in his sight as it ever was, and 
 that it will be punished in the way which seems proper 
 to Infinite Wisdom, here can be no reason to doubt," 
 
10 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 It is obvious that the Doctor designed this case of Na- 
 dab and Abihu, as an overwhelming condemnation of the 
 Neodistic cause. But when it is taken into connection 
 with historical facts, it proves the very opposite of that 
 for which he designed it. It is true, the Lord abhors 
 the corruption of His worship; and that He does not suf- 
 fer it to go unpunished. But, has he manifested His 
 abhorrence of Neodism, by punishing it? "We think there 
 here is no evidence that He he has. And if He has not, 
 that is sufficient evidence, that He does not consider it 
 as a corruption of His wor&hip. The Doctor says, "It 
 will not be supposed that God has less regard for the 
 purity of His worship now, than he had in the days of 
 Aaron." And this is undoubtedly true. — True it is also, 
 there is no evidence, that He has ever manifested any 
 displeasure against Neodism. And the inference is in- 
 evitable, that He does not look upon it as a corruption 
 of His worship. If His displeasure has been manifested, 
 let the Doctor tell us how, and where it has been done. 
 Where has there even been an individual, or a congre- 
 gation consumed with fire, for praising God in a song 
 not taken from the Book of Psalms'? And if the Lord 
 lias not shown his displeasure, by sending temporal 
 judgments, has He done it by sending spiritual judg- 
 ments? The Church of Rome corrupted the worship 
 of God, and He manifested His sore displeasure by with- 
 holding from her the influences of His Spirit; "by send- 
 ing strong delusions that they might believe a lie;" and 
 by leaving her to the control of the Devil, and men of 
 corrupt minds; until she is now become a synagogue of 
 Satan. But the Lord has not dealt so with Neodistic 
 churches. As to the evidence of the Divine presence 
 among them, they will very honorably compare with 
 those we call Psalmonistic Churches, For example, the 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 11 
 
 Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian Churches, can ex- 
 hibit full as many tokens of the Lord's favor, as can the 
 Associate, the Associate Reformed, and the Reformed 
 Presbyterian Churches. In the former class, there is 
 undoubtedly quite as much vital piety and true godli- 
 ness, as in the latter. And we have abundant evidence, 
 that this is the belief, especially of the Associate Re- 
 formed Church: because she is very willing to receive 
 accessions from the ranks of Presbyterians. Even those 
 who are not in good, and regular standing in the Pres- 
 byterian Church, are very gladly received into her bo- 
 som: showing that Presbyterians, of an inferior quality, 
 are considered as good materials for building up the 
 Associate Reformed Church. And thus we see, Psal- 
 monites themselves being judges, that Neodists are not 
 visited with spiritual judgments, on account of their 
 songs of praise. So far from it, indeed, they seem rather 
 to be the special objects of Divine regard, when com- 
 pared with Psalmonites. Upon what church has it been, 
 that the Lord, in times past, has poured out so abundant- 
 ly His Holy Spirit] causing great awakening, and re- 
 sulting in such glorious revivals of religion; making the 
 hearts of God's people to sing for joy; and translating 
 multitudes of precious souls from the kingdom of dark- 
 ness, into the kingdom of His dear Son. Verily it has 
 not been upon Psalmonistic churches; but upon the very 
 churches, that Dr. Pressly would represent as lying un- 
 der the special displeasure of Heaven! 
 
 And besides, to these same Churches, the Lord has 
 manifested His special favor, by making them the hon- 
 ored instruments of spreading abroad the knowledge 
 of His name: making inroads upon Satan's empire; and 
 extending the boundaries of the Redeemer's Kingdom 
 upon earth. It is a lamentable fact, that Psalmonistic 
 
12 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY, 
 
 Churches, in general, have taken but little interest in 
 the great work of Missions. And the work has hith- 
 erto been small accomplished by them in this glorious 
 field of labor. Usually too, they have been urged to 
 what they have done by the example and influence of 
 other Churches around them. They have lain still and 
 inactive, until aroused and carried forward by the on- 
 ward and progressive movements of those previously 
 engaged in this glorious work of the Lord. It would 
 appear, that inasmuch as they have excluded from their 
 songs of praise, all that is peculiar to the Gospel dis- 
 pensation it has not pleased the Lord, to make them in 
 any great measure, the instruments of sending that 
 Gospel to the nations of the earth. And whether it can 
 be accounted for or not, it is a remarkable fact, that 
 there seems to be some relation between a fondness for 
 Rouse's Psalms, and a want of liberality for the cause 
 of Christ. In the compass of my own knowledge, I 
 could refer to the case of several individuals, for the 
 verification of what I say. They are great sticklers for 
 Rouse; but very stingy in their contributions. I know 
 one, very partial to the *'01d Psalms," who has several 
 times left the church, during public worship, just be- 
 cause the pastor, or perhaps an agent brought before 
 the congregation the cause of Missions, or some other 
 benevolent object. I do not say, that the use of Rouse's 
 Psalms has any tendency to produce this stinginess; 
 but every careful observer, can easily see, that the ex- 
 clusive use of the one, is generally associated with the 
 operation of the other. 
 
 Thus we see then, there is no evidence, that the Lord 
 has ever, in any way, either by temporal or spiritual 
 judgments, manifested His displeasure against Neodism. 
 And the only proper conclusion is, that He does not view 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 13 
 
 it as a corruption of His worship; for ''it will not be 
 supposed that God has less regard for His worship now, 
 than he had in the days of Aaron.'* 
 
 Now, Dr. Pressly is perfectly aware, that we have giv- 
 en a true representation; that there is positively no evi- 
 dence of any kind tending to show, that Neodism is 
 similar to the sin of Nadab and Abihu. And why then 
 does he labor to represent them as similar] Obviously 
 for this reason, that he might produce an effect upon 
 people of serious minds, who do not reflect, that the 
 Doctor proves nothing, while he insinuates a great deal: 
 that he might, in the estimation of such people, render 
 odious by false insinuation, what he could not prove 
 such, by fair argument. He knew well, that what is 
 perfectly harmless in itself, may have a violent prejudice 
 awakened against it, by giving it a bad name, and by 
 classing it with what is known to be detestable. And 
 this is the stealthy, creeping kind of argumentation, that 
 runs through the whole of his remarks, concerning men 
 ^'arrogating to themselves the glory that belongs to Je- 
 hovah:'* and *'Nadab and Abibu offering strange lire:'* 
 and about "building altars, and offering in sacrifice pigs 
 and kids." Were he to say, that his remarks on these 
 things are not designed as arguments, it would afford 
 no relief: it would be a self-contradiction; for as he 
 passes along, he applies them to this very subject. And 
 the obvious intention of them is to strengthen his own 
 cause, and weaken that of his opponent. And is it 
 candid, is it christian, especially in religious contro- 
 versy, to assume that any thing is vile and treat it ac- 
 cordingly, when there is no evidence that it is such? Is 
 it candid, or christian, for the Doctor to assume, that 
 Neodism is like the sin of Nadab and Abihu, while he 
 has offered no evidence whatever to that effect? Surely 
 2 
 
14 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 the cause that receives for its defence such a lurking 
 and cowardly mode of attack, is rendered thereby doubly 
 doubtful. It must have avv^akened concerning it sus- 
 picions exceedingly unfavorable. Why did the Doctor 
 not come openly and manfully to the w^ork, and prove 
 that Neodism is unauthorized by the word of God] and 
 then with propriety he could have classed it with the sin 
 of Nadab and Abihu. The answer is obviously this, 
 he knew he could not prove it; and then he had to as- 
 sume it, in order to classify it with notorious wicked- 
 ness; that thus he might render odious by stratagem, 
 what he could not prove to be wrong. It will be seen 
 however as we proceed, that this is but a small speci- 
 men of the Doctor's artifice, in his mode of managing 
 the controversy. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 Psalms of Rouse, not the Psalms of Inspiration. 
 
 "Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing 
 which he alloweth.'' A ad true it is, there are many 
 who condemn themselves in the very thing they allow; 
 because they act contrary to w^hat they hold, as proved 
 and established truth. Their faith and their practice 
 disagree, and thus they condemn themselves. And such, 
 it is believed, is the case w^lth Dr. Pressly, and many 
 others, in the matter of Psalmody. The Doctor main- 
 tains, that only the songs contained in the book of Psalms 
 should be used in the worship of God; and yet I appre- 
 hend he does not use these; and thus he condemns him- 
 4Belf. On page 14, he says, — "The principle for which I 
 contend is, that 'it is the will of God that the sacred songs 
 ^contained in the book of Psalms, be sung in his worship, 
 both public and private, to the end of the world;' and that 
 we have no authority to use the productions of uninspi- 
 red men." Now we think it will not be difficult to show, 
 that the Doctor's practice contradicts his principle; and 
 hence, if his principle is correct, he is living in disobe- 
 dience to the will of God; and using a Psalmody for 
 which he says he has no authority. 
 
 It is well known, that the Psalms used by Dr. Press- 
 ly, in the worship of God, are those called the "Psalms 
 of Rouse.'' Now the question is this, are these the 
 Psalms of inspiration? are they the Psalms that consti- 
 tute a part of the Word of God? If they are not, then 
 the Doctor is chargeable with all that we have alleged. 
 
16 
 
 xMORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 And I apprehend it will not be difficult to show, that 
 the Psalms of Rouse are not at all the Psalms of inspi- 
 ration. I solicit then, the readers close attention, and the 
 exercise of his patience; while with care and at some 
 length, we investigate this matter. 
 
 We shall begin then, with the first Psalm of Rouse. 
 And we find that Rouse commences his Book of Psalms 
 with a falsehood: and this is sufficient proof, that they 
 are not inspired. He says: — 
 
 "That man hath perfect blessedness, 
 who walketh not astray/^ 
 
 Now Rouse himself in another of his Psalms says 
 this is not true. His words are: — 
 
 ••The troubles that afflict the just, 
 in number many be/'' 
 
 But when they are afflicted with many troubles they 
 have not perfect blessedness. A Psalm then, that 
 teaches what is false, cannot be inspired. It must be 
 *'human composure." Dr. Presslyuses this Psalm; and 
 hence he uses a Psalm for which he says he has no au- 
 thority; and also sings praise to the God of Truth, with 
 nothing less than a falsehood upon his lips! But even 
 were we to admit, that the good man has 'perfect blessed- 
 ness, yet this first Psalm of Rouse would not be the first 
 Psalm of inspiration. The Psahnsof inspiration have in 
 them, just what the Spirit of God designed should be in 
 them; no more, and no less. If Rouse's first Psalm has in 
 it just what is in the first inspired Psalm, neither more 
 nor less, tlien it is a copy of that Psalm, and in substance 
 they are one and the same thing. But if Rouse's Psalm 
 has either more or less than the inspired Psalm, then it 
 is not a copy, — they are not one and the same thing in 
 any respect. The one is the inspired Psalm, and the 
 other is something else. It may be very like the inspired 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 17 
 
 Psalm, but still it is not it. It either has something, or 
 wants something that prevents it from being the inspired 
 Psalm. Now we know from the first Psalm, that the 
 Spirit did not design to have anything in it oh out perfect 
 blessedness; but Rouse's first Psalm has, and this is con- 
 trary to the design of the Spirit; and therefore it cannot 
 be inspired. The Spirit of God designed that the Psalm 
 should be one way, and Rouse has it another way — 
 Rouse's way is contrary to what the Spirit intended it 
 should be; and can it then, be anything less than impious 
 folly, to say, that this Psalm of Rouse is the Psalm of 
 inspiration? Again; Rouse says: — 
 
 *'Who walketh not astray^^ — 
 
 But the Psalm says nothing about walking astray, 
 There is nothing in the Hebrew, nor in the prose trans- 
 lation that corresponds to the word astray. If the Spirit 
 of God had designed to use the word astray no doubt He 
 would have used it, as He has done in the 58th Psalm, 
 3d verse. Hence then, its being in the Psalm is contra- 
 ry to the design of the Spirit, and the Psalm that has it, 
 is not the Psalm of inspiration. Rouse says; — 
 *'He shall be like a tree tliat grows^^ — 
 
 But the Psalm does not speak about a tree that grows; 
 this also is contrary to the design of the Spirit; and hence 
 it cannot be inspired. Rouse says: — 
 **A11 he doth shall prosper loelV — 
 
 But the Psalm does not say so; Rouse does not agree 
 with the Psalm; hence his is not inspired. The Psahu 
 says, ''The ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor 
 sinners in the congregation of the righteous." But Rouse 
 says, that the wicked shall not even ''appear" among the 
 righteous. This too is contrary to the design of the 
 Spirit; and the Psalm that has it^is none of His. Rouse 
 asks the question, "For why]" But there is no such 
 2* 
 
18 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 question in the Psalm at all. The Spirit did not design 
 to have any such question in the first Psalm; and the one 
 that has it, cannot be the one which was given by his 
 inspiration. Now any one can see, that this first song 
 of Rouse, is not the first song contained in the book of 
 Psalms. And when Dr. Pressly sings it, he does not 
 sing the first of those songs. And therefore he acts con- 
 trary to his own principle, — disobeys what he believes to 
 be the will of God, — and uses, in His praise, a Psalm, 
 for which he says he has no authority. 
 
 We have seen then, that Rouse's first Psalm, is not the 
 first Psalm of inspiration; it is only like it; and the claims 
 of his second are no better. He says, *'Why do the people 
 mind vain tJiingsV^ But this does not convey the idea 
 contained in the Psalm at all. The Psalm says, **Why 
 do the people imagine a vain thing? One specific thing; 
 and then goes onto explain what that one thing is. And 
 it is the vain design of preventing the establishment of 
 the Messiah's Kingdom. But according to Rouse it 
 would be. Why do the people mind the vain trifles and 
 follies of the world? The Spirit did not design to have 
 such a thing in the second Psalm; and a P^alm that has it 
 is not the Psalm of inspiration. Rouse says, **Princes 
 are combined to plot against the Lord.'* But the Psalm 
 does not say so. It says, they take counsel together, not 
 to j)lot^ but against the Lord. Rouse says, **The Lord 
 shall scorn them all;'^ but this is not in the inspired 
 Psalm. Rouse says: — 
 
 "Yet, notwithstanding I have him 
 
 to be my King appointed; 
 And o^er Zion, my holy hill, 
 I have him King anointed/^ 
 Just compare this with what the Psalms says: — **Yet 
 have I set ray King upon my holy hill of Zion." The 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 19 
 
 Psalm speaks about a King; but Rouse speaks about 
 a 7iim, This pronoun hiniy has no antecedent — it does 
 not stand for any noun — it represents nothing, nor no- 
 body! nor does it at all convey the meaning of the Psalm. 
 God the Father is represented as speaking; and He says, 
 — Notwithstanding the opposition of the wicked, I have 
 set or anointed my King upon my holy hill of Zion. — 
 But Rouse says have appointed liim,^^ — Who? — and, 
 **I have anointed liimP^ — Why this verse of Rouse 
 is scarcely like that of the Psalm at all; it is not even a 
 good "Imitation/* And Dr, Pressly could very easily 
 compose another verse just as much inspired as it is — 
 and if the Doctor's own, would be humar. composure, 
 so also is this — and if singing his own would be "offer- 
 ing strange fire before tbe Lord," he is no less guilty 
 when he sings this strange composition of Rouse; be- 
 cause he is not singing what was given by the Spirit 
 of inspiration. Rouse has sure decree; but the Psalm 
 says nothing about a sure decree. Rouse — "Thou art 
 my only son;" but the Psalm does not speak of an only 
 Son, And^when the Apostle quotes this text, Acts, 1^^; 
 33, he does not say only son; nor do I know that Christ 
 is so called throughout the whole Bible. He is called 
 only begotten Son, but this is a very different thing 
 from only son. God has many sons; yet He has but one 
 only begotten Son, which signifies, a son posssessing the 
 same divine nature equally with himself. But any one 
 can see, that Rouse's Psalm is different from the inspi- 
 red Psalm, and hence his cannot be inspired. The 
 Psalm says, "Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron." 
 But Rouse leaves this out, and says, "Thou shalt break 
 them as with a weighty rod of iron; but does not say 
 with what. Rouse says, "break them «///" but not so 
 the Psalm. Rouse says, "like a potter's sherd;" but the 
 
20 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 Psalm, "potter's vessel.'* There is quite a difference 
 between a vessel and a fragment of one. What a sub- 
 lime idea Rouse presents! The idea of dashing a weigh - 
 ty iron rod against a piece of crokery-ware! What a 
 striking figure] It just took Rouse to do it. And he 
 carries out the idea; for he says, "them dash in pieces 
 imaliy Of course, when the apiece is dashed in pieces 
 with the weighty iron rod, xkiQ pieces will be small! But 
 there is no such small affair in the Psalm of inspiration. 
 It is altogetlier original with Rouse. And this too is 
 what Dr. Pressly sings in the worship of God. He 
 must surely then, acquire great credit to himself, by de- 
 claiming against the use of human composition! Might 
 it not be profitable for the Doctor, to call his attention 
 to that passage of inspired composition, where it says, 
 "Physician heal thyself 
 
 We cannot pretend to examine all the Psalms of 
 Rouse; because it would fill many volumes to point out 
 all the discrepancies between them and the Psalms of 
 inspiration. But take what Psalm we may, and it is 
 found to be different from the inspired Psalm — nothing 
 but a paraphrase or imitation. Rouse, in his paraphrase 
 of the 5th Psalm, says, "Hear ray loud cry," but this is 
 no part of the inspired Psalm. Rouse says, '''Early will 
 I direct my prayer — early shalt thou hear my voice.'* 
 But the Psalm has "In the morning," and does not say 
 whether it will be early or late. Rouse "I will expect 
 an answer;" but this is not in the Psalm at all. And if 
 Rouse was not inspired, how can this be inspired? Yet 
 the very people who sing this, condemn others for sing- 
 ing human composure! Rouse says, He destroys all liars; 
 but the Psalm says He shall destroy them. Rouse says 
 "The bloody and deceitful man 
 Abhorred is by theeJ^ 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 21 
 
 But the Psalm says, the Lord will abhor him. Rouse, 
 ''I will worship towards thy holy 'placed That may be 
 toward heaven. But the Psalm has, ^'Toward thy holy 
 temple." This is what the Spirit of God designed: — 
 **holy place'' is contrary to His design; and hence it is 
 not inspired. Rouse says, *'Cast them out for their sins;*' 
 but the Psalm says, J?^ their sins;" a very different idea. 
 The Psalm says, ''Let them ever shout for joy." But 
 Rouse says, "Let them still make shouting noise." He 
 does not say whether for joy, or for sorrow, or for an- 
 ger, or just for the sake of noise itself! It is indeed, a 
 curious precept; and some people it would suit very 
 welh but then it is no precept of inspiration. 
 
 Rouse in his 6th Psalm asks, ''How long stay wilt thou 
 make." But the inspired Psalm does not say anything 
 about staying. Rouse says:— 
 
 "And who is he that will to thee 
 
 give praises lying in the grave." 
 
 What is it, that Rouse has lying in the grave] Does 
 lying agree with jpraises or who, or thee or thati There 
 is not this difficulty in the inspired Psalm. It says, "In 
 the grave who shall give thee thanks." But Rouse has 
 another paraphrase of this Psalm; and this passage he 
 has thus:-^ 
 
 ''Of those that in the grave do lie, 
 who shall give thanks to thee?'^ 
 
 This question is very different from that of the Psalm. 
 The question in the Psalm is applicable, both to the 
 dead, and those who shall die. But Rouse asks a ques- 
 tion applicable only to those already dead. His idea is 
 entirely differrnt from that of the Psalm. Rouse says, 
 *'God hath graciously received my prayer;" but the 
 Psalm says, '^The Lord will receive my prayer;" and no 
 gracimsly to it. Rouse, "Nor on me lay thy chastening 
 
22 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 hand;*' but the Psalm has nothing about cliastening hand. 
 Rouse, ^'Lord spare me;" which is not in the Psalm at 
 all. Rouse, Because thou hnowest my bones much vex- 
 ed are." Neither is this any part of the inspired Psalm. 
 Yet Dr. Pressly teaches his people that they sing no- 
 thing but inspired composition! Rouse has, ^'Vexing 
 grief;" which the Psalm has not. Rouse says: — 
 ^^JJ hen I to him my jyrai/er ma'ke 
 the Lord will it receive.''' 
 This too is the inspired composition of Rouse. Here 
 he says, the Lord icill receive my prayer; in his other 
 version, he says, the Lord hath received it. Those who 
 sing nothing but inspired composition will have both 
 these inspired of course. Rouse says: — 
 ''When I did mourn and cry" — 
 This also, is entirely by his own inspiration. Dr. 
 Pressly sings these paraphrases of Rouse; and proclaims 
 to the world that he sings the ^'Sacred Songs contained 
 in the book of Psalms." 
 
 Look next at Rouse's 10th Psalm. He says: — 
 
 ^'ATlien times so troublous are."' — 
 But the inspired Psalm says nothing about the degree 
 of trouble. Rouse says: — 
 
 '•Let them be taken sure.*'' 
 Ts sure, here, an adjective, or an adverb? Dr. Pressly 
 who explains these Psalms can surely tell. Rouse, ''The 
 wicked talks with great hoast'ingy This is mure of 
 Rouse's inspiration. "And in the counsels of his heart." 
 The Psalm has nothing in it about the counsels of the 
 heart. Rouse, "Thy judgments are removed out of his 
 sight." But the Psalm does not say they are moved at 
 all. It says, "they are far above out of his sight," with- 
 out being moved. Rouse, "He puffeth with despite;" 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 23 
 
 but the Psalm has nothing about puffing with despite. 
 j .**His mouth is filled abundantly;" but this is Rouse's su- 
 perabundant inspiration. The Psalm says, "He sitteth 
 in the lurking places but Rouse's inpsiration falls short, 
 and he leaves out ^'lurking places." Psalm, **In the se- 
 cret places, doth he murder the innocent." Here also, 
 Rouse in his inspired wisdom omits, ^'secret places." 
 Rouse, "Against the poor that pass him by." The Psalm 
 says nothing about the poor passing by. Rouse speaks 
 of his cruel eyes; but this is not in the Psalm. The Psalm 
 speaks of a lion's den; but Rouse speaks of man's den! 
 Rouse has a 7nultitttde of poor, but the Psalm has not. 
 Rouse says, "lift up thine hand on Mgh,''^ but the Psalm 
 does not. Neither is, "meek afflicted ones," in the 
 Psalm. Rouse says: — 
 
 "Why is it that the wicked man 
 thus doth the Lord despise?" 
 
 But there is no such question in the Psalm. The 
 word thus changes the sense entirely. 
 
 "Thou hast it seen: for their mischief 
 and spite thou wilt repay." 
 
 This does not give quite the sense of the Psalm at all; 
 for the Psalm teaches that God, at all times, and in all 
 cases, beholds mischief and spite in order that He may 
 requite it. But Rouse conceals this important truth, and 
 represents God's retributive justice as exercised only in 
 this one specific case. He does this by saying, ^Hheir 
 mischief," etc. And also. Rouse leaves out the impor- 
 tant thought of the] Lord requiting mischief and spite 
 with his own hand. Rouse's, indeed, is a very poor im- 
 itation of the Psalm. 
 
 "The arm break of the wicked man, 
 and of the evil one:" 
 
 "The evil one," is generally used to designate the 
 
24 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 Devil; and the Psalm I think, does not ask for the break- 
 ing of the Devil's arm. Rouse speaks of the sore oppres- 
 sed; but the Psalm does not. Rouse teaches, that, *'man 
 of the earth,'' signifies perishahle man; but the Psalm 
 does not teach this. And more probably it means the 
 mere man of the v^orld — the earthly minded man. My 
 conjectures however, are useless; for Dr. Pressly sings 
 it; and he says he sings nothing but inspired songs; and 
 inspiration must be true. 
 
 Let us take next Rouse's paraphrase of the 18th Psalm ; 
 and we shall find it as unlike the original as any we have 
 yet examined. There are in it not less than fifty alter- 
 ations, and all of necessity differing from the Psalm of 
 inspiration. At the beginning. Rouse leaves out of his 
 paraphrase quite a long verse which is part of the Psalm, 
 It is this: — **To the chief musician. A Psalm of David, 
 the servant of the Lord, who spake unto the Lord the 
 words of this song, in the day that the Lord delivered 
 him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand 
 of Saul; and he said," — Now this is a part of the Psalm in 
 the Hebrew Bible. And Dr. Pressly says, the titles are 
 inspired. Why then does he exclude this portion of 
 the inspired Psalms from his system of psalmody? It 
 cannot be because it is not suitable; for it is more suita- 
 ble than some that he does sing: such as: — 
 ^'Moab's my washing-pot; my shoe 
 ril over Edom throw.'' 
 
 On what ground Dr. Pressly can justify himself, in re- 
 fusing to sing the 1st verse of the 18th Psalm, I know not, 
 unless it is, that he does not consider it inspired. And 
 at this conclusion he arrives, I presume, because it con- 
 stitutes no part of the Psalms of Rouse. Indeed, consis 
 tency requires him, to deny its inspiration; because he 
 says he uses the inspired Psalms; and this verse is not in 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 25 
 
 his Psalms at all. But if the Psalms used by Dr. Pressly, 
 are those of inspiration, then the Psalms which constitute 
 a part of the Bible are not; for they are two things en- 
 tirely different. 
 
 The Psalm says, ''My cry came before him;" but Rouse 
 leaves this out also. Rouse says, '*The earth as affrigh- 
 ted,'* which is not in the Psalm. The Psalm says, "The 
 foundations of the hills were shaken, this too is omitted 
 by Rouse. And he says, ''Coals were turned into Jiame;^* 
 but the Psalm says no such thing. 
 
 "He also "bowed down the heavens, 
 and thence he did descend.'' 
 
 How false and foolish! He represents Him, as bow- 
 ing down the heavens, and then coming down from the 
 heavens! Rouse says, Thickest clouds w eve undev his 
 feet;" but the Psalm says, "Darkness was under his feet.'* 
 By comparing the two, the reader can see that the fol- 
 lowing sayings of Rouse are not in the Psalm. He did 
 fly on a cherub — swift wings — his flight was from on high 
 — thickest clouds of the airy firmament — brightness of 
 light before his eye — his thick clouds passed away — hail- 
 stones and coals of fire did jiy — the Lord God thunder- 
 ed in His ire — and the Highest gave his voice there — he 
 sent abroad his arrows — he shot out his lightnings — vast 
 foundations of the world. The ideas conveyed by this 
 language are all from Rouse. He says; — 
 "At thy rebuke discovered were, 
 and at thy nostrils' blast." 
 
 It should be, "Discovered were, O Lord, at the blast 
 of the breath of thy nostrils." Rouse says, "He took 
 me from helow;^^ but this is not in the Psalm. He says, 
 "Waters, which would me overflow;'^ this too, is his own 
 inspiration. 
 
 3 
 
26 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 •'Because he saw that they for me 
 too strong were, and too great/' 
 
 But the Psahn does not say that he ^az^? any such thing. 
 Rouse saw it; and now Dr. Pressly sees^ that it is inspi- 
 red!— 
 
 '•He to a pkce where liberiy 
 
 and room was, hath me brought/' 
 
 This is not what the Spirit of inspiration has said; and 
 how then, can it be inspired? 
 
 '•Sincere before him was my heart.'' 
 
 There is no such thing in the Psalm at alL And: — 
 " WcitclifuUy I kept myself:*' 
 
 Is very much like it. "Cleanness of my hands ajp- 
 pearing in Jds eye:'''' — this is not what is in the Psalm. 
 The inspired Psalm says; **With the merciful thou wilt 
 show thyself merciful,'' etc. The verbs are in the future 
 tense, ''thou icilt;'^ but Rouse has them all in the pres- 
 ent, thus: — 
 
 "Thou gracious to the gracious art, 
 
 to upright men upright; 
 Pure to the pure; froward thou kyth'st 
 
 unto the froward wight." 
 
 It is obvious, that Rouse's intention was, not to give a 
 literal translation, but to write poetry; and his wight is 
 invented to answer this purpose. 
 
 He would indite; and forged a wight, 
 To fit in tight, to make it right. 
 
 But then, it must be an inspired wight; and when Dr. 
 Pressly sings it, there is nothing like "offering strange 
 fire before the Lord!" Because all that he offers in 
 praise he has for it a Scripture warrant, — "a thus saith 
 the Lord!" 
 
 '•For thou wilt the afflicted save, • 
 in grief ilw.t low do JieJ^ 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 27 
 
 Where is Dr. Pressly's warrant for singing this] For 
 he says, "We have no authority to use the productions 
 of uninspired men," — 
 
 "But wilt bring down the countenance 
 of them whose looks are high.'^ 
 
 What authority then, has he for using this? And what 
 authority for using the following: — 
 
 "The Lord will light my candle so, 
 that it shall shine full bright J' 
 And the following is authorized just in the same way: 
 "By thee through troops of men I break, 
 
 and them discomfit all; 
 And by my God assisting me, 
 I overleap a wall/' 
 
 When Dr. Pressly offers this in praise, he is surely 
 careful to answer the question, "Who hath required this 
 at your hands]" Rouse says: — 
 
 "The Lord his word is tried" — 
 
 If he had wished to write sense, might he not as well 
 have said. The Lord's tvord, it is tried! And if Psalmon- 
 ites had not considered his nonsense inspired, would 
 they not have altered it long ago] 
 
 "For who is God, save the Lord] or who is a rock, 
 save our God]" Compare with this what Rouse says: — 
 "Who but the Lord is God? but he 
 who is a rock and stay?" 
 
 Rouse says, — Who is God, but he who is a rock and 
 stay] But the Psalm does not say this at all. The Psalm 
 says, our God is the only rock; and Rouse leaves this 
 out altogether. And yet the people are taught by Dr. 
 Pressly and others, that these are the Psalms of inspira- 
 tion! — 
 
 "Mine hands to war he taught, mine arms 
 brake bows of steel in pieces." 
 
28 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 This does not give the sense of the Psalm; for it rep- 
 resents the hands being so taught, that the arms can 
 break a bow of steel. 
 
 ^'And ill 7717/ loay, my steps though hast 
 
 enlarged under me, 
 That I go safely, and my feet 
 
 are heptfrom sliding free J' 
 
 The Psalmist does not say, that his feet are always 
 kept from sliding; this is not the idea contained in the 
 Psalm at all. And the following is just like it: — 
 
 ^'Tliat I might them destroy and slay, 
 ivho did against me i^iseJ^ 
 
 And Dr. Pressly could write composition much more 
 inspired than the following; because he could write 
 much nearer to the truth: — 
 
 ^'They cried out, but there was none 
 that would or could them save/^ 
 This is a most notorious falsehood; for their wicked 
 accomplices would have saved them, but they could not; 
 and the Lord could have saved them, but He would not. 
 And this is the declaration of the inspired Psalm. "They 
 cried, but there was none to save them; even unto the 
 Lord, but he answered them not." And yet, although 
 Dr. Pressly and other Psalmonites employ palpable 
 falsehoods in singing the praise of God, they neverthe- 
 less teach their people, that the Psalmody used is in- 
 spired! It may well be questioned whether Papists 
 ever practised a more impious fraud. 
 
 ^'Then I did beat them small as dust 
 
 before the wind tliat flies-, 
 And I did cast them out, like dirt 
 upon the street tliat lies.'' 
 
 This may be said to be very like the inspired Psalm, 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 29 
 
 And so it is; but then it is not the same. E,ouse intend- 
 ed, not to translate, but to make poetry, and hence: — 
 
 His human wisdom hard he plies, 
 Anon come forth the words, that fixes; 
 And then to these he adds, that lies; 
 And thus his rhyme together ties. 
 
 But who, except a Psalmonite, would ever suppose it 
 was an inspired rhyme? — 
 
 *'Thou mad^st me free from people's strife — 
 
 The plain meaning of this is, that people are accus- 
 tomed to have strife among themselves; but I have 
 nothing to do with it — I have been freed from all inter- 
 ference. If we had not the inspired Psalm to guide us, 
 we would not get the correct meaning from Rouse. 
 And thus it is in a vast multitude of cases, we could not 
 get the true meaning from Rouse's Psalm; but we get 
 it from the inspired Psalm. And thus the meaning of 
 the inspired Psalm is given to that of Rouse, though his 
 language does not convey it at all. And this is one rea- 
 son why Rouse's Psalms have been considered inspired. 
 We gather the meaning from the inspired Psalm, and 
 then we read Rouse's Psalm with this meaning, no 
 matter what may be contained in his language. But if 
 our meaning was taken from Rouse's own language, we 
 would have a very different affair from what is contained 
 in the book of Psalms, 
 
 *And heathen^s head to be'' — 
 
 This does not give the meaning of the Psalm; for 
 "heathen's head," is the same as head of heathen, which 
 signifies, head of some heathens] not the heathen as a 
 whole. 
 
 * At hearing they shall me obey, 
 to me they shall submit:^' 
 This is what Rouse has instead of the following — "As 
 3* 
 
30 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 soon as they hear of me, they shall obey me: the straiigeis 
 shall submit themselves unto me.'* He omits the last 
 half of the verse altogether. And yet w^e are told that 
 his is the inspired Psalm. But if his is the inspired 
 Psalm, then David's is not. And the matter is so man- 
 ifest that there is no room for controversy. 
 
 ''Strangers /or /ear shall fade away, 
 wJio in close places sit.'' 
 
 This is not in the Psalm at all. True, there is some- 
 thing like it, but the, like it^ is not the inspired Psalm. 
 "And to thy name, 0 Lord, I will 
 sing praises in a song J' 
 
 As this is not part of the inspired Psalm, it is very 
 likely Rouse purposed to sing praise in the use of one 
 of his own songs. 
 
 Surely it ought not to be pretended, that this para- 
 phrase of Rouse is the inspired Psalm. There is so 
 much taken from it, and so much added to it, that it can- 
 not be the same. It may be said, that the changes made 
 are small, and therefore it is the same Psalm still. But 
 no: the changes have made it what it was not. Suppose 
 you had obtained a fine horse, and you would take off 
 his head; and then cause him to grow all over with feath- 
 ers; w^ould he be the same you received? Yes he would 
 all but; — all but what] All but the absence of the head, 
 and the presence of the feathers, and the want of life. 
 And these changes make him to be, not the one you ob- 
 tained. That one had a head, but this one has none: 
 that one had no feathers, but this one has: that one was 
 living, but this one is dead. Before you have the same, 
 you must put on the head, take away the feathers, and 
 give him life. And thus it is with Rouse's paraphrase 
 of the 18th Psalm: he has taken away the head; he has 
 put on the feathers; and he has killed it! And before 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 31 
 
 it is the same Psalm that came from heaven, there must 
 be put in, what he left out; and taken out, what he put 
 in; that thus it may have the living beauty, and energy of 
 inspiration! Were you to receive a quantity of wine, 
 and take the alcohol out of it, and then pour milk into it, 
 it could not be the same you received; surely it would 
 be a very different article. And so, any one, who im- 
 partially examines Rouse's 18th Psalm, cannot but see, 
 that it is not the Psalm of inspiration. It is not a whit 
 more inspired than Dr. Pressly's work on Psalmody; for 
 a good deal of truth is found in them both, whatever 
 else they may contain. 
 
 I have compared Rouse's 22d Psalm with that of in- 
 spiration, and have noted in it more than thirty variations 
 from the original. And hence, it and the inspired Psalm 
 are two things very different from each other. Any 
 man, by comparing them, can easily see, that Rouse's 
 paraphrase of the 22d, is no more inspired, than his 
 paraphrase of the 18th. Indeed I have examined a great 
 many, and I cannot find one of Rouse's, which agrees 
 with the Psalm of inspiration. Even the shortest Psalm, 
 the 117th, has in it a discrepancy, for every line it con- 
 tains. 
 
 We have said, that inasmuch as Rouse's Psalms have 
 in them a multitude of words and phrases not found in 
 the inspired Psalms, therefore his and those cannot be 
 one and the same, — his having them, cannot be those 
 that have them not. This multitude of supj^lementary 
 words and phrases entirely destroys their claim to in- 
 spiration. But it may be replied, that on this principle 
 the prose translation is not inspired, for it also has a 
 good many supplementary words. But there is a very 
 great difference between Rouse's supplementary words 
 and those of the prose; because in the one case they con- 
 
32 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 vey only the ideas contained in the original, but in the 
 other they convey more. The supplementary words of 
 the prose do not convey ideas additional to those of in^ 
 spiration; but the supplementary words of Rouse do. 
 In the one they convey the truth, that the Spirit of God 
 designed to teach in that place; but in the other they 
 convey more than this: and hence they constitute no 
 part of the inspired Psalm. The Psalm that has them is 
 not in accordance with the design of the Spirit— it is not 
 the one given by inspiration; and therefore it cannot be 
 inspired. And the numerous omissions found in Rouse's 
 Psalms, is another thing that destroys their claim to 
 inspiration. They leave out a good deal that the Spirit 
 of God designed should be in the book of Psalms: 
 hence, if we had no Psalms but those of Rouse, we 
 would not have the book of Psalms at all. 
 
 We shall continue then, to examine a few more of 
 Rouse's Psalms. And they are not selected as the worst 
 specimens. Let us look at his 72d. We find he has 
 left out a part of the first verse, and the whole of the 
 last verse. And how then, can it be pretended, that it 
 is the Psalm given by inspiration? And he speaks of 
 lofty mountains; but not so the Psalm: and says he shall 
 break in pieces those that oppressed tliem; but the 
 Psalm does not. The Psalm says, ^'He shall come down 
 like rain, and as showers that water the earth;'' but 
 Rouse says, ^'He shall drop!^^ How ridiculous the idea, 
 either uf Solomon, or of the Redeemer dropping upon 
 the earth! The beauty of the figure is entirely lost, and 
 almost the sense too, just by the change of a single 
 word. The Psalm says, *'The just shall flourish in his 
 days:" but Rouse thinks this is not enough, and in his 
 inspired wisdom adds, "And prosper in his reign." — 
 Rouse says, *'He shall abundant peace maintain;" but 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 33 
 
 the Psalm does not say so at all. Rouse says, **They 
 that dwell in the wilderness must how down before him 
 but this is not in the Psalm. Rouse says, **A11 the 
 mighty Kings on earth shall fall before him;'* but the 
 Psalm says, ^'All Kings," whether they be mighty Kings, 
 or i^etty Kings. Neither does it say anything about 
 those on the earth; nor about the nations of the loorld; 
 nor about the needy calling to him; nor about him that 
 hath, no help of man at all. Of these thoughts Rouse 
 is the sole author. The Psalm says, "Their blood shall 
 be precious in his sight; but with Rouse this is not 
 enough; he has it, right precious and dear. The Psalm 
 says, '* There shall be an handful of corn in the earth, 
 and the fruit thereof shall shake;'* but Rouse says, "The 
 handful of corn shall shake!" The Psalm says, "Shake 
 like Lehanon;^^ but Rouse says, "Shake like trees,^^ — 
 How perfectly ridiculous Rouse makes this sublime pas- 
 sage. It is a remarkable prophecy of the Redeemer's 
 Kingdom — its small beginning, and subsequent greatness 
 and glory. This is set forth in figurative language. A 
 mere handful of corn — sown in the most barren soil, on 
 the top of the mountains; yet this handful yields, and 
 prospers, and increases, until the fruit or product there- 
 of appears, in all the majesty and grandeur of the 
 waving mountain forest! But Rouse says the ^^handful 
 shall shake." Will it be while falling on the ground in 
 sowing] or after it is in the ground'? Aye too, and the 
 handful will shake like trees! O such inspiration! But 
 in Dr, Pressly's estimation it is sublime when compared 
 with "human composure!" And in singing it he is very 
 careful, not to "offer strange fire before the Lord!" The 
 Psalm says, "They of the city shall flourish;" but Rouse 
 says, "The city shall flourish, and the citizens shall 
 abound in number like the grass." The Psalm says, 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 **God doeth wondrous things;" and Rouse adds, "In glo- 
 ry that excel.'' Thus we see, that Rouse's inspiration 
 goes beyond that of David! And this accounts for Dr. 
 Pressly's fondness for his Psalms; he being so very 
 zealous for inspired composition. The Psalm says, **The 
 prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended;" but 
 Rouse has inspiratfon enough in his without this. 
 
 Take next Rouse's paraphrase of the 78th Psalm. 
 The Psalm has, **Give ear to my law;" but Rouse has, 
 **Give ear to my law," and '^Attend to my law." Here 
 again his inspiration goes beyond that of the Psalm. He 
 talks of or diB proceeding from the mouth; but the Psalm 
 does not. He says, **Hear attentively)^^ but this is not 
 in the Psalm. 
 
 *'Them to the generation 
 to come declare will we." 
 This also, is from Rouse. And so is the following: — 
 *'The praises of the Lord our God, 
 
 and his almighty strength, 
 The wondrous works that he hath done, 
 we will show forth at lengthl" 
 There is positively no such proposition in the Psalm; 
 though I know Dr. Pressly's argumentative skill, could 
 very easily make out, that there is. The reader may 
 compare the following also, with what is in the Psalm: — 
 
 *'His testimony and his law 
 
 in Israel he did place, 
 And charged our fathers it to show 
 
 to their succeeding race." 
 
 Could any one tell what the pronoun it stands for? — 
 Perhaps the meaning is, it testimony and law; if so, it 
 is surely elegant. The Psalm says, "That the genera- 
 tion to come might know them;" but this is not enough 
 for Rouse: he has, "Know and learn them wellT For 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 35 
 
 **Works of God/' Rouse has, ^'Ms mighty worksj*^ For 
 "precepts/' he has, ''all precepts'^ For, "turned back," 
 he has, ^'faintly turned hack.'^^ 
 
 "Yet sinning more, in desert they 
 pj^ovoke the highest One/' 
 The reader may compare this with the language of 
 the Psalm: — "And they sinned yet more against him, by 
 provoking the Most High in the wilderness." 
 
 "For in their heart they tempted God, 
 
 and speaking with mistrust, 
 They greedily did meat require 
 to satisfy their lust/' 
 Will Dr. Pressly be so condescending as to show that 
 this verse was given by the Spirit of God? And will he 
 have the goodness to show, that the following also is in- 
 spired: — 
 
 "Against the Lord himself they spake; 
 
 and murmuring, said thus^ 
 A table in the wilderness 
 can God prepare for usf^ 
 The Psalm says, "The waters gushed out and the 
 streams overflowed;" Rouse says, ''streams and waters 
 great came thence; and leaves out, "The streams over- 
 flowed." Rouse says: — 
 
 "And by his power he let out 
 the Southern wind to go." 
 But the Psalm says, "By his power he brought in the 
 South wind." Thus the one flatly contradicts the other. 
 Rouse must be right; for Dr. Pressly says, he sings 
 nothing but an inspired Psalmody; and the Psalm that 
 contradicts his inspired Psalm must be wrong. And 
 Rouse says, "He let out the southern wind to go^^ — to 
 go where? — perhaps to go and inspire Rouse. The 
 Psalm says, "Feathered fowls as the sand of the sea;" 
 but Rouse says, "Like as the sand which lieth the shore 
 
36 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 dlong:^^ Does he mean the shore of a river, or of a lake, or 
 of the sea; Rouse says, showers of flesh fell down amidst 
 their camp; but we have no account that it came in 
 sliowers. It is not said in the Psalm, that they did eat 
 ahundantly] nor, that he gave them their desire and will; 
 nor does the Psalm say a word about them estranging 
 their heart and desire from their lust; nor yet about 
 meat, "which they did so require.*' The Psalm says, 
 "The wrath of God smote dov^n the chosen men of Is- 
 rael; but Rouse says, '''Death overwhelmed them." The 
 Psalm does not say, "Though he had wrought great 
 v^onders;'' nor does it say, "He consumed and wasted 
 their days. 
 
 "And by his wrath their wretched years 
 away in trouble past.^^ 
 This may be true, but then it is no part of the inspired 
 Psalm; nor this: — "Then they did, to seek him show de- 
 sire!^ Nor does the Psalm say, " high almighty God;'* 
 nor, "spake but feignedly;" nor, "God of truth;" nor, 
 "False tongues;" nor this, "For though their words 
 were good;" nor, "Fading flesh." The Psalm says: — 
 "For he remembered that they were but flesh." But 
 Rouse says: — 
 
 "For that they were but fading flesh 
 to mind they did recall." 
 
 The Psalm says, "It was God who remembered they 
 were but flesh;" but Rouse says, "It was the people who 
 remembered it." Will Dr. Pressly have the goodness 
 to publish and make known, which is right? 
 "A wind that passeth soon away.^' 
 This is not in the Psalm, thouo^h there is somethincrlike 
 it. But there is nothing like: 
 
 "With their rebelliousness." 
 The Psalm says, "They limited the Holy One of Is- 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 37 
 
 rael/' This peculiar and important phrase, *^Holy One 
 of Israel," Rouse leaves out, and consequently he does 
 not give the sense. He has it jumbled together thus: — 
 
 "And limits set upon 
 Him, who in the midst of Israel is 
 the only holy one/^ 
 
 The Psalm says, "they remembered not his liand-^'' 
 but Rouse says, "they remembered not his power — 
 Hand may signify power; but then, which is the lan- 
 guage of inspiration? The Psalm says, "He delivered 
 them from the enemy; but Rouse says, "He delivered 
 them from the hand of their Jieixe enQvay y The Psalm 
 does not say, "that he wrought great signs openly in 
 Egypt land;'*' nor, "that his hand had brought miracles to 
 pass,^^ Rouse says, Every where he turned lakes and 
 rivers into blood/' If so, then Lake Superior and the 
 Mississippi were turned into blood. The Psalm does 
 not say, "that he turned lakes into blood" any where; for 
 neither of the words used signifies a lake. Rouse says: 
 "So that no man nor beast could drink 
 of standing lake or flood.'^ 
 
 But this is no part of the inspired Psalm. The Psalm 
 does not say, that, "He brought among them swarms of 
 flies;'* nor that they sore annoyed them. How did Rouse 
 find out, that there were divers kinds of filthy frogs? 
 And who told him that hot thunderbolts wasted their 
 flocks? The Psalm does not say, "He brought them 
 to borders of his sanctuary;" nor, "purchased for them.'' 
 The Psalm says, "He cast out the heathen also before 
 them." But just look what Rouse has instead of this! — 
 "The nations of Canaan, 
 by his almighty hand, 
 Before their face he did expel 
 out of their native land.^' 
 4 
 
38 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 And yet Dr. Pressly says, that Rouse's version, **is a 
 translation of the songs of Inspiration!'* But any one 
 can see, that if this is inspired composition, then there 
 is a vast quantity of inspired composition extant; for all 
 that is in accordance with the vsrord of God is inspired. 
 
 *'And to observe his testimonies 
 did not incline their will/' 
 The only claim to inspiration that this has, is, that it 
 agrees with the word of God, 
 
 * 'Aside they turned, like a bow 
 that shoots deceitfully/' 
 The claims of this, are precisely the same. And the 
 following is no better: — 
 
 ^^So sore Ms wrath infiamed ivas 
 against his heritage.'' 
 And the following also, is something like what is in 
 the Psalm; — 
 
 "The mighty tribes of Ephraim 
 
 he would in no wise choose — 
 But he did choose Jehudah's tribe 
 
 to be the rest above.^' 
 
 Rouse says, ''He brought him to feed, his people Ja- 
 coVs seed;^^ but there is no such thing in the Psalm. And 
 he says, *'He fed, and governed them wisely represent- 
 ing David as sustaining to Israel the character of both a 
 shepherd and a King: this is explaning the Psalm; for 
 the language of the Psalm is figurative, and speaks of 
 him only in the character of a shepherd. And yet Dr. 
 Pressly is violent against singing an explanation in- 
 stead of the Psalm itself. But indeed, we have abun- 
 dant evidence, that he is violent against his own prac- 
 tice. 
 
 We take next Rouse's paraphrase of the 80th Psalm. 
 And we find it to be, not that Psalm, though it is like it. 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 39 
 
 Rouse leaves out the whole of the first verse, as it is in the 
 Hebrew Bible — Dr, Pressly says, the titles are inspired; 
 hence this verse is a part of the inspired Psalm. And 
 the Psalm, which is without it, cannot be that Psalm, 
 any more than a part of an apple can be that apple. — 
 But Rouse has an abundance of interpolations, to more 
 than compensate for all his omissions. ''Stir up thy 
 strength and mightf^ — is one — "O Lord our God,*' — is 
 another — " Upon us vouchsafe,*' — is another — "O Lord 
 of Hosts, Almighty God,'' — is another — "How long 
 shall thy wrath he kindled,^'' — is another — "The prayer 
 made," — is another; and the Psalm having these interpo- 
 lations can no more be the Psalm, that has them not, 
 than a horse with feathers can be a horse that has none. 
 And these interpolations are essential to Rouse's Psalm; 
 for take them out and he would have no Psalm. And 
 hence, that which makes Rouse's Psalm to be a Psalm, 
 is not in the inspired Psalm at all. The inspired Psalm 
 is a Psalm without them; but Rouse's is no Psalm with- 
 out them; therefore it is impossible for his and it to be 
 one and the same. You might just as well say, that wa- 
 ter and whiskey are the same. Water is water without 
 alcohol; hence whiskey has in it, that which prevents it 
 from being water. And so Rouse's Psalms have in them, 
 that which prevents them from being the Psalms of inspi- 
 ration. And as taking the alcohol out of whiskey anni- 
 hilates it; so taking the interpolations out of Rouse's 
 Psalms annihilates them. And thus we see, that their 
 very existence depends upon what is not in the inspired 
 Psalms at all. And hence, that which gives them life is 
 not from the Spirit of God, it is from man; their vitality 
 is not divine but human; for just take out of them what 
 is human, and they cease to be Psalms altogether. And 
 yet these Psalms are used, by the very people, who cry 
 
40 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 out against the use of human composition! Alas! for 
 poor fallen humanity! 
 
 But let us continue the examination of Rouse's SOth 
 Psalm. He says: — 
 
 ''Thou tears of sorrow giv'st to them 
 instead of bread to eat/^ 
 Now take the human out of this, and see how much 
 will remain — '*Thou tears them bread" — And thus we 
 see, that the very existence of Rouse's Psalms depends 
 upon what is human, 
 
 *'Thou niakest us a strife unto 
 our neighbors ^ ^ 
 This is Rouse's paraphrase without the human. And 
 we see the human is essential to it, in order to have it in 
 verse. 
 
 ''Our enemies among themselves 
 ^ ^ do laugh " J' 
 
 This is more without the human; and we see that the 
 human is absolutely indispensable. And the following 
 proves the same thing: — 
 
 "A vine from Egypt brought thou hast, 
 
 ^ ^ ^ ^ , 
 
 J 
 
 And thou the heathen out did'st cast, 
 
 We thus see the kind of a Psalm Rouse would have 
 
 when the human composition is taken out. The truth 
 
 is, it would be no Psalm at all. Here is another sample: 
 
 "Before it thou ^ ^ room did'st make 
 ^ ^ # * # . 
 
 Thou causedst it deep root to take, 
 and it did fill the land/' 
 
 "The mountains veiled were with its shade 
 * * * # * . 
 
 Like goodly cedars were the boughs, 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 41 
 
 " * a * * ^ to the sea 
 
 her boughs she did out send; 
 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ unto the flood 
 
 her branches did extend. 
 **Why hast thou then ^ broken down 
 
 ^ ^ her hedge ^ : 
 
 So that all passengers do pluck, 
 
 •X- -H- ^ her -5^ ^ ? 
 "The boar, * 4f 4f ^ 
 
 doth waste it ; 
 The wild beast of the field ^ ^ 
 
 devours it ^* ^ . 
 
 "0 God of hosts, we thee beseech, 
 
 return thou ^ ^ ; 
 Look down from heaven ^ ^ , behold, 
 
 and visit ^ this vine; 
 a ^ ^ vineyard, which thine ^* ^ right hand 
 
 has planted ^ , 
 
 And * branch, which for thyself 
 
 thou hast made to be strong. 
 Burnt up it is with ^" * fire, 
 
 it * is cut down: 
 They * -5^ 4:- ^ 
 
 •3€- -X- -X- -Jf 
 
 " * * let thy hand be * * upon 
 the man of thy right hand. 
 
 The Son of man, whom for thyself 
 
 thou madest strong * * * ^ 
 *'So ^ * we will not go back, 
 
 * from thee * : 
 
 * * quicken us, and we 
 
 upon thy name will call. 
 "Turn us again, Lord God of hosts, 
 
 :?f * 4f * 
 
 ^ make thy countenance to shine, 
 and * we shall be safe.^^ 
 Now if Dr. Pressly still maintains, that the human 
 composition, is not essential to Rouse's Psalms, let him, 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 some day, try his congregation in singing the above, out 
 of which, part of the human has been taken. If they 
 can sing it, to edification, without the human, then I will 
 admit that it is not essential to Rouse's Psalms. But if 
 they cannot do this, then they must admit, that the very 
 existence of Rouse's Psalms depends upon human com- 
 position. 
 
 And if the Doctor and his people, wish to try their 
 musical abilities, upon a shorter Psalm, they may take 
 the 100th of Rouse. Without the human composition 
 it reads thus; — 
 
 ''All ***** ^ 
 
 * * unto the Lord * * * ^ 
 Him serve with mirth, * * * ; 
 Come * before him * * . 
 Know that the Lord is God * * : 
 
 * ** * * he did us make: 
 We are his ***** ^ 
 
 sheep * * * . 
 
 * enter * his gates with praise, 
 
 * * * * his courts * * ; 
 
 Praise, * * , and bless his name * * , 
 ******* 
 
 For * * ? the Lord * * is good. 
 
 His mercy is forever * * * . 
 
 His truth ****** ^ 
 
 * * shall from age to age endure/' 
 
 Now we see, there is a large portion of this Psalm 
 entirely human. And Rouse has proved this himself, 
 by giving another version, in which he has omitted near- 
 ly all that is omitted in the above. Let the reader 
 compare the two: — 
 
 "0 all ye lands, unto the Lord 
 
 make ye a joyful noise. 
 Serve God with gladness, him before 
 come with a singing voice. 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 43 
 
 Know ye the Lord that he is God: 
 
 not we, but he us made; 
 We are his people, and the sheep 
 within his pasture feed/^ 
 Now if all the matter contained in Rouse's first ver- 
 sion is inspired, and he has left a good deal of it out 
 of his second, then his second cannot be inspired. 
 And if his second has in it all that ought to be in it, 
 then his first has a great deal to much, and it cannot be 
 inspired. One of them must be wrong; because they dif- 
 fer so much. But in the estimation of Psalmonites, 
 they are both inspired alike; and they never forbear ro 
 sing either, because it is human composition. The one 
 that has the greater amount of human composition in it, 
 they sing more frequently than the other. But take the 
 human out of them both, and they will have no 100th 
 Psalm, in verse; because it is proved that it is human 
 composure, which keeps in existence the Psalms of 
 Rouse — take it out, and they are gone. 
 
 Leaving the human out of Rouse's 84th Psalm, it 
 commences thus: — 
 
 It ^ * * # « 
 
 0 Lord of hosts, * * ! 
 * tabernacles * * * 
 how pleasant * * 
 Is it not obvious, that taking out the human puts an 
 end to it] And we repeat it, that what is essential to 
 the existence of Rouse's Psalms, is not in the Psalms of 
 Inspiration at all: — 
 
 *'My thirsty soul longs veliemently— 
 An house lolierein to resf^ — • 
 These are some more of the human essentials. Rouse 
 says, **The swallow hath purchased a nest for her- 
 self;" but in this country, swallows do not buy their 
 nests — *'Wher6 she safe her young ones forth may 
 
44 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 bring'* — Who, but Rouse, would ever have thought of 
 a swallow bringing forthi But then, it is the swallow 
 that buys its nest. What an advantage Rouse had, in 
 that he wrote inspired composition; for otherwise his 
 literary productions would surely have been lost long 
 ere now! — "In whose heart are thy ways." This too, 
 is from his inspired pen — 
 
 ''Who passing through Baca's vale, 
 therein do dig up wells/' 
 
 This is from the same author; it has the true charac- 
 teristics. And when they dug "up the wells,'' they 
 would have them out on the ground — they could exam- 
 ine them — put in new bottoms, etc. and then put them 
 down again — And who has not heard a congregation 
 boggle at Baca] Because the line has a syllable too 
 little. Might he not as well have said: — 
 
 Who passing on through Baca's vale? 
 
 And surely it would have been altered long ago, if 
 Psalmonites had not considered Rouse's language as 
 the identical language of inspiration? The feeling 
 among them has been — Who would dare to lay his sac- 
 rilegious hand upon the sacred text] And this is the 
 fraud, and foolish notion, propagated and cherished 
 among them at the present time. — "The rain that falleth 
 down," is more of this inspired composition. And, 
 "Fills the pools with water;" is more— —"They go un- 
 wearied. '* Notwithstanding Rouse's inspiration, 1 do 
 not think he speaks the truth here. — "They go still 
 forward." So he says. — "Before the Lord at length" — 
 from the same authority; and, "Thine anointed dear," — 
 from the same. Rouse is careful to add at the close of 
 the Psalm, full as much as he omitted at the beginning. 
 His last verse is like his first, nearly all human: — 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 45 
 
 "0 * Lord of hosts, 
 
 that man is * blest, 
 Who, * * * * , 
 on thee * doth rest.^^ 
 I hope the reader will not become wearied; as it is 
 surely very important to expose the unfounded preten- 
 tions of men, who declaim so much against human com- 
 position; who indulge so much self complacency on 
 account of their inspired Psalmody; and who practice 
 such deception upon their people. Let us examine, 
 then, another of their inspired songs; the 102d. Of this 
 Psalm Rouse has two versions; and both are very dif- 
 ferent from the Psalm of inspiration. Neither of them 
 is a translation of that Psalm. And the mere English 
 reader can easily see it by comparing them with the 
 prose translation. He can see that if it is the word of 
 God, they are not. How could they both be a transla- 
 tion of the same thing, when they differ from each other 
 so much? The one says: — 
 
 ''The pelican of wilderness 
 The owl in desert I do watch:^' 
 The other says: — 
 
 ''Like pelican in wilderness 
 
 forsaken I have been 
 I like an owl in desert am, 
 
 that nightly there doth moan/' 
 Dr. Pressly says, that both these are a translation of 
 the inspired song. But who, except a Psalmonite, 
 would believe him] And who else would believe him, 
 were he to say that either of them is? Of this Psalm 
 also. Rouse has entirely omitted the first verse as it is 
 in the Hebrew Bible. It is thus: — "A prayer of the 
 afflicted, when he is overwhelmed, and poureth out his 
 complaint before the Lord." Now this portion of in- 
 spiration is not in Rouse's Psalms at all. And there is 
 
46 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 in them a vast quantity of matter not in the inspired 
 Psalms at all. Such as — ^^Ihave been forsaken like pel- 
 ican'^ — "I am like an owl that nightly there doth moan'^ 
 — "Thy wrath and indignation, did cause this grief and 
 jpain^^ — **Lift me up on high, cast me down again^^ — 
 My days are like a shade, which doth pass'^ — am 
 dried like the grass'' — ^'Thy remembrance, shall contin- 
 ually endure^'' — "For thy servants take pleasure in her 
 rubbish; for her sahe^ When Rouse leaves out, and 
 puts in, so much; and makes his Psalms so much unlike 
 those of inspiration, how can Dr. Pressly, in speaking of 
 them, have so little self respect, as to use the following 
 language? — "This version, then, the reader will percieve, 
 is a translation of the songs of inspiration; it is a ren- 
 dering of the word of God, which was given in Hebrew 
 poetry, into English poetry." Now how shall we ac- 
 count for it, that in the midst of an enlightened Christian 
 community. Dr. Pressly would venture to publish such 
 a declaration? Can it be that he is so imperfect in 
 knowledge, as to the character of Rouse's Psalms; or 
 can it be, that he is so imperfect in his love of truth, as 
 to make the assertion while he knew better? And is it 
 possible, that he is ignorant of the character of the 
 Psalms, he has been explaining so long? And yet he 
 says. Rouse's Psalms "is a translation of the songs of 
 inspiration — a rendering of the word of God which was 
 given in Hebrew!" Most astonishing! Will Dr. Press- 
 ly tells us what it is in the Hebrew, of which the follow- 
 ing is a translation: — 
 
 "When Zion hy the mighty Lord 
 
 'built up again shall he, 
 In glory then, and majesty 
 
 to men appear shall be.'' 
 Any English reader can see, that if this is a translation 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 47 
 
 of the Hebrew, the following is not: — "When the Lord 
 shall build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory." And 
 of what is the following a translation: — 
 
 ''Their prayer will he not despise, 
 hy Mm it shall he heard J' 
 
 The last line is just a translation of nothing. "He hath 
 cast his eye downward,'* — "The Lord, from his glori- 
 ous throne, did spy the earth/' — "Groanings of the 
 mournful prisoner — by men appointed to death,"— "That 
 they may declare the Lord's most holy name in Zion, 
 and in Jerusalem, publish the praises of the same, namCy^ 
 — "In troops with one accoid," — "To serve the highest 
 Lord," — "My force he hath abated," — *'Thy years stay 
 from age to age," — "The firm foundations," — "Thou 
 shalt endure for evermore^ Any one that examines 
 can see, that this has been rendered from nothing in the 
 Hebrew. And hence it must be a translation of Hebrew 
 nothings; for Dr. Pressly says, that Rouse's version is 
 a translation of the Hebrew into English. And we 
 find, that Hebrew nothings, when translated by Rouse, 
 amount to a good deal. The Doctor, however, can still 
 make out, that Rouse's Psalms are inspired, for the He- 
 brew nothings will be inspired, and when Rouse trans- 
 lates them they will be still more inspired; so that the 
 Doctor's Psalmody is exceedingly inspired! 
 
 In his second version of this Psalm we find a vast 
 multitude of these translations. — "Let my cry have spee- 
 dy access," — is one. "Consume away," — is another. — 
 "My bones do burn," — another. "Wounded very sore," 
 — another. "My heart like grass doth fade," — another. 
 "I am grown forgetful to take my daily bread," — anoth- 
 er. "By reason of my smart within," — another. "Voice 
 of my most grevious groans," — another. "My flesh con- 
 sumed is," — another. "My skin, all parched, doth cleave 
 
48^ 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY* 
 
 unto my bones/* — another. "1 watcli upon the top of 
 the houses/* — "Sparrow-like, companionless," — is anoth- 
 er. "I am made a scorn all day long," — is another. — 
 "The madmen are sworn against me," — is another. — 
 "The men that arose against me," — is another. "I 
 have eaten up ashes, as if they had been bread to me," — 
 another. ''I made a mixture of bitter tears, in my cup 
 with my drink," — is another. It is strange indeed, that 
 any man would call this production of Rouse a transla- 
 tion of the Hebrew! The following verse does not give 
 any thing like the true meaning:- — 
 
 "Because thy wrath was not appeasM, 
 And dreadful indignation; 
 Therefore it was that thou me raised, 
 And thou again did cast me down.''' 
 
 The sense in the Psalm is very different from this. It 
 reads thus: — "For I have eaten ashes like bread, and min- 
 gled my drink with weeping, because of thine indigna- 
 tion and thy wrath!" This makes, "indignation and 
 wrath," the cause of having eaten ashes, etc. but Rouse 
 has it altogether different. 
 
 For the benefit of those who cannot sing human com- 
 posure in the worship of God, it may be well to publish 
 the remainder of this Psalm of Rouse, leaving out what 
 is human. Dr. Pressly and his people can then sing it, 
 without "offering strange fire." 
 
 "My days are like a shade * * , 
 Which doth declining * * * ; 
 And I am withered * * * , 
 
 * * like * the * * grass. 
 
 But thou, 0 Lord, shalt still endure, 
 ******** 
 
 And to all generations * * 
 
 * * thy remembrance * * . 
 Thou shalt arise, and mercy * * 
 
 * * * ^'ion ^ * ♦ 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 Her time for favor which was set 
 
 * is * come * * . 
 Thy * take pleasure in her stones, 
 Her dust to them is dear. 
 
 * heathen * * * * ^ 
 ^ thy " name shall fear, 
 
 God in his glory shall appear, 
 When Zion he builds ^'^ ^' , 
 He shall regard -x- ^ 4^ - 
 ^ the needy^s prayers: 
 Th' ^ prayer he will not scorn., 
 ^ ^ this shall be on record: 
 And ^ - - - 
 
 Shall praise ^" the Lord. 
 
 He from his holy place looked down, 
 The earth viewed from heaven 
 To hear the prisoner's groan, 
 And free them that are doomed to die: 
 
 Zion "* Jerusalem , 
 His name and praise ^' ^' , 
 When people and the Kingdoms do 
 Assemble to ^ the Lord. 
 
 My strength he weakened in the way, 
 My days - shortened: 
 
 My God, ^ take me not away 
 In mid-time of my days, I said: 
 Thy years throughout all ages last. 
 Of old thou hast established 
 The earth's foundation ^ ^ : 
 Thy ^' hands the heavens " . 
 
 They perish shall, , 
 But thou shalt endure: 
 As * " thou shalt change them ^- , 
 And they shall be changed 
 
 But from all changes thou art free, 
 5 
 
50 
 
 MORTOiN ON PSALMODY. 
 
 Thy * * years do last for aye, 
 * * * and their seed * * , 
 Established shall before thee stay/^ 
 
 All of the inspired Psalm that Rouse has in his, is in 
 the above; and we see the kind of Psalm it is when the 
 human composition is left out. And there is scarcely a 
 word of the human composition, but what changes the 
 meaning; or conveys ideas additional to those contained 
 ^n the inspired Psalm. Now if House's Psalms are a 
 translation of the Hebrew, there h a great deal in them 
 which must be a translation of Hebrew nothings. And 
 can Dr. Pressly prove that the Hebrew nothings are in- 
 spired] If he cannot, then we may very well doubt the 
 inspiration of them when they are translated by Rouse. 
 Aud besides, the Hebrew nothings, are no part of the 
 inspired Psalm; hence^ a Psalm, made up in part, of 
 them translated, cannot be that Psalm. And this is the 
 inspired Psalmody used by Dr. Pressly; a Psalmody 
 consisting in measure, of a miserable translation of He- 
 brew nothings! Well may he publish it; that he is free, 
 from the sin of Nadab and Abihu! 
 
 Let us next examine Rouse's 145th Psalm. He com- 
 mences one of his versions thus:— 
 
 "0 Lord thou art my God and King:'^ 
 
 Now I defy any man, to point out any thing in the 
 Hebrew of which this is a translation. And Rouse 
 shows by his other version, that they are not both a trans- 
 lation. It begins thus:— 
 
 'Til thee extol my God 0 King;'' 
 
 Now if this is a translation of the Hebrew, it requires 
 no argument to show% that the other is not. Again; 
 Rouse says: — **Thee will I magnify and praise;^' but this 
 is not in the Psalm. *'I will gladly sing unto thy holy 
 name;'* neither is this. He says: — ''Each day I rise I 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 51 
 
 will thee bless;" but does not say what he will do when 
 from sickness he is unable to rise. In the Psalm it is: — 
 **Every day will I bless thee/' There is no proviso 
 made about rising, ^'I will speak of thy glorious ^racc;'' 
 neither is this in the Psalm: 
 
 ^'Thy wondrous works I will record. 
 By men the might shall he extolled 
 Of all thy dreadful acts, 0 Lord; 
 And I thy greatness will unfold.^'' 
 
 If this was found in Watts' Psalms, it would be noth- 
 ing but human composure. And the following would be 
 like it: — 
 
 *'And shall ^iwg praises clieerfidJy^ 
 
 'Whilst the}^ thy righteousness relate 
 And: — *'The Lord '6>?^r God is gracious;" would be no 
 better. ^*But unto ivratli and anger show;" is more of 
 the same. *'<jood unto all men is the Lord;" is also hu- 
 man, because it limits the goodness of the Loi d to men; 
 but the Psalm says, *'The Lord is good to alL" "Thy 
 saints, O Lord, thy name shall bless;" is also human; 
 because it is not what is in the Psalm. 
 
 ''That so men's sons his deeds may know, 
 
 His Kin^jdom's grace tJiai doth exedP 
 
 To sing this from Watts' Psalms would just be "oubr- 
 ing strange fire before the Lord." 
 
 ''Thy Kingdom hath none end at all, 
 
 It dotlt tlivoiKjlh ages all remain 
 To those singing this, from Watts', Dr. Pressly would 
 say, **Who hath required this at your hands." And he 
 would put the same query, if the following was sung 
 from Watts': — 
 
 "The eyes of all things, Lord attend , 
 
 And on thee wait, tliat here do live; 
 
 And thou in season due dost send 
 
 Sufficient food, tliem to relieve* 
 
52 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 Tea, thou thine hand dost open tvide 
 And every tiling dost satisfy 
 That lives, and doth on earth abide, 
 Oftliy great liberality J ^ 
 
 This, in Watts' Psalms, would be strange fire; but Dr. 
 Pressly can sing it from Rouse, with the "sanction of the 
 divine appointment!'' Is it not marvellous, to see the 
 unfounded pretentions, put forth by men, on this sub- 
 ject? Dr. Pressly pretends, that he has "the sanction of 
 the divine appointment" for the use of the following 
 also: — 
 
 ^'God will iYidjust desire fulfil 
 Of such as do him fear and dread: 
 Their cr}^ regard and hear he will 
 And save them, in tJie time of need.. 
 The Lord preserves all, more and less, 
 That hear to him a loving heart: 
 But workers all of wickedness 
 Destroy will he, and clean subvert 
 Therefore my mouth and lips Fll frame 
 To speak tJie praises of the Lord 
 To magnify his holy name 
 Forever let all flesh accord 
 
 Dr. Pressly maintains, that all this is inspired; but just 
 let the reader compare the last verse with the words of 
 inspiration: — 
 
 "My mouth shall speak the praise of the Lord; and 
 let all flesh bless his holy name for ever and ever." 
 
 It will be observed, that all I have written in italics, in 
 Rouse, is different from the language of inspiration; and 
 all has the effect of changing, in some measure, the 
 meaning. 
 
 Neither is it possible, to sing in the worship of God, 
 Rouse's common metre version of this Psalm, without 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 53 
 
 being guilty, of what Dr. Pressly calls, "offering strange 
 fire before the Lord." For instance the following: — 
 **I^11 speak of all thy miglity works, 
 wliich loondrous are 0 LordJ' 
 And the following is not in the inspired Psalm; and 
 therefore it must be human composure: — 
 
 *'And I, thy glory to advance 
 thy greatness will declare/^ 
 And they who sing the following must be guilty of the 
 sin of Nadab and Abihu: — 
 
 "The Lord Jehovah unto all 
 
 his goodness doth declare 
 And over all his other works 
 his tender mercies are/^ 
 
 The Psalm does not say, "The Lord declares his good- 
 ness to all," but that he is actually good to all. It is not 
 the Psalm, but Rouse, that makes God's 7nercies to be 
 worke* 
 
 "The eyes of all things wait on thee, 
 the giver of all good;^^ 
 
 • It remained for Rouse to discover that all things had 
 eyes. Could any one tell what the eyes of a "potter's 
 sherd" are like] I mean Dr. Pressly's inspired potter's 
 sherd! Again he says: 
 
 "Thine hand thou open^st IW rally 
 
 and of thy bounty gives, 
 Enough to satisfy the need 
 of every thing that lives.^' 
 The Psalm does not say anything about opening his 
 hdiud liberally; nor about giving of his hounty; nor about 
 enough to satisfy need; it is all human, because not in the 
 inspired Psalm. And how Dr. Pressly can sing it, hold- 
 ing the principles he does, is marvellously strange. — 
 Rouse says again: — 
 
 5* 
 
54 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 *'My mcutli the praises of the Lord, 
 to piihlisli cease shall never: — 
 
 Ai]cl this is not in the Psalm at all. And again he 
 says: — 
 
 "The Lord preserves all who him love, 
 that nought ca.n them annoy: — 
 
 Which is a notorious falsehood. It is contrary to the 
 whole tenor of Scripture — "Many are the afflictions of 
 the righteous — In this world ye shall have tribulation." 
 And the godly are. annoyed with sin as long as they live. 
 But it is in perfect harmony with the falsehood with 
 w^hich Rouse commences his book of Psalms. Because: 
 A man hath perfect blessedness 
 when nought can him annoy: — 
 
 But a Psalmody teaching such doctrines is worse than 
 human. And if disposed to deal in harsh insinuations 
 respecting others, we might use the language of Dr. 
 Pressly and say: ''Can we for a moment entertain the 
 thought," that w^e are authorized, "to come before the 
 Lord with the blind, the halt and the lame? Cursed be 
 the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth 
 and sacrificeth to the Lord a corrupt thing." 
 
 The proof then, w^e see, is superabundant, to show, that 
 Rouse's Psalms, are not the Psalms of inspiration. Be- 
 cause his interpolations do not always speak the truth; 
 and even if they did, they constitute no part of the inspi- 
 red Psalms. They are complete without them; but his 
 would not be complete without them. Without them 
 his would be no Psalms at all. The inspired, are Psalms 
 icitJiout them; but Rouse's, are Psalms only iviiJi them: 
 therefore they cannot be the same. The one, are the 
 Psalms of the Bible; the other are not the Psalms of the 
 Bible; and therefore Rouse's Psalms are not inspired; 
 they are no part of the Word of God; and they must be 
 human composure. 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 55 
 
 A different course might have been pursued by exam- 
 ining the whole of House's Psalms, and pointing out 
 some of the alterations made in each. It was thought, 
 however, that it would answer the purpose better, to take 
 a few indiscriminately, commencing at the beginning, 
 and point out the great difference there is between them 
 and the Psalms of inspiration. And the result of the 
 examination of these few may be quite sufficient to sat- 
 isfy the impartial reader, that the Psalms of Rouse are 
 not the Psalms which constitute a part of the Word of 
 God; and that consequently the use of them, is not the 
 use of the Psalms of inspiration. 
 
 But again: of some Psalms, Rouse has given two ver- 
 sions; and these often differ; hence they cannot both be 
 the inspired Psalm; and inspiration is claimed for them 
 both alike. Look at his versions of the 25th. In the 
 one it is, '*To thee;" in the other it is, '*To thee O Lord.'' 
 Now the inspired Psalm cannot be both these. Again: 
 in tiie one it is, Lord T trust;" in the other it is, 
 my God I trust." Tiie one, *'Let me not be ashamed;" 
 the other, " M?/ God let me not," etc. The one, ''Let 
 them be ashamed;" the other, "O Lord let them," etc. 
 The one, "Show thy ways Lord;" the other, Lord 
 show me thy ways." The one, ''Teach me;" the other, 
 "O teach tkou me." It is very plain, that these cannot 
 both be the Psalm given by inspiration. The one, "I 
 wait;" the other, "1 wait exjyecting,''' The one, "Thy 
 tender mercies;" the other "Thy mosi tender." The 
 one, "O Lord forget my sins;" the other, "Let my sins 
 be forgotten;" this does not say by whom. The one, 
 Great goodness:" the other "Goodness," The one, 
 "God is good and gracious;'''' the other, "G^d is good." 
 The one, "He therefore;" the other, nothing. The one, 
 "In which they should go;" the other, 0. The one, "He 
 
56 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 Will guide the meek;" the other, "The meek and lowly ^ 
 The one, **In judgment;" the other, *'In judgment.'' 
 The one, ''Alway;" the other, 0. The one, "To meek 
 and poor afflicted ones he'll clearly teach his way;" the 
 other, 0. The one, "Paths of the Lord;" the other, "Of 
 the Lord our God^ The one, "I thee entreat;" the other, 
 "I humhly thee intreat." The one, "And doth him serve;" 
 the other, 0. The one, "And still observe;" the other, 0. 
 The one, "And his posterity shall flourish still;" the other, 
 0. It surely requires no argument to show, that these can- 
 not both be the Psalm given by inspiration. It is given 
 only one way, and is different from both these. The one, 
 "Fear Mm;'''' the other, "Fear his namey The one, To- 
 ward the Lord;" the other, " Upon the Lord." The one, 
 "Eyes;" the other, " Waiting eyes." Now the inspired 
 Psalm does not differ from itself; it is not two things; it 
 is only one. And as these differ, the question is, which 
 of them is the inspired one? No doubt. Dr. Pressly^ 
 when he is explaining them to the people, is very care- 
 ful to point out the inspired Psalm, and to warn them 
 against the one that is mere human composure; lest by 
 singing it, they might be guilty of "offering strange fire 
 before the Lord." 
 
 Let us next compare a few verses of Rouse's para- 
 phrases of the 45th Psalm. And in one thing we find 
 they are both alike, neither of them has the first verse of 
 the Psalm of inspiration. And then in the one it is, 
 "My heart brings forth;" in the other, "My heart is in- 
 diting. In the one, "Good matter in a song;^^ in the 
 other, "A goodly thing." The one has, "I speak the 
 things that I have made;" the other, 0. The one, "xMy 
 tongue is a p%n;" the other, "My tongue shall be as quick 
 as a pen." The one, "Grace in thy lips doth flow;" the 
 other. "Store of grace is infused into thy lips." The 
 one: — 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 57 
 
 Appear in dreadful majesty, 
 and in thy glory bright/^ 
 But the other has nothing corresponding to this call. 
 In the one there are two calls, one, to *^gird on the 
 sword," and another to ^'appear;" but in the other there 
 is only a call to **gird on the sword. The one has 
 "Things fearful;'' the other, ^'Things great and terrible." 
 It may be said, that these are very much alike. But 
 then, they differ; and which is the language of inspira- 
 tion? If, "Things fearful," is the language of the Spirits 
 then, ^'Things great and terrible," is not. And not only 
 does the language differ, but the ideas conveyed by it 
 are different. And so it is, in every other case of disa- 
 greement, however small, if the one is the Psalm of in- 
 spiration, then the other is not. Again, the one says, 
 "Arrows sharply pierce;" the other, ''Shall pierce;" and 
 no sharply to it. The one, "And undei' thy subjection;'' 
 the other, "Whereby into subjection." The one, ''Do 
 bring;" the other, "Shalt bring," The one, "Royal 
 seat;" the other, "Throne of might." The one, "Of 
 myrrh and sweet spices;" the other, "Of aloes, myrrh 
 and casia." The one, "Glorious train;" the other, "Wo- 
 men honourable." The one, "Waiting stand;" the other 
 "Were at hand." The one, "The queen;" the other, 
 "Thy fair queen." The one, "Forget;" the other, "Must 
 forget." The one, thy people;" the other, "All thy kin- 
 dred." The one, "Father's house;" the other, "Father's 
 house most dear^ The one, "Thy beauty shall be vehe- 
 mently desired;" the other, "Thy beauty shall be de- 
 lightful." The one, "With a gift;" the other, "With 
 gifts and offerings great," The one, "The daughter;" 
 the other, "Behold, the daughter." The one, "She com- 
 eth;" the other, "She shall be brought." The one, "The 
 
58 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 virgins;" the other, ''Her fellow-virgins/' The one, 
 *'Joy;'^ the other, ''Great joy/* The one has: — 
 "Instead of these thy fathers dear;'^ — 
 
 And the other has: — 
 
 "And in thy father's stead/^ 
 
 Thus the one says, "Thou may est take thy children in- 
 stead of thy father;''^ and the other says, "Thou mayest 
 take thy children instead of thy dear fathers;'^ and which 
 of them is the insj^ired onel The correct answer is, 
 neither. Because the inspired Psalm does not say, 
 "Thou mayest take,'' at all. It just says, "Instead of 
 thy fathers shall be thy children." Were we to exam- 
 ine every Psalm of which Rouse has given two versions 
 we w^ould find, that these differ very considerably from 
 each other. But the insj)ired Psalm never differs from 
 itself, it is always the same. These, then, that differ 
 from each other cannot both be a translation of that 
 Psalm. And which of them is, would be difficult to tell; 
 because the one has just as good a claim as the other. — 
 The next time Dr. Pressly calls upon his congregation 
 to sing from House's 45th, we advise him, to inform the 
 people, which of the paraphrases is the inspired Psalm, 
 as it is impossible for them both to be such. And in re- 
 lation to the one he selects as inspired, let him not de- 
 ceive the people any longer, with mere sounds of ortho- 
 doxy, but honestly i^ove, that it is really the Psalm giv- 
 en by inspiration. If he cannot ^roz;^^ this, then, he and 
 his people, according to his views, are guilty of the "sin 
 of Nadab and Abihu;" and "offer strange fire before th# 
 Lord," when they sing Rouse's 45th Psalm. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 RousE^s Psalms a Paraphrase — Psalmonites Guilty of Ad- 
 ding TO THE AYoRD OF GoD — Human Composure. 
 
 Were we to examine Rouse's entire Book of Psalms, 
 we should find the same indubitable marks of imperfec- 
 tion. As in the few already examined, we should find 
 enough to prove, that they are not, in the full sense of 
 the phrase, the production of the Spirit of God — not the 
 Psalms of inspiration; and that they constitute no part of 
 the Bible. But though this is the case, yet Neodists can 
 use them; because they do not believe there is any au- 
 thority requiring a greater degree of inspiration in their 
 Psalmody, than in their sermons and their prayers. — 
 They can use them, though they do not receive them as 
 the songs penned by inspiration, inasmuch as they are 
 believed to teach, (with a few exceptions,) whatis agree- 
 able to the Word of God. And this is all that can 
 justly be claimed for these Psalms; that in the form of a 
 paraphrase, they generally set forth truth revealed by 
 inspiration. But at the same time it is surely improper 
 to consider this paraphrase as the Word of God. A par- 
 aphrase of the Scriptures has never been taken for the 
 Scriptures themselves. And Rouse's Psalms, until of 
 late, were never considered as any thing more than a 
 paraphrase. This is the name by which they were first 
 known; and by which they were authorized in the 
 Church of Scotland. That Church did not even call 
 them a version: because a version may mean a literal 
 
60 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 translation: but a paraphrase never has this meaning. 
 Hence they always called them a paraphrase: showing 
 that they did not consider them a translation of the Book 
 of Psalms. And these two terms are understood to 
 be quite different in meaning, when used in relation to 
 the Scriptures. A translation of the Scriptures is quite 
 a different thing from ^, paraphrase. And it is important 
 to have a correct idea of their difference, What, then, 
 is meant by translating? We ought to have some 
 definite meaning attached to this. Translate means, to 
 transport, to transfer, to convey, to carry over, etc. But 
 it always retains the idea of transfer: that something is 
 conveyed from one place to another. Now, when a man 
 translates from Latin into English, what does he do? He 
 conveys something from the Latin to the English; and 
 what is it] Is it the language, or is it the ideas'? It must 
 be the ideas set forth in the Latin that he conveys to the 
 English: because if he gets no ideas from the Latin, he 
 cannot translate at all. Give a man who does not un- 
 derstand Latin, these words, homo est mortalis, and tell 
 him to translate them into English: and he cannot. Why] 
 because they give him nothing to convey over to the 
 English. He gets from the words no ideas. And though 
 he has the words, he has nothing that he can take over 
 and put in the English, But tell a man who under- 
 stands Latin to translate these words, and he can do it. 
 Why] Because he gets from them something that he 
 can carry over to the English. From homo^ he gets the 
 idea of man; from mortalisy he gets the idea of mortal; 
 and estf couples them together. These ideas then he 
 carries over to the English; and there, they are, man is 
 mortal. The ideas set forth in the Latin language, he 
 translates, or carries over and sets them fortli in the 
 English language. To translate, then, is to set forth the 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY, 
 
 61 
 
 ideas contained in one language, in some other lan- 
 guage. It is a transfer of ideas; not a transfer of lan- 
 guage. A translation, then, to be strictly a translation, 
 must set forth just the ideas contained in the original, 
 no more, and no less. This is a literal translation. 
 But the ideas of the original may be set forth in combi- 
 nation with a great many other ideas; this is not a trans- 
 lation; but ^paraphrase. It aims at giving the sense 
 without a literal renderinof of the orimnal. There is no 
 restriction as to the number of words or ideas; few or 
 many may be used without any regard to the number in 
 the original. And so also, there may be a great deal 
 of explanatory matter introduced, not contained in the 
 original at alL But this and the original are not one 
 and the same thing, only in different languages. The 
 paraphi-ase has in it a great deal which is not in the ori- 
 ginal. And if the paraphrase were translated into the 
 same language with the original, it would then be, from 
 that original, a very different thing. And so, if a com- 
 petent Hebrew scholar, who had never seen David's 
 Psalms, would take Rouse's Psalms, and translate them 
 into Hebrew, they would scarcely be like David's 
 Psalnis at all. And the Church of Scotland knew this 
 well. They knew that Rouse's Psalms were nothing 
 but a paraphrase; and they called t]iem nothing else. 
 And it is remarkable how Dr. Pressly conceals this fact 
 when he brings forward the authority of that Church 
 on this subject. And also, how by artfully combining 
 his own langua^^^e with their language, he represents 
 them as using the word version, instead of the word par- 
 aphrase. On page 116 he says, "After receiving the 
 recoramendationof the Westminster Assembly of divines^ 
 this version was brought before the Church of Scotland. 
 And after being examined with particular care by her 
 
62 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 Judicatories, it was finally, in the year 1649, adopted by 
 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, as be- 
 ing 'more agreeable to the original text,' than any ver- 
 sion heretofore prepared/' But we find from the record, 
 that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland 
 in this case, did not call Rouse's Psalms a version, as 
 the Doctor represents; but uniformly called them a par- 
 aphrase. Touching ihem there are several acts; and in 
 all they are called a parapJirase, One is, an "Act for 
 revising the paraphrase of the Psalms brought from 
 England, with a recommendation for translating the 
 other Scriptural songs in meeter/' Another is, an **Act 
 for examining the paraphrase of the Psalms and other 
 Scriptural songs." Another is, an **Act of the Com- 
 mission of the General Assembly approving the New 
 paraphrase of the Psalms in metre." "The Commission 
 of the General Assembly having with great diligence 
 
 consideredthe paraphrase of the Psalms in metre, do 
 
 approve the said paraphrase as it is now compiled, 
 
 hereby authorizing the same to be the only paraphrase 
 of the Psalms of David to be sung in the Kirk of Scot- 
 land: and discharging the old paraphrases, and any 
 
 other than this new paraphrase to be used after the 
 
 first day of May, in the year 1650," How very differ- 
 ent this is from Dr. Pressly's representation. He repre- 
 sents them as legislating concerning a version, or trans- 
 lation of the Psalms; but they say they are legislating con_ 
 corning ^paraphrase of the Psalms. And how different 
 his language is from theirs! He brings them forward as 
 authority; and he is afraid to use their language! He 
 does not use the word paraphrase even once. He knew 
 it would not answer his purpose. He wished to have it 
 believed that his Psalms were the word of God: but 
 were he to call them a paraphrase this would defeat his 
 
/ 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODYe 
 
 63 
 
 design. And hence he has to adopt an entirely differ- 
 ent phraseology from that of the Church of Scotland: 
 proving thereby, that his views are entirely different 
 from theirs on this subject. And then from a misrepre- 
 sentation of their language he draws a conclusion to suit 
 himself. Because he has offered no proof; but merely 
 stated some historical facts, when he comes to the fol- 
 lowing very logical conclusion: **This version then, the 
 reader will perceive, is a translation of the songs of in- 
 spiration/' How perceive it] Is it because the Eng- 
 lish Parliament **recommended the Psalms published hy 
 Mr, Rouse, to the consideration of the Westminister As- 
 sembly; and this Assembly recommended the use of 
 them; and after they wei'e revised, the Church of Scot- 
 land authorized them under the name of a paraphrase? 
 Is this the reason why "the reader will perceive they are 
 a translation of the songs of inspiration? It is verily so! 
 This is all the proof the Doctor brings in order to show 
 that they are a translation! And the best he can bring 
 from the authority of the Church of Scotland to sus- 
 tain his views, is, that she considered this paraphrase, 
 ^^more agreeable to the original text,'* than any hereto- 
 fore prepared. This is saying a great deal for him! Is it 
 not? But the Doctor is careful jiotto call it a paraphrase: 
 had he done so, he could not, then, have said it is a 
 translation. And had he not misrepresented the Churcb 
 of Scotland, he could not have said, from her legislation, 
 *'the reader will perceive it is a translation." O no! 
 Dr. Pressly dare not call his Psalmody by the name 
 which the Church of Scotland gave it, when she author- 
 ized its use! And it is obvious he claims for it what 
 that Church never did, viz: that it is the word of God. It 
 is an invention of more modern date, to elevate Rouse's 
 Psalms to the rank and authority of the divine Word. 
 
64 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 And the brief examination which has been already made 
 is sufficient to show that it is by no means entitled to this 
 rank. Rouse has omitted quite a quantity of matter 
 contained in the book of Psalms. He has lopped off all 
 the inspired titles: the word SelaJi which occurs fre- 
 quently in the inspired Psalms, he always leaves out; 
 and a great deal more which was given by inspiration. 
 And he has added an enormous quantity of his own 
 thoughts and explanations; according as he understood 
 the passage before his mind. And very often where he 
 does attempt to give the truth of inspiration, it is in such 
 uncouth expressions, and such an awkward construc- 
 tion, that it is almost as good as lost. And thus, not 
 unfrequently, instead of the sublime passages given by 
 the Spirit, we have nothing but the beggarly elements 
 of the human brain! And yet this is what Psalmonites 
 would palm upon the world for the word of God! Verily 
 they are culpable in no small degree in this matter. 
 And it is surely time that this fraud should be exposed, 
 and banished from the Christain Church. A grosser 
 deception has hardly ever been practised upon any peo- 
 ple, than this of teaching them that Rouse's Psalms are 
 the word of God. And yet it is inculcated upon them 
 from their very infancy. In public and in private; in 
 the family and in the pulpit; their spiritual guides teach 
 them, that Rouse's Psalms are truly and properly the 
 Psalms of inspiration. And they will stand up in open 
 day, and explain Rouse's Psalms just as if they were 
 the word of God! And who has not heard them quoting 
 from Rouse's paraphrase to prove the doctrine they 
 were preachitigl Why it is with them a common prac- 
 tice. Suppose that they were teaching that the good 
 man will not only pray, but will also look for an answer 
 to his prayers, they would prove it by the example of 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 65 
 
 the Psalmist, saying: early will direct my prayer to 
 thee, and looking up, an answer will exjpectV^ They 
 would prove ic with a quotation from the Bible, which 
 is not in the Bible at all ! As I heard a divine of consid- 
 erable distinction prove that the Redeemer would crush 
 all opposition, by quoting the words: "Thou shalt as 
 with a weighty rod of iron break them all; and as ^ jpot- 
 ter'*s sherd thou shalt them dash in pieces smallT In- 
 deed some of them prove nearly every thing by quota- 
 tions from this paraphrase, without ever quoting scrip- 
 ture at all. How exactly the Saviour's language applies 
 to them: "In vain do they worship me teaching for doc- 
 trines the commandments of men!" And Dr. Pressly, 
 in his work on Psalmody has contributed in no small 
 measure to propagate this impious fraud — to encourage 
 and foster this cunning deception which is practised upon 
 the people. He every where represents Rouse's para- 
 phrase to be the word of God. 
 
 On page 129, he says, "The songs are a part of that 
 Scripture in relation to which it is said, *A11 Scripture is 
 given by inspiration of God.'" And on page 142, he 
 says, "These divine songs, not merely as to their matter, 
 but as divine songs, were given by inspiration of God." 
 And on page 131, he says, "The language of this Psalm 
 is not our language; nor are we to assume it as our own. 
 It is the language of the Spirit of God." And on page 
 180, he says, "This book is the production of the ever- 
 blessed Spirit, and bears upon it, in characters of light, 
 the impress of his own infinite wisdom. It is the Word 
 of God. Of no other collection of Psalms, or Hymns, 
 can it be said without daring presumption, this is the 
 Word of God." And surely Dr. Pressly is guilty of 
 this daring presumption when he says of Rouse's para- 
 phrase, "this is the Word of God!" Verily it is a daring 
 
66 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY 
 
 outrage committed against Gof3: against the Word of 
 God: against the Church of God: and against everything 
 sacred! And again on page 89 he says, "In these sacred 
 hymns we have not an exhibition of human views of 
 divine truth, which may be correct, or be erroneous; but 
 we have the Word of God itself, which is pure as silver 
 tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times/' And 
 again: "This book is the workmanship of God, the pro- 
 duction of infinite wisdom." Perhaps the Doctor would 
 deny that he uses this language in relation to Rouse's 
 Psalms. Well if he does, it will be an admission, that 
 the language is not applicable to them: and this an ad- 
 mission, that they are not inspired. Aud it will follow 
 that he is guilty of all that we alleged could be proved: 
 that his practice contradicts his principles: that he diso- 
 beys what he believes to be the will of God: and uses a 
 Psalmody for which he says he has no authority. And 
 were Dr. Pressly to say, that he uses this language in 
 relation to these Psalms, the christian public would surely 
 be astounded. Were he to say that Rouse's paraphrase 
 is the "workmanship of God," that public would at once 
 pronounce it a most scandalous falsehood! Rouse's par- 
 aphrase the **workmanship of God!" Would any man 
 dare to say it? And if none dare say this, none dare say 
 these Psalms are inspired: for what is inspired is the 
 w^orkmanship of God. But though the Doctor does not 
 say just in these words, "Rouse's paraphrase is the work- 
 manship of God;" yet it is implied in all his language 
 on this subject. And I need not say implied, for it is as 
 good as expressed. Look at his language: "This version, 
 then, the reader will perceive is a translation of the 
 songs of inspiration. It is a rendering of the Word of 
 God which was given in Hebrew poetry, into English 
 poetry." And on page 178, he says, *'But to call the 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 67 
 
 divine songs in this version "Rouse's Psalms,'' as some 
 are pleased to do, is to evidence gross ignorance, or 
 something worse. There would be equal propriety in 
 calling the Bible, in our common translation, the Bible of 
 the translators instead of the Word of God." Thus he 
 puts Rouse's paraphrase on a perfect equality with our 
 common translation of the Bible! And teaches, that the 
 one has as good a claim to be called the Word of God as 
 the other! And when a man does this, what might we 
 suppose he would not do in order to support his own 
 views?' And if Rouse's version ought no more to be 
 called Rouse's Psalms, than the common translation 
 ought to be called the Bible of the translators; then 
 Rouse's version ought no more to be called a paraphrase, 
 than the common translation ought to be called a para- 
 phrase. But all admit, it would be a slander upon the 
 Bible to call our common translation a paraphrase: and 
 according to the Doctor it would be equally so to call 
 Rouse's version a paraphrase. Ah! ye Scotch, ye are 
 guilty! Thus Dr. Pressly, in the plenitude of his author- 
 ity, "or something worse," undertakes to rebuke the ven- 
 erable. Church of Scotland, for miscalling his inspired 
 Psalmody. It is remarkable to what lengths men will 
 go when laboring to support false notions. By misrep- 
 resentanon he attempts to bring in these venerable fath- 
 ers to support his groundless assumption; and when they 
 are too hoi^est to do it, he rebukes them sharply for their 
 integrity. In his opinion they manifest "gross ignorance, 
 or something worse!" He is quite offended because they 
 call things by their right names. And since the Doctor 
 is offended, if we call Rouse's Psalms Rouse's Psalms, 
 what shall we call them] We have seen, and any man 
 that examines can see, that they are not the Psalms of 
 inspiration: not the Psalms of the Bible and what shall 
 
68 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY, 
 
 we call them? Were we to adopt the language of the 
 Church of Scotland, and call them a paraphrase, the Doc- 
 tor would still be offended, and what shall we call themi 
 I suppose the Doctor would be pleased to have them 
 called David's Psalms: just as the Papist is pleased to 
 have his Church called the Catholic Church. But then 
 there is great danger in mis-applying names. People are 
 often brought, in this way, to take things for what they 
 are not. Men have brought in errors by wrapping them 
 up in the language of truth. And thus Rouse's para- 
 phrase is palmed upon the people for the Word of God 
 by speaking of it in language which is applicable only to 
 that word. By this means, among Psalmoriites, the book 
 of Psalms is in a great measure, neglected, and Rouse's 
 paraphrase foisted into its place. They can recite to you 
 large portions of the paraphrase while they could not 
 quote a single verse from the Psalms. They have liter- 
 ally "made void the law by their tradition,"— they have 
 set aside the word of God and adopted Rouse's para- 
 phrase in its place. It is a notrious and incontrovertable 
 fact, that they are in the constant and regular practice of 
 taking Rouse's paraphrase for the word of God. And 
 if they have not entirely set aside the Book of Psalms, 
 they have at least added to the word of God Rouse's 
 entire collection of paraphrases: for they do positively 
 esteem and use these paraphrases as of equal authority 
 with the Scriptures: so that, to God's word they have 
 actually added this entire book! And yet, these are the 
 very people who accuse Neodists of adding to the word 
 of God, merely because they sing hymns! But look at 
 the difference! Neodists never pretended, that their 
 hymns were the word of God: they never pretended 
 that Watts' Psalms were the word of God. And hence 
 they never were, in any way guilty of adding to the 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 69 
 
 word of God. But Psalraonites do pretend tliat their 
 Psalmody is the word of God, t}iouo:h it is not. They say 
 it — they practice upon it — they preach upon it — they pro- 
 claim it everywhere. And thus they add a whole book 
 to the Bible, which is not in the inspired Book at all! 
 And if this is not "arrogating to themselves the preroga- 
 tive of Jeliovah!" what is it? And if this is not ^'offering 
 stransre fire before the Lord!'* what is ir] And if this is 
 not "building an altar of one kind of stone instead of 
 another!" what is it] And if this is not "offering a pig 
 instead of a kid!" what is iti When they thus take the 
 liberty of adding a whole book to the word of God, they 
 surely ought to be able to answer the question; *'Who 
 hath required this at y<:)ur hands]" The people I know 
 have done it ignorantly; and perhaps also their rulers: 
 and it is sincerely hoped, the awful denunciations of the 
 Book of Revelation are not visited upon them. But 
 though they do it ignorantly, their conduct in this matter 
 is surely very culpable. Teacliing that such a composi- 
 tion as Rouse's paraphrase is given "by infinite wisdom" 
 — "is the workmanship of God!" O, horrible! How 
 much short is it of blasphemy] So derogatory to the 
 wisdom of Heaven — so slanderous to the word of God — 
 and so destructive to the cause of truth! If I could as- 
 sume like Dr. Pressly, that I am authorized to act for 
 the Protestant Church of Chi ist, then I too, in the name 
 of that Church, would protest against this Bible-dishon- 
 oring im[)osture, which is practised so unblushingly in 
 this christian enlightened larid! 
 
 But in another way we may very easily prove, that 
 Rouse's paraphrase is not th^ word of God, inasmuch as 
 it is nothing but haman comjyosure. That it is this, and 
 nothing but this, we can show from the authority of Dr. 
 Pressly himself. And the authority of a man who pre- 
 
70 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 sumes to act in the name of the Protestant Church of 
 Christ, is surely no mean authority. The Catholic can 
 prove any thing when he has the authority of the Pope 
 on his side. And what may I not prove when I have 
 the authority of the Pontifex inaximus, **of the Protestant 
 Church of Christ/' on my side] And now for the proof. 
 On page 26, the Doctor says, "Human composure is any 
 thing composed by men." That is the plain truth. No 
 matter what may be the subject-matter of a composi- 
 tion, nor the source whence the materials of which it is 
 formed are drawn, if it has been composed by man, it is 
 to all intents and purposes, a "human composure/' 
 Now observe, "Human composure is any thing compo- 
 sed by men:" and also; "if it has been composed by 
 man, it is to all intents and purposes a human compo- 
 sure.'' V/hat is it to cojnpose? It is to arrange ideas, 
 congrously. in suitable language. This may be done 
 in the mind without writing. But the common mean- 
 ing of compose, is to write something, i. e. to set forth 
 ideas orderly, in suitable language. But there can 
 be no composition without the use of language. You 
 may collect ideas: but that is not composing. You 
 may obtain ideas by study: but that is not composing. 
 You may have a great mass of ideas, but have no com- 
 position. You see, then, that getting ideas is not com- 
 posing; having ideas is not composing. But setting forth 
 your ideas orderly, in suitable language, is composing. 
 Hence, composing consists in using language appropri- 
 ately to express or set forth ideas. It is like making a 
 coat. You may collect the materials; you may get the 
 cloth; you may cut it out; you may even lay the pieces 
 together in their proper places; and you may get the 
 thread too; but all this is not making the coat. You 
 must use the thread so as to fix the parts fitly together. 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 71 
 
 And using the thread in this manner is making the coat. 
 And the man who uses tlie thread, is the man who makes 
 the coat: — it is his makings no matter what may be "the 
 source whence the materials of which it is formed are 
 drawn.'' And as making a coat consists in using thread 
 appropriately; so composing consists in using language 
 appropriately. And as the making is the man's who 
 uses the thread, so the composition is the man's who uses 
 the language. Who used the English language then in 
 composing Rouse's paraphrase? Was it an inspired 
 man, or an uninspired man] No inspired man ever 
 wrote in the English language. They all wrote either 
 in Hebrew or Greek. Hence, no inspired man ever 
 used language in composing this paraphrase; and hence, 
 no inspired man ever composed it: hence too, it was an 
 uninspired man who used the language, i. e. composed 
 this paraphrase: and thus, it must be human composure: 
 for the Dr. says, "human composure is any thing com- 
 posed by man." Whatever man composes is human 
 composure, i. e. whatever writing is framed by man's use 
 of language, is human composition, no matter where he 
 may have got his ideas. Now let us apply this to the 
 case of Rouse. He sits down to write his first Psalm; 
 and the question is, whose composition will it be when 
 it is written] Will it be his or the composition of the 
 Spirit] Does Rouse speak as the Spirit gives him utter- 
 ance] No: for then he would be an inspired man. He 
 does not get his language, then, from the Spirit, But 
 though he is not inspired, he may get his ideas from the 
 Spirit, by examining what the Spirit has said in the He- 
 brew, or he may get the ideas fr^m the prose translation. 
 And in this way he may obtain the ideas from the Spirit, 
 But the giving of these ideas is all that the Spirit does in 
 the matter. He gives the ideas and Rouse has to do the 
 
72 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 rest. Rouse has to set forth these ideas in the use of 
 appropriate language, i. e. he has to compose. And 
 in his using language, he has to be guided by human 
 wisdom alone. The Spirit has nothing to do with this, 
 i. e. He has nothing to do with the com[)Osing: it is the 
 product entirely of man's wisdom. And thus we see, 
 that the composition is wholly from Rouse; while the 
 ideas may all be from the Spirit of God. Man, and only 
 man composed it. And the Doctor says, anything com" 
 posed by man, is "human composure." Thus we see, 
 that Rouse's first Psalm is composed by man; and that 
 it is human composure, And every other one of his 
 Psalms is composed by man; and every one of them is 
 human composure. It is absolutely impossible for them 
 to be any thing else, accoiding to the Doctor's defini- 
 tion of human composure. And he understands by 
 "human composure," a composition not having any- 
 thing in it from God; but that all it contains is from man; 
 wholly from man. He calls it man's production, mean- 
 ing, that all that it is, and all that it has, is from man: 
 that in toto it is of man, and of man alone. And thus 
 again we bring against him what we alleged, that he is 
 guilty of using a Psalmody entirely from man; and 
 for which he says he has no authority! 
 
 But again: He says, "In truth, a poem composed by 
 man, and a human composure, are phrases which if not 
 tautological, certainly approximate so nearly to that 
 character, that it would require very accute logical 
 powers to detect the difference in their import." Ac- 
 cording to this a poem composed by man and a human 
 composure are one and the same thing. Well, when 
 Rouse composed his first Psalm, by whom was it compo- 
 sed] Was it composed by a man or was it not? If it 
 was composed by a man it is human composure. And 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 73 
 
 Dr. Pressly must prove, that the man who composed 
 Rouse's Psalms, was not a man, before he can make 
 them out anything but human composure. There is 
 positively nothing plainer than this. And by human 
 composure the Doctor means, what is merely from man: 
 and thus again, we see, that he uses a Psalmody for 
 which he says he has no authority. 
 
 But again; the Doctor says, *^lf the poem as such is 
 
 the production of man it is certain that, if plain 
 
 language is to be understood according to its natural 
 acceptation, it is, a human composure." Here he says, 
 if the poem, as a poem, is the production of man, it is 
 human composure." Now all Rouse's Psalms, as poems 
 are the production of man. Take Rouse's first Psalm; 
 it is essential to it, that it be written in the English lan- 
 guage: it is essential to it, that it be in Iambic verse in that 
 language. Its. existence as a poem depends on these- 
 Take these away and it would cease to be. These es- 
 sentials then, are the production of man. No inspired 
 man ever wrote a poem in Iambic verse in the English 
 language. All such poems must have their existence 
 from uninspired men. And hence Rouse's first Psalm, 
 *'as a poem," is from man: what makes it a poem is 
 from man: and therefore it can be nothing but ''a human 
 composure." 
 
 Another position of the Doctor's is, that every poem 
 not found in the Bible is human composure. His words 
 are; *'The sentiments contained in the poem, if you 
 please, may all be gathered from the Bible; but the poem 
 itself is not in the Bible." Well then, are there any of 
 Rouse's poems in the Bible] Where could we find one 
 of them? Suppose we could find the ideas contained in 
 Rouse's poems in the Bible: but then the ideas are not 
 the poems. The poems are compoistions constructed 
 7 
 
74 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 according to the rules of versification in the English lan- 
 guage. But where could we find one of these in the 
 Bible] Why the Bible was written many hundreds of 
 years before the English language was in existence. 
 And hence it is impossible for an English poem, as such, 
 to be in the Bible. That that is essential to it, as an Eng- 
 lish poem, renders it impossible for it to be in the Bible; 
 the ideas may, but the poem itself cannot be there. And 
 the Doctor says, the poem itself must be there or it is- 
 human composure.'' *'The sentiments," he says, *'may all 
 be gathered from the Bible; but the poem itself is not in 
 the Bible;'' and thus he proves it to be human composure. 
 And thus he proves, that every one of Rouse^s poems 
 can possibly be nothing else but, human composure. And 
 indeed all that lie says, about human composure proves 
 the very same thing. lie absolutely sweeps clean away 
 the whole foundation of pretence for the inspiration of 
 his own Psalmody; and leaves the entire Psalmonistic 
 cause a hopeless, total wreck! And thus, viewing these 
 Psalms of Rouse as we may; and also by the authority 
 of Dr. Pressly himself, we find they are nothing but 
 **human composure." And Psalmonites may cease their 
 cry against the use of uninspired songs, and human com- 
 position; for in all they say they are only condemning 
 themselves. And when you hear one of their preach- 
 ers commencing a harangue on Psalmody, you may just 
 set it down, that he is going to blacken his own charac- 
 ter; for every word he says to condemn others is appli- 
 cable to himself. 
 
 I have however, a better opinion of the Doctor's 
 Psalmody than his definition of ''human composure," 
 would make it. His definition would make it to be, not 
 from Heaven but of men. For he means by ''human 
 composure," something from man: entirely from man. 
 
MORTOxN^ ON PSALMODY. 
 
 Something of which man is the sole origin and author. 
 Such compositions he styles: **The productions of unin- 
 spired men. The effusions of pious well-meaning, but 
 fallible men:" obviously meaning that they have nothing 
 to do with divine inspiration. For if this is not his mea- 
 ning, it will he an admission, that songs composed by 
 uninspired men, may nevertheless, in one respect, be in 
 spired. It will be an admission, that the truth set forth 
 in the song, may be the truth of inspiration; while the 
 language or composure, is merely human. And hence, 
 that it is an inspired song as far as this truth, or subject" 
 matter is concerned: because it contains and sets forth 
 inspired truth. And if the subject-matter is inspired, 
 that is enough: the song is an inspired song. For every 
 body knows, and the Doctor admits it, that the composi- 
 tion has its character from the subject-matter. Every 
 song, then, having for its subject-matter inspired truth, 
 is in reality an inspired song. But the Doctor denies 
 this. He maintains that a song composed by an unin- 
 spired man can in no sense be an inspired song. All 
 such songs he holds to be uninspired — that they are from 
 man — that they are, what he loves to call "human com- 
 posure." His Psalmody, then, I think is better than his 
 definition of "human composure," would make it. For 
 his definition would make it, to be human, both as to the 
 language and also as to the ideas. Every composition 
 consists of these two parts — ideas and language. And 
 the one may be of inspiration; while the other is of man. 
 It may be inspired truth clothed in such language as 
 human wisdom thinks best. The composition is human 
 as far as the selection and arrangement of the language 
 is concerned: but as far as the ideas, or the matter is 
 concerned it may be inspired, or divine. It is important 
 to bear in mind, then, that every composition consists of 
 
76 
 
 "MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 two parts; the language and the ideas: and the one may 
 be from Heaven, while the other is of men. The matter 
 of the composition may be from the Spirit; and the lan- 
 guage be from man. Such a composition, then, in one 
 respect will be human; and in another respect it will be 
 inspired, or divine. And it is its matter that makes it 
 different from every other composition of man. As to 
 the language, or composing, or composure, it is like 
 every other human composition: but as to the matter^ it is 
 unlike every other human composition. It is its matter, 
 then, that gives it a distinctive character: that makes it 
 the kind of composition that it is. Just as it is the 
 matter of any composition that gives it a distinctive char- 
 acter. There may be many compositions, each having 
 its distinctive character, all written by the same author. 
 Dr. Comstock may have one composition on Philosophy, 
 another on Botany, another on Geology, and another on 
 Chemistry. Each one has its distinctive character: it is 
 different from all the others. But it is not the compo- 
 sure that makes it different. In this respect they are all 
 alike; for they are all the composure of Dr. Comstock. 
 It is the subject treated, or the matter of the composition, 
 that makes the one a Geological treatise: the other a 
 treatise on Philosophy, etc. And so in a treatise on di- 
 vine things; it is not the composure; but the subject trea- 
 ted, or the matter of the composition, that gives it its dis- 
 tinctive character: that makes it not a human, but an in- 
 spired, or divine composition. It is not usual however, 
 to call such a work, ''a divine work, or a divine compo' 
 sition: just as it is not usual to call a treatise on Chemis- 
 try, a chemical work, or a chemical composition;" yet 
 in each case it is the matter that gives to the composition 
 its distinctive character, name that composition as you 
 may. And though it may not be customary, yet it does 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY, 
 
 77 
 
 not conflict with the principles of truth, to call a treatise 
 on divine things, ''a divine composition.'' Why may we 
 not call a composition according to its distinctive charac- 
 ter? If its character is divine, why not call it such? — 
 If the rose has its distinctive color from the petals, and 
 the petals are red, why not call it a red rose ? Why call 
 it white ? And if the composition has its distinctive char- 
 acter from the matter, and the matter is divine, why not 
 call it a divine composition? Now Dr. Pressly admits, 
 that the rose has its distinctive color from the petals, and 
 that the petals are red; but he solemnly protests against 
 calling it a red rose; and maintains, that it ought to be 
 called white. In other words, he admits, that the com* 
 position has its distinctive character from the matter, and 
 that the matter is divine; but protests against calling it a 
 divine composition. Here are his words: "True: it is 
 the subject matter of any composition, in prose or verse, 
 that gives it its distinctive character." Here he admits 
 that if the matter is divine, the composition has the same 
 character. And yet on the very next page he protests 
 against calling it according to its character. He says, 
 Dr. Ralston "maintains, that a composition, which has 
 been written and arranged by man, provided the matter 
 of it be taken from the Bible, is not a human composure, 
 but is divine." And then he says, "according to this 
 every evangelical sermon," etc. "in the world, is a di- 
 vine composition! Against such an abuse of language, 
 for the purpose of elevating the compositions of men to 
 a level with the word of God, I enter my solemn pro- 
 test." We find, that the Doctor is a gredX protester; and 
 no wonder when he ranks himself at the head of the 
 Protestant Church, and acts in her name! But then his 
 Highness ought to be careful not to protest against him- 
 self. For here he protests against the very thing he 
 7* 
 
78 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 admits. He admits the composition to be divine, and 
 then protests against calling it so ! He admits the mat- 
 er to be from the Bible: hence it is divine matter: he 
 admits the composition has its character from this mat- 
 ter; and hence it is divine composition; and then solemnly 
 protests against calling it such — protests that it is no 
 such thing! O consistency! how lovely thou art! 
 
 But v^hy does the Doctor raise such a cry about "ele- 
 vating the composition of men to a level vs^ith the word 
 God]*' Why does he again lift up his voice, and from 
 his cathedra pontificia, exclaim *'In the name of the 
 Protestant Church of Christ I protest against the princi* 
 pie, which maintains that the one can with any propriety 
 be elevated to a level with the other." What is the use 
 of these solemn protestations against a principle which 
 nobody holds except infidels'? The Doctor is the first, in 
 this controversy, to advance such a principle. But then, 
 it vv^ill give some show of plausibility to his reasoning, 
 when he cannot confute his opponent, to raise up some- 
 thing that he can confute, attack, and overthrow it. And 
 then, too, it will be advantageous to his cause, to repre- 
 sent his opponent as holding principles which all good 
 men condemn. But the cause of truth does not need 
 such a mode of defence. And neither the venerable Dr. 
 Ralston, nor any other writer on this subject, has ever 
 maintained that the compositions of men were of equal 
 authority, or on a level with the word of God. They 
 only maintain that a composition, the subject of which is 
 divine, is not, in every respect, a human composition: i, 
 e. that such a composition is not wholly from man: but 
 that it sets forth divine truth, though the medium of con- 
 veyance is human composure. And hence, as Dr. Press- 
 ly admits the composition has its character from this di- 
 vine truth, that it may properly be called a divine com- 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 79 
 
 position; though they do not consider it on a level with 
 the word of Grod: no more than they consider Rouse's 
 paraphrase of equal authority or on a level with the 
 word of God, while the subject matter of that paraphrase 
 may be divine. The word of God is in every respect 
 divine: but such a composition only in one respect, i. e. 
 on account of the subject-matter it contains. You have 
 two silver cups; the composition of both is the same. 
 You fill the one with water and the other with wine. 
 Then, the one you call the water-cup, and the other the 
 wine-cup. Neither of them has its distinctive character 
 from its composition, which is silver, but from what it con- 
 tains. The water-cup is so called because it contains 
 water: the wine-cup is so called because it contains wine. 
 So you have two compositions, the one on a divine sub- 
 ject, the other on a human subject. And you call the 
 one a divine composition on account of what it contains; 
 and the other a human composition on account of what 
 it contains. But miraculous power could form another 
 cup, not of silver, but of wine itself. This is a wine cup 
 independently of what it might contain. You fill it with 
 wine, and it is still a wine-cup, in every respect: both on 
 account of what it contains; and also on account of its 
 own composition. The first wine-cup is not equal to 
 this one nor on a level with it; though they both have the 
 same name. Nor have they the same name on precisely 
 the same account. The one represents divine truth set 
 forth in divine composure: the other divine truth set 
 forth in human composure. In the one case you have a 
 Divine Composer on a divine subject: in the other, you 
 have a human composer on a divine subject. The com- 
 position of the one will be superior to the composition 
 of the other. The one will be infallibly correct: while 
 the other will be liable to the blemishes of human im- 
 
80 
 
 MORTOIV ON PSALMODY. 
 
 perfection. The human composer, while handling his 
 divine subject, may likely mar and disfigure it much, on 
 account of his imperfection; just as Rouse has done, 
 while handling the divine subjects contained in the book 
 of Psalms. But though the subject may bear the blem- 
 ishes of human weakness it is a divine subject still. And 
 though the composition is not inspired in the full sense 
 of the word, yet it is inspired as far as the subject-matter 
 is that of inspiration. And this is what we say of Rouse's 
 Psalms, that they are not inspired in the same sense in 
 which the word of God is inspired, but only so far as 
 they set forth inspired truth. The inspiration of the one 
 is plenary; the inspiration of the other is only partial- 
 Rouse's Psalms are not entirely from man, as Dr. Press- 
 ly's definition of "human composure" would make them. 
 They are not the word of God, yet they contain much 
 inspired truth: it came from heaven: it is precious and 
 divine; though we do not find it in precisely the same 
 state as it is in the pure word of God. 
 
 You pass along the pleasant vale, beautified with the 
 various flowers that smile forth from beside your path. 
 You see before you on a gentle elevation, the verdant 
 grove, in all its inviting and luxuriant loveliness. De- 
 lighted you enter; and as you pass up, the ear is charmed 
 wath melody and song, poured forth^by the feathered 
 songsters of the wood. You reach the opening above, 
 and lo ! at your feet there lies a spacious crystal foun- 
 tain. The margin, all around, is adorned with the 
 choicest verdure and bloom. The myrtle, palm, and 
 amaranth, the eglantine and rose. And the clear rocky 
 bottom of gems and gold pours forth a constant, pure, pe. 
 lucid stream, in that sparkling fountain, ever flowing, and 
 forever full. With pleasing admiration you stand and gaze 
 into the clear sparkling pool; and the sweet voice of the 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 81 
 
 water nymph calls you to drink. You quaff it, and O 
 how refreshing! how exhilerating! how healing ! But 
 again, you are gone from the crystal fountain and the 
 pleasant grove. And in your perambulations through 
 the hills and valleys you light upon a stream; from it you 
 take to quench your thirst, and you are delighted; for 
 by its peculiar flavor you know it to be the healing wa- 
 ter from the crystal fountain. But then it is impaired 
 in its purity: earthy sediment has mingled with it in its 
 passage from the fountain; and to have it in its unming- 
 led purity you must repair to the crystal fountan itself. 
 Again, you pass on to the dwelling of your friend; and 
 in his kindness he offers you the cup of hospitality: 
 again you are delighted! he too has been at the crystal 
 fountain; and the same healing water is here to cheer 
 your heart. But then it is not in its purity; it has re- 
 ceived something of the vessels tang from which it is 
 dispensed: and to have it free from all admixture, you 
 must repair to the chrystal fountain itself. The water 
 may be found in other places; but only at the fountain 
 can it be had in its unmingled purity. But notwithstand- 
 ing, you always know, and are delighted with the heal- 
 ing water from the crystal fountain ! 
 
 And thus it is with the word of God and the people of 
 God. It is to them a crystal fountain, full of the pure un- 
 mingled water of life. This healing water is pleasant and 
 refreshing to them, wherever it may be found, even though 
 they do not always draw it unmingled from the fountain it- 
 self. The compositions of pious men; their exhortations 
 their prayers, their hymns, their sermons, etc. are the 
 various channels and vessels by which this healing wa- 
 ter is dispensed. It is true, these vessels are constructed 
 by human wisdom; and the healing water in passing 
 through them may be marred in its purity, there may be 
 
82 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 earthy sediment or the vessel's taint, but it is the same 
 water of life still. These religious compositions, then, 
 that are filled with divine truth, are not the mrre produc- 
 tions of uninspired men, as Dr. Pressly represents them. 
 If they were, how could they edify and comfort the peo- 
 ple of God] If they contain no divine truth, which must 
 be the case if they are the productions of uninspired men, 
 of what profit can they be to His children] It is man 
 merely that speaks to them, and it is of little moment 
 what he may say. If such works as Baxter's Saint's 
 Rest, and Flavel's Fountain of Life, are the mere produc- 
 tions of uninspired men, i. e. if they do not contain divine 
 truth: if it is not God who speaks in them to the pious 
 soul, how is it, that that soul is so delighted in their pe- 
 rusal? If they are merely man's production, how can 
 they afford any foundation for the faith, the hope, the 
 joy, the comfort, of the godly man] O no! it is not man's 
 productions, but divine truth, that awakens and sustains 
 these heavenly emotions in the pious heart. And how 
 could the people be edified by the preaching of the Gos- 
 pel, if the sermons are nothing but the productions of 
 uninspired men] How could the words of the preacher 
 have any effect, if what he says is merely from himself] 
 His sermon is his own composition, and if it is therefore 
 a mere "human production, or the effusion of a pious 
 well-meaning, but fallible man," as Dr. Pressly teaches, 
 who cares for aught that the preacher may say] or how 
 will his sayings sanctify and save the souls of men] 
 And if his sermon is the production of man, then it is 
 man's gospel that he preaches, and' not the gospel of 
 God! O surely ! a gospel sermon is not the production of 
 an uninspired man ! Is not the minister of the gospel an 
 ambassador for Christ, beseeching the people in Christ's 
 stead to be reconciled unto God] And is all that he 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 83 
 
 says from man? Is it a proclamation from man, when he 
 tells them, that God is reconciled — -that He is ready to 
 pardon — that He would rather they would, turn to him 
 and live? When he tells them that heaven's gates are 
 opened for every repenting and believing sinner — and 
 that there is a pure, peaceful, happy home for all the 
 children of God] Is this all human? Is it the produc- 
 tion of an uninspired man? Or is it not rather the pro- 
 duction of the Spirit of God? Is it not divine truth that 
 such a sermon presents to the people? And yet Dr. 
 Pressly solemnly protests against calling it a divine 
 composition, and would have us to believe that it is noth-^ 
 ing but the production of an uninspired man ! Yerily the 
 Doctor is wide frum the truth; and such teaching must 
 have a very pernicious tendency. But is it not remarka- 
 ble coming from a Professor's chair, and that too, a chair 
 in a theological institution! It is indeed, far otherwise 
 with the people of God, when they assemble in the courts 
 of His house. Their language is, ''How amiable are 
 thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts!" Because they find Him 
 there; there he speaks to them, not in the productions of 
 uninspired men; but in the productions of His own Ho- 
 ly Spiric. By divine truth contained in their hymns, 
 their sermons and their prayers, they are edified and 
 comforted. They drink the healing water of life from 
 the crystal fountain of divine truth, though it is conveyed 
 to them through vessels constructed by the wisdom of 
 man. And what matter who constructs them, when they 
 are flowing with the water of salvation, brought from the 
 pure fountain of infallible wisdom? What matter who 
 the composer may be, if the compositions are filled with 
 divine truth; the truth of inspiration? It may be Rouse, 
 or Watts, or Doddridge, or Dr. Pressly; but it is still the 
 
84 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 Lord's truth addressed to his people: His own voice 
 comforting, sustaining, and speaking peace to their souls; 
 calling upon them to prepare, and come up hither, that 
 they may ever drink, from the living streams which flow 
 through the paradise of their God ! 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Authority for Using, in the Worship of God, Songs Compo- 
 sed BY Uninspired Men. 
 
 We have seen, that Rouse's paraphrase of David's 
 Psalms is human composure. And Watts' Psalms and 
 Hymns are the same. And all the Sicred songs we have 
 in English verse are the same. Because no inspired 
 man ever wrote any song in English verse. All such 
 songs are the workmanship of man, though the suhject- 
 matter may all be from the ^^pirit of God. The songs 
 as such, i. e. as compositions in English verse, have men, 
 and only men for their author's. As English ])oetical 
 compositions then, they are all the compositions of unin- 
 spired men: And there is no other kind of poetical 
 composition used in the Church of Christ at the present 
 day. Our sacred songs, as such, have all been prepared 
 by man; while the subject-matter of them may all have 
 been prepared by the Spirit of ins|)iration. 
 
 Having no Sacred Songs then, but those composed by 
 uninspired men, the question arises: Is it proper to use 
 these in the worship of Grod? Df . Pressly maintains it 
 is not; though his constant and regular practice is, to use 
 them! Because I presume, he never, in all his life sung 
 a songjthat as sucJi, was the workmanship of an inspired 
 man. They are all in the Hebrew language; and I do 
 not think he ever sung any Hebrew composition: T know 
 at least they do not sing it in his congregation. He acts 
 without authority: but we say we act with authority. — 
 8 
 
86 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 He calls for it; and we reply: "Praise ye the Lord: for 
 it is good to sing praises unto our God — Sing unto the 
 Lord a new Song and his praise in the congregation of 
 the Saints." Now it is admitted that these injunctions 
 are binding upon us. And if it is our duty to sing songs 
 of praise, we cannot discharge this duty unless we sing 
 those composed by uninspired men; because we have no 
 other that we can sing. So then, if it is our duty to sing 
 at all, it is our duty to sing songs of this kind. And it 
 has always been so in the Christian Church. The inspi- 
 red songs of the Old Testament are written in Hebrew; 
 and that has been a dead language to her ever since her 
 first existence. She might translate these songs; or 
 paraphrase these songs: or draw the matter of her songs 
 from them: but the songs themselves she could not use. 
 Thus it was with the Churches of Ephesus and Colosse: 
 they were called upon to sing **psalms, and hymns and 
 spiritual songs;" and the songs prepared by inspiration 
 in the Old Testament they could not sing; because the 
 Hebrew was to them a dead language; and they could 
 not sing it any more than Dr. Pressly himself. They 
 might draw the matter of their songs from the Hebrew 
 songs: but the Hebrew songs themselves, prepared 
 by inspiration, they could not use. Or, as the Greek 
 was their vernacular tongue, they might use the Greek 
 translation of these sorgs. But that they did so, is not 
 very probable as this translation is not written in poetry 
 at all. And even had they used this, it would not have 
 been the songs prepared by inspiration. The subject- 
 matter may have been the same; but the songs would 
 not have been the same. The Hebrew songs were pre- 
 pared by inspired men: but the Greek songs, if such 
 they are called, would be prepared by uninspired men: 
 hence, as songs, they would still be the productions of 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 87 
 
 uninspired men. The Colossians and Ephesians then 
 were authorized to sing songs of this kind; aud we pre- 
 sume the authority extends to us also. 
 
 But that we may see the force of this passage in Col. 
 3: 16, let us examine it more carefully. It reads thus: 
 **Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wis- 
 dom: teaching and admonishing one another in psalms 
 and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in 
 your hearts to the Lord.'^ 
 
 In this passage there are two duties enjoined. One is, 
 to let the word of Christ dwell in us richly: the other is 
 to teach and admonish one another. If then we are to 
 let the word of Christ dwell in us, we oughf to know 
 what is meant by the *'Word of Christ.'' And my belief 
 is, that by it the Apostle meant the doctrine of salvation 
 through Jesus Christ, as it was then preached to the 
 Christian Church: and that he did not mean either the 
 Old or New Testament. Dr. Baird in his work on Psal- 
 mody makes this very clear to my mind. But inasmuch 
 as this doctrine is now taught in the Scriptures of the 
 Old and New Testaments; when we let them dwell in us, 
 this doctrine will dwell in us also. And there is no 
 doubt, that the word of God is the word of Christ. We 
 shall then understand the phrase in this signification. — 
 And this will preclude all controversy on this point, as 
 Dr. Pressly maintains that this is its proper meaning. 
 By the word of Christ then, we understand the word of 
 Qodi contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New 
 Testament. And this word it is our duty to have dwel- 
 ling in us richly in all wisdom. Then there is insepar- 
 bly connected with this duty another, which is that of 
 teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and 
 hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our 
 hearts to the Lord. These two duties we say are insep- 
 
88 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 arably joined togeiber, in this passage: and that from 
 the veiy syntax of the sentence. Because one of the 
 duties is eiijoined by merely using the participles — 
 '^teaching — admonishing." And this participial clause 
 would have no meaning if it stood by itself. ''Teaching 
 and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and 
 spiritual songs," taken by itself says just nothing. It 
 has no meaning: it affirms nothing: it denies nothing: it 
 enjoins nothing. It cannot make full sense because it is 
 no sentence. "A sentence is such an assemblage of 
 words as makes complete sense." And hence in every 
 sentence there must be a verb: because there can be no 
 complete^sense Avithnut a verb. Were you to talk from 
 morning till niii^ht and use no verbs you would not say 
 anything And so with this clause: by itself it says noth- 
 ing. Its sense and its very existence depends upon the 
 other clause of the sentence — *'Let the word of Christ 
 dwell in you." In this passage then, there are not two 
 separate and in lei)endent duties enjoined. There is not 
 the duty of letting the word dwell in us; and then discon- 
 nected from this, the duty of teaching and admonishing. 
 These two duties are iirseparably united: there is a mu- 
 tual dependence beiween them: they have a mutual 
 bearing upon each other. And when we ascertain the 
 connexion between them, we will see what this bearing is. 
 
 What then, is the nature of the connexion between 
 the two clauses of this sentence] or what has teaching 
 and admonishing to do with the word of Christ? Of this 
 I have seen several interpretations: but I must say, that 
 not one of them is satisfactory to my mind. And if I 
 differ from others it is because I am compelled to do so, 
 on account of what T believe to be the truth. The duty 
 enjoined in the words — "teaching and admonishing one 
 another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" — let 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 89 
 
 it be observed is a reciprocal duty, all Christians are to 
 engage in it: and also the manner of performing the duty 
 is — "singing/' Some interpretations then will not bear 
 the slightest touch of scrutiny. One is; that it enjoins 
 upon those who can read, to instruct those who cannot, 
 by reading or reciting to them portions of the Book of 
 Psalms. But this would not be a mutual exercise; nor 
 done by singing; and this is not the meaning. Another 
 is: that it enjoins upon the preacher to explain the 
 Psalm to the people before singing. But this would not 
 be a mutual exercise, nor done by singing: and this is 
 not the meaning. Another is: that it enjoins upon those 
 who compose Psalms and Hymns, **to enrich them well 
 from the woi^d of Christ, or with the important doctrines 
 of the Gospel for the instruction of others.'' But this 
 woiald not be a mutual exercise nor done by singing, 
 and this is not the meaning. None of these will bear 
 the slightest touch of examination. A more plausible 
 interpretation is this: that we are required to let the 
 word of Christ dwell in us richly, that we may be qual- 
 ified to teach and admonish one another in psalms and 
 hymns and spiritual songs. But though this is the gen- 
 erally received interpretation, it is to me unsatisfactory. 
 Because I do not see the relevancy of the parts; or the 
 necessity of the first duty in order to the discharge of the 
 second. Why must we have the word of Christ dwel- 
 ling in us richly, in order that we may teach and admon- 
 ish one another by singing psalms and hymns and spir- 
 itual songs'? Could we not sing these without having the 
 word of Christ dwelling in us ricfily] If tlie injunction 
 was to compose Psalms and. Hymns, then we could see 
 the necessity of having the word dwelling richly in us: 
 but the injunction is not to make, but to sing them, that 
 by singing them we may teach and admonish one another. 
 8^ 
 
90 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 Now a person who had them might sing them, though he 
 had never seen the word of God. And heathens con- 
 verted to Christianity, while they had not the Bible in 
 their own tongue might teach and admonish one anoth- 
 er by singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, 
 though they could not have the word of Christ dwelling 
 in them richly. And thus we see the discharge of the 
 first duty is not essential to the discharge of the second: 
 nor do I believe that the words at all teach that it is. 
 
 My chief objection, however, to the interpretation is 
 this: that it makes the first duty in the passage the subor- 
 dinate duty; and the second duty the principal one: thus 
 making the very existence of the first dependent upon 
 the second: whereas precisely the reverse is the case. — 
 The interpretation is in conflict with the very genius of 
 language. For the genius of language is this: that when 
 two duties are enjoined in the same sentence, the one by 
 verbal language, and the other by participial language, 
 then the one couched in verbal language is the principal 
 duty, and the one in participial language is the subordi- 
 nate duty: its nature and existence depends upon the 
 other. In every sentence consisting of two parts, a ver- 
 bal and a participial, the verbal clause is complete in 
 in itself, and the participial clause is a mere appendage 
 to it. It matters not which clause may be first in or- 
 der in the sentence; this does not change the relation- 
 ship existing between them. And it is indeed a very 
 important matter to know the nature of the connec- 
 tion between the parts; or what relation the participial 
 clause bears to the verbal clause. And I apprehend 
 the relation is exegetical. The participial clause is al. 
 ways explanatory of the verbal clause. If the verbal 
 clause contains merely a proposition, then the participial 
 clause is explanatory of that proposition. If the verbal 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 91 
 
 clause enjoins a duty, then the other clause explains 
 either the nature of that duty; or the manner in which 
 that duty may be discharged; or perhaps comprehends 
 both. For the exemplification of the whole matter let 
 us take some sentences. — Abstaining from intemperance f 
 taking exercise, and rising early; — Now it is obvious 
 that these words do not make complete sense: there is 
 something wanting: and it is a verbal clause, to give 
 meaning to this participial clause. Connect with it these 
 words — secure to yourselves good health — and then you 
 have sense. Or you may invert the clauses and it still 
 expresses the same thing. Secure to yourselves good 
 health: abstaining from intemperance, taking exercise, 
 and rising early. And the participial clause merely ex- 
 plains the manner in v/hich you are to secure good 
 health — that is, it explains the mode of doing what is 
 enjoined in the verbal clause. The farmer says — John, 
 making a deep furrow, turning up the sub-soil, and throw- 
 ing the vegetation under: — It is obvious the farmer has 
 not by these words enjoined anything upon John: but 
 when John hears them he knows the farmer is going to 
 say something. And it is; — plough the land well: — The 
 farmer enjoins upon iiim a duty; and tells him how to per- 
 form it; or what he means by the duty, — "John, plough 
 the land well: making a deep furrow, turning up the sub- 
 soil, and throiving the vegetation under." The particip- 
 ial clause does not enjoin a separate and independent 
 duty: but is merely explanatory of what is contained in 
 the verbal clause. 
 
 The writings of the Apostle Paul abound with senten- 
 ces of this kind. And any man that carefully examines 
 will find, that the participial clause of such sentences, 
 is always exegetical of the verbal clause. But observe: 
 verbs and participles may both be found in the same 
 
92 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 sentence, while the one is not explanatory of the other: 
 because both are explanatory of the principal verb 
 somewhere else in the sentence. We have an instance of 
 this kind in Eph 6: 14 — 20. These seven verses consti- 
 tute but one sentence in the original though they are 
 punctuated as two in the translation. The principal du- 
 ty is enjoined at the beginning of the 14th verse. It is 
 — ''Stand"— -and all that follows is explanatory of how 
 this is to be done- — having the loins girt — having on the 
 breastplate — having the feet shod — taking the shield — 
 take the helmet — praying always — and watching there- 
 unto: — 'Spraying'' is not explanatory of, "take the hel- 
 met;" because both are explanatoiy of "stand" at the 
 beginning of the sentence. And even praying for all 
 saints; and f)r the Apostle, is apart of the mode prescri- 
 bed for discharging the duty — Stand, 
 
 Again: though a duty enjoined by participral language, 
 is always subordinate to a principal duty, yet it may be 
 principal to a third duty, which is subordinate to itself. 
 We have a case of this kind in Col. ^: 16. "Let the 
 word of Christ dwell in you," this is the principal duty 
 "Teaching and admonishing one another," is subordinate 
 to this: and then singing subordinate to teaching, etc. 
 
 Again: participial language may be explanatory of 
 what is contained in substantives; as in Eph. 4: 2, 3. 
 "Walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called. 
 With all lowliness, and meekness; with long-suffering^ 
 forbearing one another in love. Endeavoring to keep the 
 unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Here endeav- 
 oring may be explanatory of forbearing; and forbearing 
 may be explanatory of long-suffering: yet they all go to 
 explain the nature of the principal duly; or the manner 
 which it is to be performed — that is the duty of walking 
 worthy of their vocation. Thus we find that participial 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 93 
 
 language is always explanatory — it never of itself en- 
 joins an independent duty. 
 
 Let us examine a few more passages, that we may see 
 the truth of the position. Eph. 5: 18, the duty enjoined 
 is, "Be filled with the Spirit;" and all that is said to the 
 close of the 25th verse is explanatory of the mode in 
 which this is to be done. "Be filled with the Spirit," — 
 that is with the graces of ihe Spirit, or cultivate such a 
 frame of heart, that the Spirit will take up his abode with 
 you, and dwell in you. And how shall this be done*? — 
 By speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and 
 spiritual songs: hj singing and making melody: hj giv- 
 ing thanks: and submitting yourselves one to another. 
 All this describes the mode of discharging the duty of 
 being filled with the Spirit. Phi. 1: 2, 3. I thank my 
 God upon every remembrance of you." And how does 
 he do it] "M<2Z:m^ request with joy." Phi. 2: 15. "Ye 
 shine as lights in the world." How] holding forth the 
 word of life." Phi. 3: 13. ^'Forgetting those things 
 which are behind; and reaching forth unto those things 
 which are before, I press toward the mark." Col. 1: 28. 
 "Whom we preach." How? warning every man, and 
 teaching every man." We see that the participial clau- 
 ses are always explanatory. Col. 3: 12. "Put on there- 
 fore as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of 
 mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long- 
 suffering." And how are we to cultivate these Chris- 
 tian graces] By ''forbearing one another, and forgiving 
 one another." Col. 3: 16. "Let the word of Christ 
 dwell in you richly, in all wisdom," And how shall this 
 be done] By "teaching and admonishing one another 
 in psalms, and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with 
 grace in your hearts to the Lord." Be constant and 
 diligent in this practice of teaching and admonishing 
 
94 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY 
 
 one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, 
 and the result will be; that you will have the word of 
 Christ dwelling in you richly in all wisdom. 
 
 This then, I take to be the correct exposition of the 
 passage. And I have gone into the examination, and 
 explanation at some length, for the purpose of finding 
 and setting forth the truth. Because if my heart does 
 not deceive me, it is the truth I desire and nothing else. 
 And I have given this interpretation of the passage be- 
 cause I believe it to be the true one, without any regard 
 to the bearing it may have upon the subject of Psalmody. 
 If this interpretation were to deprive me of any support, 
 from this passage, to the cause I maintain, yet I dare 
 not withhold it. It is the truth we want. Let us know 
 the truth, and the truth shall make us free. The cause 
 of truth never suffered by the discovery or application 
 of truth. And the fact of the matter is, that when we 
 have the true interpretation of this passage, we see more 
 clearly its important bearing upon the subject of Psalm- 
 ody. For we see that it authorized the CoUosians, and 
 that it authorizes us to use psalms, and hymns, and 
 spiritual songs, composed by uninspired men; because 
 it enjoins the use of songs drawn from the word of God; 
 the New Testament as well as the Old. And there be- 
 ing in the New Testament no songs ready for our use, 
 those drawn from it must be the compositions of unin- 
 spired men. But how does it enjoin the use of songs 
 drawn from the whole word of God? Because it says, 
 that by the use of the songs we make ourselves familiar 
 with the whole word of God. And if the use of them 
 makes us familiar with the whole word, they must be 
 drawn from the whole word. If the songs embodied 
 only ^ part, their use could never make us familiar with 
 the whole. The use of a part of th.e Bible could never 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 95 
 
 make us familiar with the whole Bible. The use of the 
 first, second, and third chapters of the Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans could never make us familiar with the whole Epis- 
 tle. Teaching and admonishing one another in the first 
 psalm, and the second psalm, and the third psalm, would 
 never make us familiar with the whole book of Psalms. 
 And so teaching and admonishing one another in 
 psalms and hymns and spiritual songs taken from the 
 book of Psalms, could never make us familiar with some 
 doctrines, and the historical facts of the New Testament. 
 How long might we use the Psalms without knowing, 
 that the man Christ Jesus is the one mediator between 
 God and men] Just forever. When would we learn 
 by using the Psalms that this same Jesus, whom the Jews 
 crucified, is both Lord and Christ? Never. When 
 could we learn from the Psalms, that the Son of Joseph 
 and Mary attested his Messiahship by raising Lazarus 
 from the dead] How long would it take us to learn 
 from the book of Psalms, that the same night in which 
 Jesus was betrayed he took bread and blessed, and 
 break, and gave to his disciples saying, take, eat, this is 
 my body broken for you, this do in remembrance of me 
 . — that is, that he instituted the Lord's Supper? Why 
 these precious truths of our holy religion we could never 
 learn from the book of Psalms. By the use of the 
 Psalms we could never learn, that when the Messiah 
 should be born, his name would be called Jesus, Nei- 
 ther could we learn that Jesus of Nazareth is the very- 
 Christ, or Messiah, promised in the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures. Nor could we ever know that when the man 
 Jesus was baptized, the Holy Ghost descended upon him 
 like a dove; and that God the Father by an audible 
 voice from heaven testified that this man was the Mes- 
 siah, saying, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well 
 
96 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 pleased/' And by the use of the Psalms, we could 
 never know, that the prophecy contained in the 41st 
 Psalm was fulfilled by Judas betraying Jesus; nor that 
 the prophecies contained in the 69th and 109th Psalms 
 were fulfilled in the punishment of Judas. Nor that the 
 prophecy contained in the 16th Psalm was fulfilled in 
 the resurrection of Jesus. We could never know from 
 the Psalms this all important fact^ that Jesus rose from 
 the dead, and that the Apostles were appointed as wit- 
 nessss of this fact, and that this fact lies at the very foun- 
 dation of Christianity. Nor could we know that accord- 
 ing to the promise of Jesus the Holy Ghost was poured 
 out on the day of Penticost, Nor could we ever learn 
 from the Psalms, that the man who journeyed from place 
 to place through the land of Judea, on errands of mercy, 
 weak and weary, feeble and despised, and who was at 
 last killed and buried — that this very same man is now 
 exalted to the right hand of God, a Prince and a Saviour 
 to give repentance and the remission of sins, O no! 
 these and many other such fundamentals of Christianity 
 can never be learned from the book of Psalms. And 
 the undeniable fact is this, that if our Psalmody affords 
 to us any aid in becoming familiar with these things, 
 they must be embodied in our own Psalmody. If our 
 Psalmody does not contain them, we can never learn 
 them from it. And if our Psalmody does contain them, 
 that Psalmody must be drawn from the New Testament 
 Scriptures; because they are nowhere else revealed. I 
 am well aware, that the Psalms contain a great deal 
 concerning the Messiah; but they do not tell us who the 
 Messiah is; they do not tell us that Jesus who was born 
 of Mary, is that Messiah; they do not tell us, that all 
 that is contained in the Psalms concerning the Messiah, 
 was fulfilled in the man Christ Jesus. True, indeed, 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 97 
 
 there ai^e some who profess to be so clear-sighted that 
 they can find in the Psalms everything concerning Je- 
 sus of Nazareth — so clear-sighted, that they can find 
 what is not there at all — so clear-sighted that they can 
 prove the New Testament Scriptures perfectly useless ! 
 Far more clear-sighted than the Evangelist John: for in 
 speaking of his Gospel, he says; ^'These are written, 
 that ye might believe that Jesus is tJie Christ, the Son of 
 God; and that believing ye might have life through his 
 name." John thought the New Testament Scriptures 
 were necessary, in order to know, that Jesus was the 
 Christ. But these men know better: they can find out 
 all from the Book of Psalms. And according to their 
 views the New Testament Scriptures are just about as 
 good as useless, But it is only when they are on 
 Psahnody, that they make these wonderful discoveries! 
 The truth, however, is, that God in his infinite wisdom 
 and goodness has given us the New Testament Scrip- 
 tures, to teach us what we could never learn from the 
 book of Psalms; and hence the use of these Psalms 
 could never teach us these things. We must have Psalms 
 in which they are before we can learn them from our 
 Psalms. And therefore we must have Psalms embody- 
 ing the revelations of the New Testament. And these 
 are the kind of psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs 
 the Apostle requires us to sing. And those who refuse 
 to teach and admonish one another in the use of such 
 songs of praise, are living in constant neglect of their 
 duty — disobeying this precept of the Gospel: and in 
 their Psalmody are refusing to "confess, that Jesus Christ 
 is come in the flesh.'' As far as their Psalmody is con- 
 cerned, they are acting just like the unbelieving Jews, 
 who refuse to acknowledge that the Messiah has yet 
 come. They and these Jews both use the same Psal- 
 9 
 
98 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 mody; and in their Psalmody both refuse to confess that 
 Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. Though they profess 
 to be Christians, yet in this part of their worship they 
 rank themselves with Jews; because they use no Psal- 
 mody, but that which the Jews can consistently use, while 
 still in their unbelief. And Jews, who hate Jesus, could 
 cordially unite with them, when singing praises in the 
 family, or in the public congregation. But Jews who 
 hate Jesus could not unite in singing the psalms and 
 hymns, and spiritual songs commended by the Apostle, 
 and sung by the Collossians and Ephesians: Psalms em- 
 bodying the revelations of the New Testament: Psalms 
 in which they spoke of Jesus — maintaining that he was 
 the Messiah — that he was the promised Saviour — that he 
 was a divine person — that he was the Son of God — that 
 Jesus was their Friend — their Hope, their Saviour, their 
 All. And by the use of which the Apostle said, they 
 would have the word of Christ dwelling in them richly 
 in all wisdom. And beyond all controversy, here is just 
 the plain truth of the matter: the Apostle says, that by 
 using psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, we shall 
 make ourselves acquainted with the word of God — with 
 the New Testament Scriptures — and hence, these songs 
 must be drawn from these Scriptures. There is posi- 
 tively no other way for it—man^s ingenuity and sophistry 
 can never twist it into any thing else. They may give a 
 false interpretation and corrupt the word of God: but the 
 plain truth of the passage remains unchangeably the 
 same. 
 
 The conclusion at which we have arrived is: that when 
 the Apostle enjoins the use of psalms, and hymns, and 
 spiritual songs, he means songs drawn from the word of 
 God; and embodying especially what is peculiar to the 
 Christian dispensation. And when we examine the terms 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 99 
 
 used, it will be seen that there is nothing in their mean- 
 ing which in the least conflicts with this conclusion: but 
 rather that the meaning of the terms tends to corroborate 
 what we have said. The first term used is Psalms. And 
 what does this term designate] Perhaps it designates 
 Psalms of David; but this is altogether uncertain, as there 
 is nothing in the term itself to show that it does. I have 
 been wont to think, that by this term here, the Psalms of 
 David are meant: but then I was guided more by sound 
 than by information: just because it was usual with me, 
 in common with others, to apply this term to David's 
 Psalms and to nothing else: never reflecting, that though 
 this may be the common signification of the term now, it 
 may have been far otherwise in the days of the Apostle. 
 We have been accustomed to think, that the term Psalms 
 never meant any thing but the Psalms of David. But in 
 this we are much mistaken. The term has come from 
 the Greeks; and they used it hundreds of years before 
 they knew there were any Psalms of David. They had 
 Pmo, to touch; and from that Psallo, to touch, or move 
 with the fingers; to pluck the hair; to twitch; to twang a 
 carpenter's line, or bow-string; and then to strike the 
 strings of a musical instrument. And hence their Psal- 
 mos signified a musical-stringed-instrument, or the tune 
 performed on it, or any burst or strain of music. By 
 Psalm, then, is properly meant a song sung to a musical 
 instrument. It was this kind of songs, that the Greeks 
 called Psalms. Then when David's songs were transla- 
 ted from Hebrew into Greek they were called Psalms; 
 because they had always been sung to musical instru- 
 ments in the Temple worship. Their being sung to mu- 
 sical instruments is the reason why they were called 
 Psalms, This is the title of the Book, and the word is 
 found also in the titles of many Psalms. In the title of 
 
100 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 the 4th Psalm it signifies a musical instrument; because 
 it is put for Neginoth in the Hebrew. Now, as songs 
 composed by Greek Pagans, were called Psalms; so 
 songs composed by Greek Christians may have been call- 
 ed Psalms by the Apostle Paul. The term itself affords 
 to us no information whatever, as to what songs he meant. 
 
 The next term in the text is hymns. This also is from 
 the Greeks. They used it seven or eight hundred years 
 before the days of the Apostle: and hence many hun- 
 dreds of years before they knew there were any Psalms 
 of David. The term comes from Udeo, to tell; to relate: 
 and then to relate something of somebody; to speak in 
 praise of some one. Hence, their Humnos designates 
 a song of praise: a song in which they praised their 
 gods and heroes. When David's Psalms were trans- 
 lated into Greek they were not called hymns. Nor is the 
 term used as the title of any Psalm in the whole collec- 
 tion. It occurs in the titles of six Psalms; and has re- 
 spect to the mode of conducting the music: but is not 
 descriptive of the Psalm at all. Hymns then is not the 
 title of the Greek Psalms: neither is it the title of any 
 one single Psalm. There is no reason therefore, to sup- 
 pose, that by this term the Apostle meant the Psalms 
 of David. Because the term is appropriate to any song 
 of praise to God, or to Jesus Christ by whomsoever it 
 may have been composed. 
 
 The next term is song; this too is of Greek derivation. 
 It is from Aeido, to sing. It signifies any common song, 
 or lay, or ditty: anything composed to be sung without 
 reference to a musicial instrument; nor yet having for 
 its object the praise of any one. This also was used by 
 the Greeks hundreds of years before they had any 
 knowledge of David's Psalms. But when the Psalms 
 were translated into Greek this term was employed as 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 101 
 
 he title of twenty five of them. It is found in some 
 other titles but not as a title. The Apostle however, 
 does not say Song merely, but Spiritual So?ig; a phrase 
 which is not fouud in any title of the whole book ot 
 Psalms. He obviously used the word Spiritual, to 
 teach that he did not mean, such light, trifling wan- 
 ton songs as were common among the Greeks; but 
 songs composed on spiritual subjects. If the Apostle 
 had been speaking of David's Psalms, the epithet Spir- 
 itual, would have been useless. If, as Dr. Pressly 
 would have it, the people were in the practice of sing- 
 ing David's Psalms, and nothing else; and if they under- 
 stood the Apostle as referring to these Psalms, might 
 they not well ask; what is the use of calling them Spirit- 
 ual ? does not every one know that they are Spiritual 
 without designating them in this manner 1 Were you to 
 tell the farmer to use for feed land-grown oats, might 
 he not well ask, what do you mean? what is the use of 
 calling them land-grown? are not all oats of this descrip- 
 tion? And' so they might well ask; what is the use of 
 telling us to sing David's Spiritual songs; for whoever 
 heard of any other kind? And suppose you would ex- 
 hort a man, to read the Scriptures, and the Bible, and 
 the Spiritual word of God, would he not think it a 
 queer exhortation? And especially would he say: — 
 What does the man mean by Spiritual word of God? 
 who ever heard of a temporal word of God? And just 
 so in the other case: What does the man mean by spir- 
 itual Psalms of David? for who ever heard of temporal 
 Psalms of David? But Dr. Pressly by his enlightening 
 touch removes the difficulty: for he says these songs of 
 David are called spiritual, just because they are *' wor- 
 thy." And according to this there are some of David's 
 
 Psalms not worthy to be called spiritual. Those desif? 
 
 9* ° 
 
102 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY, 
 
 nated by the term hymns are not called spiritual: why! 
 because they are not worthy. Those designated by the 
 term ^;>5<2Zm5 are not called spiritual: why] because they 
 are not worthy. Obviously if the Apostle by all these 
 terms meant Psalms of David, and considered them all 
 equally worthy, he ought to have said sj)iritual psalms, 
 and spiritual hymns; as well as spiritual songs. If the 
 songs must be called spiritual because they are worthy, 
 then if the others are w^orthy they ought to be called 
 spiritual too. According to the Doctor's explanation, 
 then, all that the Apostle designates by the terms; psalms ^ 
 hymns; are not worthy to be called Spiritual, And then 
 I would be ready to think they are little better than 
 *'human composure.'' And the Doctor sings them too! 
 O yes! but what of that! Should I not recollect, that 
 they have been spiritualized in passing through the 
 hands of Rouse? 
 
 We have seen, then, that the terms — psalms ^ hymns, 
 '^firitual songs— h?(Ne nothing in them that limits their 
 Tjoeaning to the book of Psalms. They may be used in 
 speaking of any sacred poetical compositions: and hence 
 their meaning does not militate against our conclusion: 
 that these "psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs," 
 are to be drawn from the whole word of God. 
 
 And there is another important consideration tending 
 to prove, that the Apostle did not mean the book of 
 Psalms by these terms. It is: that this was not the usual 
 mode of calling the book of Psalms. We have reason 
 to believe, that that Book was never spoken of in this 
 way. It was called the '*book of Psalms," or *'the Psalms;" 
 but never called "the psalms, and ihymns and spiritual 
 songs." The Saviour speaks of it twice and calls it, 
 «ahe Psalms" and "the Book of Psalms," Lu. 20: 42. 24: 
 44. The Apostle Peter calls it **the Book of Psalms," 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 103 
 
 Ac. 1: 20. The Apostle Paul says, "in the 2d Psalm," 
 Ac. 13: 33. He does not say: *'in the 2d of the psalms 
 and hymns and spiritual songs." No indeed! For if he 
 had said so the people would not have known what he 
 meant: because the Book of Psalms was never designa- 
 ted in this way. It never had been the custom, to call 
 this Book — ''psalms and hymns and spiritual songs," — 
 it was not then the custom — nor has it ever yet been the 
 custom. Dr. Pressly indeed, tries to establish this cus- 
 tom, but I do not think he will succeed. He adopts it 
 very extensively in his work on Psalmody. His very 
 general practice is, to call the Book of Psalms— *'psalms, 
 and hymns, and spiritual songs." To suit his purpose 
 he has to adopt a phraseology entirely different from that 
 of Christ and his Apostles. And if the Doctor had ap- 
 peared among them, and used his phraseology, they 
 would have looked at him perfectly astonished ! They 
 might have supposed, that he had just come down from 
 the moon; because he was so ignorant of the common 
 way of naming the book of Psalms! But then the Doc- 
 tor has a design in adopting his new phraseology. He 
 applies these terms to the Book of Psalms, in order to 
 make the impression that the Apostle applied them in 
 the same way. But it does not follow, that the Apostle 
 meant the book of Psalms by these terms, because Dr. 
 Pressly means so. If the Doctor always calls his boots, 
 shoes — it does not follow, that the boot-maker called them 
 shoes. And were the Doctor never to call them any 
 thing but shoes, that would never prove that the other 
 called them so. But by persevering in this practice, the 
 Doctor might make the impression on his children, that 
 it had always been customary to call boots — shoes. And 
 then the children would conclude that the term shoes 
 always meant boots. It is at this the Doctor aims by his 
 
104 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 new phraseology: he would have his people to believe, 
 that the terms, "psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs," 
 always designated the book of Psalms, and to awaken in 
 them this belief, lie calls the Book by these terms. — 
 But is it not laughable, "or something worse," to see a 
 man resorting to such schemes to maintain his causel 
 
 This text of Scripture is very annoying to Psalmon- 
 ites, and how to dispose of it requires all their ingenu- 
 ity. If the Apostle had only left it out of his writings 
 it would have saved them a great deal of trouble. Dr. 
 Pressly obviously felt the difficulty; and he has to make 
 a desperate effort to surmount it. He says, however, 
 that he is going to "weigh the reasons in the balances of 
 the sanctuary.'* I suppose he uses this language to 
 make the impression, that he is very grave, and very 
 honest, and very impartial; and that he will treat the 
 subject with the utmost truth and fairness. This "weigh- 
 ing in the balances," seems to be a favorite expression 
 with him, as he uses it often. But any man who impar- 
 tially examines the results of the Doctor's weighing will 
 soon come to the conclusion, that his so-called "balances 
 of the sanctuary," must be out of repair — rusty; or that 
 the Doctor has actually been tampering with them; so 
 that they may always turn in his favor. He takes up the 
 greater part of two chapters with the hopeless work of 
 setting aside the authority of this passage. And he has 
 it paraded on the title page of his book, that he has giv- 
 en a "critical analysis" of Col. 3: 16, 17. And such a 
 critical analysis! Time would fail to point out the mer- 
 its and beauties thereof. But all ye connoisseurs of 
 criticism see that you fail not, to secure for yourselves 
 the Doctor's work on Psalmody; and turn to his "crit- 
 ical analysis," and summoning all your powers of intel- 
 lect for the enjoyment of something profound, examine 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 105 
 
 it with care — ^but I exhort ye not to laugh! And then 
 too it is just from the Doctor's hand — direct from the 
 wonderful philological chair — coming from the very 
 fountain of Biblical science — ^and sent forth by the chief 
 Rabbi of that notable School! It must be remarkable! 
 — and it is! All who want to have a curiosity in criti- 
 cism — get it! Happy youth! who resort to that School! 
 When the Master is so profound in Biblical criticism, 
 doubtless they will all be much distinguished in this de- 
 partment of sacred learning! 
 
 But then, as to the manner in which the Doctor sets 
 aside the argument contained in the passage is this, — 
 by subverting the principles of language — by misinter- 
 preting the word of God — by wrong statements respect- 
 ing the titles of the Psalms — and by sophistical reason- 
 ing. 
 
 He subverts the principles of language, by represent- 
 ing the participial clause of the verse as having no con- 
 nection with, and as independent of, the verbal clause. 
 He does this to make appear, that teaching in psalms 
 and hymns has nothing to do with the word of Christ. 
 On p. 36, we find the following language: ^'It is undoubt- 
 edly the will of God , that the precious truths of the Gos- 
 pel should dwell richly in the hearts of all true believ- 
 ers, and that they should sing * 'psalms and hymns and 
 songs," in the worship of God. But we are inquiring 
 after authority, not to sing^ but to make psalms and hymns 
 and spiritual songs. And on this point this passage of 
 the word of God is utterly silent.'* It is seen here, that 
 he represents the two clauses of the verse as entirely 
 disconnected and independent of each other. Because 
 he represents them as containing two separate and dis- 
 tinct duties, between which there exists no relationship 
 whatever. And again: on p. 31, he says, **Why, my 
 
106 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 venerable Father, will you allow me to say, that this pre- 
 cept, which you represent as so full and clear, does not 
 utter one syllable in relation to the point in controversy. 
 There is no dispute as to our obligation to let the word 
 of Christ dwell in us richly; none, as to the duty of 
 teaching and admonishing one another, as we may be 
 able; none, as to the propriety of singing psalms and 
 hymns and spiritual songs. All this is fully and clearly 
 revealed, and all this we firmly believe." — How mani- 
 fest it is here, that he makes the verse to contain three 
 separate and independent duties. In order to show that 
 teaching and singing, have nothing to do with letting the 
 vrord of Christ dwell in us richly. He makes participial 
 language to contain an affirmation, which is contrary to 
 the principles of all language. He teaches that a man 
 may enjoin a duty without using a verb at all; a thing 
 which is utterly impossible. He teaches that there is no 
 difference between a participle and a verb — that in lan- 
 guage they both have the same meaning; and may be 
 used in precisely the same way! And in this manner he 
 carefully keeps out of view the connexion existing be* 
 tween the two clauses of the verse: disjoining the par- 
 ticipial from the verbal, which is a violation of the very 
 genius of language. And thus he tramples under his 
 feet the principles of his own mother-tongue, and of all 
 language used among men! It requires a desperate ef- 
 fort, indeed, to overturn the authority of this passage. 
 But is it consistent with the position he occupies] Would 
 it not be expected, that the principal in an institution of 
 learning, would be the patron and guardian of sound 
 literature, instead of subverting its very first principles?- 
 How very advantageous it must be for those under his 
 training! They will no doubt be proficients in learning 
 as well as in criticism. 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY, 
 
 107 
 
 Again: in connexion with his subversion of the princi- 
 ples of language, there must be a false interpretation of 
 the passage. And this is the case, for he represents the 
 passage as enjoining three independent and principal du- 
 ties, having no connexion with each other. Whereas 
 the design of the Spirit was to enjoin one principal duty, 
 and tv/o subordinate duties, both subservient to the per- 
 formance of the principal one. And this is done by 
 forms of speech that harmonize with the principles of 
 language. The Doctor's interpretation therefore does 
 not give the mind of the Spirit as contained in this pas- 
 sage. 
 
 In the third place: by wrong statements respecting the 
 titles of the Psalrns. I give his paragraph entire that 
 those competent may examine it for themselves: and to 
 be kept as a standing record of the Doctor's dissimula- 
 tion on this subject. 
 
 Page, 39. *'But further: It is well known to the schol- 
 ar, that there are various titles prefixed to the sacred 
 poems contained in the book of Psalms. There are par- 
 ticularly three distinct titles used to designate these 
 different compositions. For the sake of the common 
 reader I will give these titles in English characters. The 
 whole book is called the book of Tehillim or hymns. 
 And the word is used in the singular number as the title 
 of the 145th Psalm: Hymn of David,^ Many of these 
 sacred songs bear the title, Mizmor, a Psalm. And 
 others have affixed to them the title, Shir, a song. Here 
 then are three different kinds of songs in the book of 
 Psalms contained in the Bible: Mizmoriniy Tehillim, 
 Shirim, signifying psalms, hymns, songs. But the Apos- 
 tle wrote in the Greek language; and the translation of 
 the Old Testament then used generally throughout the 
 Christian Church, was that which is known by the title 
 
108 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 of the Septuagint, which is in the Greek language. 
 Now it so happens that in this Greek translation of the 
 book of Psalms, we have in the titles prefixed to differ- 
 ent Psalms, the identical terms which we have employed 
 by the Apostle: 'psalms, hymns and songs.' We know 
 that there was then received by the church, a book of 
 psalms, hymns and songs, contained in the Bible. We 
 know of none other. And the conclusion forces itself 
 upon us, that the Apostle in directing his Christian 
 brethren to sing psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, 
 refers to those with which they were acquainted and 
 which the whole Christian Church regarded as a portion 
 of the word of God.'' 
 
 Now this entire paragraph is designed to teach wh^t 
 is not true; in its parts separately, and especially as a 
 whole. The object the Doctor had in view, was to make 
 it appear, that the Apostle used the titles of the psalms, 
 when he used the terms, psahns, hymns, spiritual soiigs 
 These terms are three in number: hence the Doctor says, 
 in the Hebrew, '^there are particularly three distinct 
 titles used to designate these different compositions." 
 But the fact is, instead of three there are seven, Miz- 
 mor, occurs 58 times; Shir, 30 times; Maschil, 12 times; 
 Michtam, 6 times; Tephillah, 4 times; Shiggaion, 1 time; 
 and Tehillah, 1 time. We see then, that the Doctor's 
 is a plain misrepresentation; and especially so, when we 
 look at the three titles which he says **are particularly 
 used." They are Mizmor, Shir, Tehillah. Tehillah, 
 he says, is one of the titles particularly used; and it oc- 
 curs but once! Would he be considered a man of truth, 
 who would say, "There are particularly three kinds of 
 fruit trees in the orchard — apple-trees, peach-trees, and 
 pear-trees;" when there is in the orchard only one apple- 
 tree among 112; and six other different kinds; a fig-tree, 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 109 
 
 4 cherry-trees, 6 quince-trees, 12 plum-trees, 30 pear- 
 trees, and 58 peach-trees? And he says, apple-trees is 
 particularly one of the kinds in the orchard! A man 
 from sinister motives making such a statement respect- 
 ing his orchard would hardly be considered blameless. 
 And is it less culpable to make wrong statements re- 
 specting the word of God] Again; the Doctor says, 
 **The whole book [of Psalms] is called the book of Te- 
 hillim, or hymns/' Now it is not true that the book is 
 called ^^hymns^^ either in the Greek or in the English. — 
 In the Greek it is called Psalmoi; and in the English 
 Psalms, But the Doctor makes this desperate assertion, 
 in order to show that when the Apostle used, hymns ^ he 
 meant Psalms of David. But were a man to make such 
 assertions about worldly matters, would he be reckoned 
 safe] Again: the Doctor says, *^The word [Tehillim] is 
 used in the singular number as the title of the 145th 
 Psalm: AJiymn of Davids Here he represents TeJiil- 
 lah of David, to be translated: ^^Aliymn of David:^^ But 
 it is not so translated either in the Greek or English. 
 In the Greek it is: ^'Ainesis tou David and in the Eng- 
 lish: David'' s Psalm of praised So that the wo^d hymn 
 is not in either: and it is a fraudulent invention of the 
 Doctor's to suit his own purpose — all to make the Apos- 
 tle mean. Psalms of David, when he uses the word, 
 hymns. When a man has recourse to such schemes, to 
 what might he not resort? Again: in relation to the 
 Septuagint the Doctor says, "Now it so happens that in 
 this Greek translation of the book of Psalms, we have 
 in the titles prefixed to different Psalms, the identical 
 terms which are here employed by the Apostle.'' Here 
 the Doctor evinces great cunning: he states what is true, 
 for the purpose of teaching what is false. That these 
 terms are in the titles is true: but that they are the titles 
 
 1 0 
 
110 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 is false. And the Doctor's design is to represent them 
 as the titles; for were they not represented as the titles, 
 the fact of them being in the titles, would afford to him 
 no support. But he intends to teach that these terms are 
 applied to the Psalms, and are descriptive of them — that 
 is, that these terms are the names or titles of the Psalms. 
 On page 141, he says, "From the fact, that these different 
 terms are applied to the same Psalm, the opinion seems 
 to be confirmed. Applied, to the same Psalm,'' teach- 
 ing that the Psalm is called by these terms. Now this is 
 the falsehood intended to be taught, that these terms in 
 the titles are descriptive of the Psalms; or in other words 
 that they «re the titles of the psalms. Bat according to 
 this mode of applying terms in a title, we might make 
 the Doctor's work on Psalmody to be almost any thing. 
 We could very easily make it the very oj^posite of what 
 it is. ^'Review of Ralslon's Inquiry into the propriety 
 of using an Evangelical Psalmody in the Worship of 
 God." Now suppose we take some of the terms in this 
 title, and say that they are the title, we could make out 
 Dr. Pressly's work on Psalmody, to be — "Ralston's In- 
 quiry;' ' or we could make it — "an Evangelical Psal- 
 mody." (And the Doctor would hate that,) or we could 
 make it "the Worship of God." And this is the fallacy 
 the Doctor palms upon his readers. The terms in the 
 titles, he teaches them to believe are the titles. And 
 thus he brings it out, that the tevmSy psalms, and hymns, 
 and spiritual songs , are just the titles of different Psalms. 
 But this representation is very far from being the truth. 
 The term, hymn, is not the title of a single Psalm 
 throughout the whole Book. It occurs in only six. In 
 every instance it is in the dative case plural, or objective 
 case in English; and therefore cannot be the title. In 
 every instance too, it is put for, Neginothy in the Hebrew; 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 Ill 
 
 and hence it is descriptive of the music and not of the 
 psalm. For Neginotk, is from Nagan, to strike the 
 strings, and according to the best authorities, designates 
 a musical stringed-instrument. And thus we see, that 
 the term hymriy is not found even once as the title of any 
 Psalm in the entire Book, And just so it is w^ith the 
 other term, ^^spiritual songs, used by the Apostle, it is 
 not found even<??^c€ as the title of any Psalm. The word 
 song, is found, but that is not what the Apostle employs. 
 He uses the descriptive epithet, spirituals and if it had 
 been understood that he was speaking of David's Psalms 
 this would have been altogether useless: and in proof of 
 this, we find it to be a fact, that there is not one of them 
 designated in this manner throughout the whole Book. 
 And thus we see that this entire paragraph of the Doc- 
 tor's is a manifest fabrication. Indeed I never saw, and 
 I question if any one ever saw, an equal amount of mis- 
 representation in the same compass. Verily it does re- 
 quire a desperate effort to overthrow the authority of 
 this passage. But how is it possible to account for such 
 dissimulation] Does it arise from the nature of the cause 
 maintained] or is it merely from its advocate] Does the 
 Doctor really know no better, than to teach the people 
 thus] Can it be possible, that it is the blind leading the 
 blind] or should the language of the Saviour on another 
 occasion be used] "If ye were blind, ye should have no 
 sin; but now ye say. We see; therefore your sin remain- 
 eth." This deceitful representation too, is from the 
 Professor's chair, which is supposed to be the watchful 
 guardian of morals! The responsibility of such a po- 
 sition, surely ought to be felt. When men sit in Moses' 
 seat, and love to be called Rabbi, they ought not to be 
 indifferent as to the effect of their example upon the mor- 
 ality of others; and of those especially who are within 
 
112 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY 
 
 the circle of their ofEcial influence. But when we see 
 such inventions coming from the Principal of a Theolo- 
 gical Institution; it may enable us in some measure to 
 account for the reckless assertions made from some pul- 
 pits on the subject of Psalmody. When such is the 
 fountain, what may we expect the streams to be] We 
 have indeed, lamentable evidence, that man is fallen; 
 and that even good men are very imperfect. 
 
 We have seen then, that the terms used by the Apos- 
 tle, are not the titles of the Psalms in Greek: because 
 liymn is not found once as the title of any Psalm: and 
 s;piritual song, is not found in the titles at all. If the 
 Apostle had intended to employ the three titles particu- 
 arly used in the Greek Psalms, he would have said — in 
 psalms, and songs, and alleluias. Because in the Greek 
 these are the terms particularly used. Alleluia, is pre- 
 fixed as the title of twenty psalms, while the word hymn 
 is not once. And thus it is seen, the more we examine 
 the subject, the more irresistably does the conviction 
 force itself upon us, that the Apostle did not allude to 
 the book of Psalms at all. 
 
 There have been a good deal of conjecturing about 
 the difference in the nature of different Psalms as indi- 
 cated by their different titles. I too may give my opin- 
 ion and let it go for what it is worth. It has been 
 assumed, that the title of a Psalm is always indicative of 
 the nature of the subject treated in the Psalm: but this I 
 believe is entirely a mistake. I think there are but few 
 of the Psalms, that have titles indicative of the nature of 
 the subject treated. The title perhaps states the author 
 of the composition; or the occasion for which it was com- 
 posed; or on which it was used: while it may give no 
 information as to the subject of the Psalm: and is not 
 descriptive of it in that respect at all. The following 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 113 
 
 title — "a Psalm of David" — tells us merely that it is a 
 poetical composition — and that David s its author: but 
 says nothing about the subject of the Psalm, Just as — 
 "a poem of Cowper" — would tell us that it is a poetical 
 composition; and that Cowper is its author, while it 
 says nothing concerning the subject of the poem. Sev- 
 eral times the following title occurs in the Hebrew — "a 
 Psalm of David, a song" — this tells us that it is a poem; 
 that David is its author; and that it is of that class of po- 
 etical compositions called songs. Just as — *'a poem of 
 Burns, a song"— would tell us that Burns is the author, 
 and that it belongs to that class of his compositions called 
 songs. I think then, that the chief object of the titles is 
 to tell who the author was; and other circumstances: 
 but has no reference to the natur-e of the subject con- 
 tained. The 45th Psalm has a title descriptive of the 
 subject — "a song of loves'' — and the chief subject of the 
 Psalm is the mutual love of Christ and his Church. The 
 60th Psalm also seems to have a title of this kind — 
 ^^Michtam of David, to teach" — a poem of David, to give 
 instruction:' and the Psalm consists principally in giving 
 information. But the Psalms are few that have titles of 
 this description. They merely state the author, or the 
 cheif musician under whose direction they were to be 
 sung in the Temple: or some other circumstances con- 
 nected with them: and do not intimate anything concern- 
 ing the nature of the subject contained in the Psalms. 
 And this view removes all the difficulty of accounting 
 for the nature of different Psalms, according to their ti- 
 tles; because their titles generally are not indicative of 
 their nature at all. 
 
 It was intimated that the Doctor dealt a little in so- 
 phistical reasoning while attempting to overthrow the 
 authority of the passage under consideration. He ar- 
 10* 
 
114 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODYe 
 
 gues that the Apostle must have alluded to the book of 
 Psalms because they were in common use; and with 
 them the people were perfectly familiar. He represents 
 the word of God as equally common among Christians 
 then as it is now; and that they were as familiar with it 
 then as they are now. But this representation is entire- 
 ly fallacious. The truth of the matter is: there were 
 but few that could read; and the copies of the Scriptures 
 were exceedingly scarce. It was long before the art 
 of printing was discovered: and every copy of the Scrip- 
 tures had to be written out by hand: a very tedious and 
 expensive work. And hence there were but few even of 
 the Jews themselves, who possessed a copy of their own 
 Scriptures. A copy w^as provided for every synagogue; 
 but very few of the people were possessed of this costly 
 and precious treasure. And when we consider, that the 
 Christians of Coliosse and Ephesus were lately convert- 
 ed from heathenism, how exceedingly improbable it is, 
 that the Scriptures were common among them: or that 
 they were familiar with the word of God, or the book 
 of Psalms. Were we to take a full historical survey of 
 this whole matter, it would be found an absolute cer- 
 tainly, that the Christians whom Paul addressed were 
 almost entirely unacquainted with the written word of 
 God. The real facts of the case are wholly different 
 from what Dr. Pressly represents them; and the reader 
 is led to form an opinion completely contrary to histor- 
 ical truth. 
 
 The Doctor must believe that his assertions have great 
 weight with a certain class of people, for he affirms it 
 not less than half a score of times, that this passage has 
 no bearing upon the subject of controversy; and when 
 his people can read the passage, and then believe him, 
 what may he not teach them? The point in dispute, he 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 115 
 
 says, is not about authority to use psalms and hymns; but 
 authority to make them: and about making hymns the 
 passage is entirely silent. And he repeats it, and re- 
 peats it over and over, and over again, usqe ad nauseam, 
 just as though he had made some wonderful discovery! 
 Who ever imagined that the passage said anything about 
 making hymns] But the passage authorizes us to sing 
 hymns, and how could we sing them unless they were 
 made] When the Doctor authorizes his students to read 
 compositions, have they to ask of him authority to make 
 them? When the Presbytery authorizes the Doctor to 
 preach before it, does he then have to ask authority to 
 make his sermon? Or does not authority to preach a 
 sermon imply authority to 77iake one? When the Apos- 
 tle says, "praying always with all prayer and supplica- 
 tion in the Spirit,^' is there no authority to make prayers 
 but only to use them? And then the Doctor with this no- 
 tion of no authority to make hymns enlarges much : he fig- 
 ures and flourishes away; and makes out that there are 
 very few competent to compose a hymn : or make psalms 
 even as good as those of Rouse! Astonishing! Wh^ta 
 wonderful man ! O the bathos ! But I cgn prove that the 
 Doctor is mistaken, when he says, " the point in dispute 
 is not about using but about making hymns/' By what 
 authority? Dr. Pressly! P. 42, he says: "The great 
 question at issue then, is plainly this: Have we authority 
 to use in the worship of God Evangelical songs composed 
 by uninspired men — or have we not?" We see then, 
 that the one Doctor says, the point in dispute is about using 
 such songs: the other Doctor says no: it is not about the 
 use, but about the making of such songs. Thus the one 
 Doctor flatly contradicts the other Doctor; and we may 
 withdraw and leave the two Doctors to settle their own 
 controversy. On p. 143, he says, " It is XkiQ Use of psalms 
 
116 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 and hymns and songs for mutual edification of which the 
 Apostle here speaks. And his exhortation supposes that 
 they were already prepared:" Here the Doctor says, that 
 the exhortation to use implies, that the thing to be used is 
 already prepared. And according to this argument, 
 when the Apostle exhorts christians to pray with all 
 manner of prayer and supplication, the exhortation im- 
 plies, that all the prayers they would ever use were 
 already prepared: trimmed out, just ready for their 
 hand. And when the Doctor's physician advises him for 
 the good of his health, to use coffee with cream and 
 sugar, this advice implies, that all the coffee he will ever 
 drink, is now boiled and bottled just ready for his use. 
 And when he advises the Doctor to eat wholesome bread, 
 this implies, that all the bread he will ever use is already 
 baked: not only cooling but cooled ! and who would fear 
 that he will be in danger of eating it too fresh? And did 
 any one ever before hear of such reasoning] Away in 
 the back woods among the boys in the common schools 
 perhaps something like it has been heard. But coming 
 from the learned Doctor; and the chief Rabbi among 
 his brethren; this is the most astonishing of all! Indeed 
 I confess it: I may have been mistaken, when I spoke of 
 it as sophistical reasoning; for it is very likely it does not 
 rise to the dignity of sophistry. But I think it will readily 
 be admitted, that such argumentation is justly entitled, to 
 the very first rank in what is usually called twaddle ! 
 
 But the Doctor has really admitted all that we seek to 
 prove by this passage, viz : That it is our duty to draw 
 our songs of praise from the whole word of God. For 
 though he aims at representing the duty of letting the 
 word dwell in us, and the duty of teaching one another, 
 as disconnected and independent duties, yet he incau- 
 tiously uses language implying that there is a connexion 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 117 
 
 between them. On p. 137, he says, **From these and 
 similar portions of Scripture, it is plain that it is the 
 common duty of christians to admonish and to edify one 
 another. And that they may be properly qualified for 
 the performance of this duty, a familiar and enlarged 
 acquaintance with the word of God is requisite. There- 
 fore, says the Apostle, Let the word of Chri&t dwell in 
 you richly in all wisdom." He here admits, that to be 
 qualified for the duty of admonishing one another, we 
 must be familiar with the word of God. But why is it 
 requisite that we should be familiar with the word of God^ 
 if in our admonitions we must be confined to the book of 
 Psalms'? Why is it requisite for the farmer to be well 
 furnished with hay and oats and corn, if in feeding he 
 must be confined to corn? If he must use nothing 
 but corn why must he be provided with other com- 
 modities] So if we must be confined to the use of 
 Psalms in admonishing, what is the use of being familiar 
 with the whole word of God] Surely we might sing 
 Psalms without having an enlarged acquaintance with the 
 whole word of God; and the duty of admonishing is per- 
 formed by singing. The injunction, to be familiar with 
 the whole word to be qualified to teach implies, that 
 that whole word is to be used in teaching. Just as the 
 injunction upon the farmer to be well supplied with hay 
 and oats and corn, implies, that he is to use all these in 
 feeding. And thus he admits, the passage teaches that 
 we are to draw our songs of praise from the whole word 
 of God. And we have the same thing still more clearly 
 admitted on p. 136, "And the word of Christ with which 
 it is our duty to make ourselves well acquainted, which 
 should dwell richly in us; which we should study to un- 
 derstand, and in the application of which we should en- 
 deavor to edify one another, is the whole word of God, 
 
118 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa- 
 ment." Now here is all that we plead for. He virtually 
 says, that we ought to draw our Psalmody from the whole 
 word of God. For he says, it is in the application of the 
 whole word of God, that we are to edify one another ; 
 and the text says we are to apply it, in the form psalms 
 and hymns and spiritual songs. And if the word of God 
 be applied in these forms it must be reduced to these forms 
 — that is,these psalms and hymns and spiritual songs must 
 be drawn from the whole word of God. The whole 
 word cannot be applied in the form of songs unless it be 
 reduced to that form. If the medicine is to be taken in 
 the form of a liquid it must be made into a liquid. And 
 if the whole word of God is to be applied in the form of 
 psalms and hymns, it must be made into psalms and 
 hymns. What would be the meaning of the following % 
 Furnish yourselves abundantly with wool, that in the 
 application of that wool you may clothe yourselves with 
 cloth.'* Would it not obviously mean that the wool was 
 to be reduced to cloth, and that cloth used for clothing] 
 And so when we are to be well furnished with the word 
 of God, that in the application of that word we may ad- 
 monish one another in psalms and hymns ; it obviously 
 means that that word is to be made into psalms and 
 hymns, and that these are to be used for the purpose of 
 admonition. The word of God cannot be applied in 
 this form unless it be j)ut into this form. It cannot be 
 used in psalms and hymns unless it is embodied in them. 
 Hence, these psalms and hymns must be drawn from the 
 whole word of God. When the Doctor admits, that this 
 text enjoins upon us to apply the word of God in ad^ 
 monishing one another, that is enough : for then the 
 text defines the form in which the word is to be applied 
 — the form of psalms and hymns. When the Doctor 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 119 
 
 admits that the wheat must be made into bread, by that 
 he admits that the wheat must be made into flour. And 
 when he admits, that the word must be made into ad- 
 monitions, by that he admits, that the word must be made 
 into psalms and hymns — for the text says, in these we are 
 to admonish. And thus the Doctor has absolutely sur- 
 rendered the whole ground of controversy; and admitted 
 all that he everywhere denies. Obviously he did not in- 
 tend it. The truth of the passage crept in here unawares. 
 But its being in was no doubt an inadvertence on the part 
 of the Doctor, as he was so careful to exclude it every 
 where else. But it is here now, and he cannot retract it. 
 It will stand as his unwilling admission, that it is our duty 
 and privilege, to draw our songs of praise from the en- 
 tire word of God. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 No DiYiNE Appointment Binding the Christian Church to 
 
 THE EXCLUSIYE UsE OF DaYID's PsALMS. 
 
 It has been fully. established, that it is the duty of 
 Christians and of the Christian Church, to employ in 
 their worship songs of praise drawn from any part of 
 the word of God. And songs embodying especially the 
 doctrines of the Gospel, according as they are more ful- 
 ly unfolded by the clearer light of New Testament reve- 
 lations. And that therefore, it is the duty of the Church 
 to use psalms and hymns and spiritual songs prepared 
 by uninspired men; as she has always been in the habit 
 of doing. And it follows from this that it is an unscrip- 
 tural opinion, to suppose the Church ought to be confi- 
 ned to the Psalms of David in the worship of God. We 
 know that the church under the old dispensation did sing 
 them; but that she was not confined to them there is 
 positive proof. And there is positive proof too, that the 
 Church under the new dispensation, never has been 
 confined to them. Nor can there be any proof brought 
 to show that the Christian Church, is required to use the 
 Psalms at all, except so far as it is her duty to draw her 
 songs of praise from them, in common with the rest of 
 the word of God, And no doubt this portion of divine 
 Oracles will always be largely drawn upon by the 
 Church in preparing her songs of praise; because there 
 is much matter here suited to this purpose. To prove, 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 121 
 
 that the Church was not confined to the Psalms under 
 the former dispensation, all we need do is refer to her 
 conduct at the Red Sea, when she praised the Lord for 
 deliverance from the hand of the enemy in a song not 
 contained in the book of Psalms. And her conduct, 
 when delivered from the oppression of Jabin, king of 
 Canaan, in singing another song not contained in the 
 book of Psalms. Another case is that of King Heze- 
 kiah who introduced his own songs to be sung in the 
 public worship of God, and he too an uninspired man. 
 And it was after he had commanded the Levites to sino- 
 
 o 
 
 the words of David and Asaph," that he introduced his 
 own compositions. And the Church engaged publicly 
 in singing these compositions as an expression of their 
 gratitude for the recovery of the good king of Israel: as 
 we are told in Isa. 38: 20. **The Lord was ready to 
 save me, therefore we will sing my songs to the stringed 
 instruments all the days of our life in the house of the 
 Lord.*' One of his songs, being revised by the inspired 
 prophet, is by his authority introduced as part of the same 
 chapter. How many Hezekiah composed, or how many 
 of his songs were sung in the Temple we know not. But 
 the fact that they were sung is sufficient to prove, that the 
 Church was not confined to the use of David's Psalms. 
 And as to the practice of the Church under the new dis- 
 pensation; we all see it, and know it, that in her wor- 
 ship she is not confined to the book of Psalms. And 
 that she never has, is the concurrent testimony of all 
 ecclesiastical history. 
 
 But notwithstanding these facts, Dr. Pressly would 
 have us believe, that the Christian Church ought to 
 use nothing but the Psalms. To this specific object he 
 devotes two whole chapters. And what do you suppose 
 he proves] Why he proves that the Jewish Church 
 11 
 
122 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 used them! And he must be a man of no common parts, 1 
 v/hen he could do this. And this is really all he does. 
 He dwells at great length on the appointment made re- 
 specting public worship in tlie Temple; and infers that 
 the Psalms were sung there. But, from this appoint- 
 ment, does it follow that the Christian Church ought to 
 sing them? By no means. We shall give the Doctor's 
 own account of this ^'divine appointment,'' and then it 
 will be seen that it is no appointment for the Christian 
 Church. P. 77, "But in connexion with the offering of 
 sacrifice, David introduced the singing of praise. By 
 his directions the Levites were numbered and distributed 
 into classes, that among other services connected with the 
 worship of the temple, they might 'stand every morning 
 to thank and praise the Lord, and likewise at evening.' 
 And in the performanae of this part of their service, the 
 custom was, that when the ofiering was presented on 
 the altar, the Levites began to sing the praise of God. 
 * When the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord 
 began also, with the trumpets, and with the instruments 
 ordained by David, king of Israel'." 
 
 Now, what are the several parts of this "divine ap- 
 pointmentl" 1. There was a portion of the congrega- 
 tion set apart, to the work of praising the Lord. 2. They 
 had to be at the house of the Lurd every morning and 
 every evening, 3. They had to stand when they thanked 
 and praised the Lord. 4. They were to praise the Lord 
 with trumpets, and the instruments ordained by David. 
 Observe, this appointment does not say one word about 
 what songs shall be sung. But on the supposition that 
 the appointment specified the songs to be sung, is it now 
 binding upon the Christian Church? This is the question 
 to be decided. If the appointment is now binding, all 
 its parts are so. One part of the appointment has not 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 123 
 
 been abrogated, while another is still in force, I utterly 
 defy any man to show, that this is the case. And the 
 Doctor has shown his consciousness, that it could not be 
 done, by not attempting it. If, then, it enjoins upon us 
 the use of David's Psalms, it enjoins upon us also the 
 use of David's instruments. And it enjoins also the use 
 of choirs in all our churches — that is, a portion of the 
 congregation set apart to sing praise, and to conduct the 
 music. And these choirs must stajid when they sing and 
 play: and they must be at the church every morning and 
 likewise at evening. Dr. Pressly is very careful to show 
 that this appointment is from God. Hence then, if this 
 appointment is binding upon the Christian Church, the 
 Doctor is living in constant rebellion against the authority 
 of heaven. He is not only acting without authority, but 
 he is acting in opposition to the plainest authority; con- 
 stantly trampling the commandments of God under his 
 feet. For he is making no show of obedience to any 
 part of the appointments, except that part which enjoins 
 upon him the use of Rouse's paraphrase ! But wx can- 
 not at all believe that the Doctor is thus living in wilful 
 disobedience to the authority of God. And hence he 
 does not believe the appointment is binding upon him; 
 or that he is at all bound to render obedience to it. And 
 he believes, that its authority, as to himself, and as to the 
 Christian Church, is perfectly null and void. He must 
 believe this, or his guilt is of the very deepest dye. His 
 conduct would be the most daring rebellion against God, 
 that ever has been practised among men. We see then, 
 from his practice, that he does not believe this appoint- 
 ment to be binding upon the Christian Church ; and yet 
 he labors through two dozen pages to prove what he 
 does uot believe. He does not believe that the appoint- 
 
124 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 ment is in force uow, and yet he labors to make others 
 believe that it is ! 
 
 We thus prove beyond dispute^ and that from Dr. 
 Pressly's own practice, that the appointment made for 
 the worship of God in the Temple is not binding upon 
 the Christian Church. And his practice is in conformity 
 with what has always been the belief of the Church on 
 this subject. For the Christian Church has never felt 
 that the appointments made for the temple are binding 
 upon her; and hence she has never tried to obey them. 
 And yet, it is the authority of these appointments, that Dr. 
 Pressly brings forward to prove it obligatory on Chris- 
 tians to use the Psalms of David. Appointments which 
 he shows by his practice he believes to be null and void. 
 
 To prove divine appointment for the exclusive use of 
 David's Psalms, he has three principal arguments. After 
 he has spread them out at length, on p. 81, he sums them 
 up as follows : In the revelation which God has given 
 to his Church, we find a collection of divine son^o^s, the 
 matter of which, and the titles by which they are desig- 
 nated, and the use which was oiiginally made of them 
 with divine approbation, manifest, that the specific end 
 for v^ hich they were given, was, that they should be em- 
 ployed in singing God's praise," And on p. 87, "From 
 the fact that God has given to his Church a book of 
 Psalms, it would appear to be the divine will that this 
 should be used to the exclusion of all others," 
 
 His first argument proving divine appointment for the 
 use of the book of Psalms to the exclusion of all others, 
 is drawn from the jpeculiar matter of the Psalms. Be- 
 cause the matter is suitable to be employed in singing 
 God's praise. But does not this argument prove the 
 very reverse of that for which he offers it. If this 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 125 
 
 proves divine appointment for the use of the Psalms, 
 then it proves divine appointment for the use of all the 
 songs of praise found throughout the whole Bible. And 
 it proves too, that there is divine appointment for the use 
 of all the hymns of praise, which have been written by 
 Dr. Watts and other godly men in every age; be- 
 cause the matter is especially adapted to the purposes of 
 praise. His first argument, then, proves that we should 
 not be confined to the book of Psalms. 
 
 His next argument is drawn from the titles by which 
 they are designated. They are called Psalms, And he 
 says, " The word * psalm' is of Greek derivation, and came 
 from a word v/hich signifies to sing. Psalms, then, are 
 songs which are to be sung.'' Now does not this argu- 
 ment prove the very reverse of that intended] If their 
 use is divinely appointed because they are called psalms 
 or songs, then there is divine appointment for the use of 
 all the songs in the Bible because they are called songs; 
 and this title is given to them by the Spirit of inspiration. 
 Thus, his second argument proves, that we should not 
 use the Psalms of David exclusively; but that we should 
 sing all the songs of praise found in the word of God. 
 
 His third argument to prove divine appointment is, 
 that the Psalms have been used with divine approbation. 
 And so was the song at the Red Sea. And so was the 
 song of Deborah and Barak. And so were the songs of 
 king Hezekiah. And so was the song of the prophet 
 Habakkuk. And so were the songs of Zacharias and 
 Mary — and the angels on the plains of Bethlehem^ — and 
 of the children in the temple — all used with divine ap- 
 probation, and therefore all required to be sung by divine 
 appointment. And thus, his third argument proves, that 
 it would be in violation of divine appointment were we 
 to confine ourselves to the book of Psalms. Every argu- 
 11* 
 
126 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 ment proves the very reverse of that for w^hich it was 
 intended. Men may imagine that they have found sup- 
 port for erroneous views, but when their arguments come 
 to be examined, they are always found to be defective. 
 
 To prove that the Christian Church ought to use the 
 Psalms exclusively, he appeals also to the authority of 
 the New Testament, and here he is just as unsuccessful 
 as from the authority of the Old. He refers to the case 
 of the Saviour and his disciples singing a hymn at the 
 close of the last passover. But how does it appear from 
 this, that the Christian Church ought to sing nothing but 
 the Psalms of David ] We do not even know what hymn 
 it was they did sing: or who composed it ; whether it was 
 the Saviour, or Peter, or John, or another of the disciples, 
 or some one else. The Doctor, indeed, believes it was 
 the great Hallel they sung; but then his belief does not 
 make it so : others have said so, and he is willing to concur 
 with them. They say history informs us that the Jews 
 sung the great Hallel at the celebration of the passover. 
 And what if they did? History does not tell us that 
 Christ and his disciples sung it — the doings of the Jews 
 is no proof of what Christ and his disciples did. We 
 might just as well say, that because the Jews had a cus- 
 tom of washing their hands, and cups and pots, and bra- 
 zen vessels, according to the tradition of the Elders, 
 therefore Christ and his disciples did the same. It 
 seems improbable too, that it is was the Hallel they sung, 
 for the Hallel is not a hymn of ordinary length; but 
 consists of the whole of six psalms, the 113th to the 
 118th, inclusive. And if the practice was in accordance 
 with what has been considered the good old way — that 
 is, reading out each line before singing — they might have 
 spent the greater part of the night in singing the Hallel, 
 or these six psalms. But even if it could be established, 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 127 
 
 that they sung the Hallel, yet that would not prove that 
 the Christian Church ought to sing the Psalms of David . 
 for their singing at the passover was under the Jewish 
 dispensation. And we have seen, that the practice of 
 the Jewish Church in her forms of worship, is no rule 
 for the Christian Church. The Christian Church was 
 not then organized. The old dispensation was in full 
 force until the death of Christ. He did not organize 
 the Christian Church, but commissioned his Apostles to 
 the execution of that work. And they were instructed 
 not to commence it, until the Spirit v/ould be poured 
 upon them from on high ; so they tarried at Jerusalem 
 until the day of Pentecost. And then, and not till then, 
 did the dispensation of the Spirit take the place of the 
 dispensation of ceremonies. Hence all that Christ did 
 was done in the Jewish Church; and his conformity to 
 her forms of worship lays no obligation upon the Chris- 
 tian Church to adopt those same forms. In his obedience 
 to the precepts of the moral law he is our pattern; but 
 not in his obedience to the precepts of the ceremonial 
 law. Christ and his disciples, then, singing a hymn does 
 not prove that the Christian Church ought to sing the 
 Psalms of David. 
 
 To sustain his position the Doctor refers to Col, 3: 16, 
 and, on p. 73, says, " The reader will please to remember 
 what has been said in a preceding chapter on the words 
 of the Apostle, when he exhorts the Church to enoao-e in 
 the duty of singing ^psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.' 
 It is believed that no interpretation of the Apostle's lan- 
 guage can be sustained, which does not proceed upon 
 the principle that there is a reference to the different 
 songs contained in the book of Psalms. And this being 
 admitted, it will follow that we have an explicit divine 
 direction to employ these songs in the worship of God." 
 
128 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 This being admitted." But who admits this? Who 
 admits the correctness of his interpretation] Who ad- 
 mits the truth of what he has said respecting the Psalms 
 and their titles'? Perhaps the Doctor admits it. But if 
 he admits the correctness of his own statements in this 
 matter, he has had credit for knowing more about the 
 Bible, than he really does. No man acquainted with 
 Bible philology can for a moment admit it. And it has 
 been shown, that in this passage there is no allusion to 
 the book of Psalms any more than to other parts of 
 the word of Christ. Because we are commanded to 
 draw our songs of praise from any and every part of 
 that word, that by teaching and admonisliing one another 
 in these songs, we may have the word of Christ dwelling 
 in us richly. It has been shown too, from Doctor 
 Pressly's own admission, that the book of Psalms is not 
 meant in this passage. For he says it enjoins upon us 
 to let the whole word of God dwell in us, that we may 
 apply it in teaching and admonishing one another; and 
 the text says we are to apply it in the form of psalms 
 and hymns and spiritual songs ; proving clearly, that 
 these are to be drawn from the whole word, and not 
 merely from the book of Psalms. This passage, then, 
 does not enjoin upon the Christian Church the use of the 
 Psalms of David. 
 
 He refers also, to the exhortation of the Apostle James : 
 Is any merry] Let him sing psalms. And on this pas- 
 sage, as on the titles of the Psalms, he uses a great deal 
 of unfairness; and is very careful to conceal the truth. 
 On p. 84, he says ; " In what sense is it reasonable to 
 suppose, that the primitive Christians would understand 
 the apostolic direction, **Is any merry] Let him sing 
 psalms]'' To assist the plain Christian in determining 
 what is the proper answer to this inquiry, let me pro- 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 129 
 
 pose another question. When our Lord said to his 
 hearers, ^'Search the Scriptures;'^ in what sense is it to be 
 supposed, that this direction would be understood! As 
 the command of Christ, Search the Scriptures," sup- 
 poses that there were in existence sacred writings, with 
 which those to whom the command was addressed, were 
 acquainted; so the apostolic direction, ^'Sing psalms," sup- 
 poses that there were psalms in existence, which those 
 to whom the direction was Driven, were to use." Here 
 he founds his argument upon an utterly false assump- 
 tion : it is, that these two passages are similar — that 
 the language is precisely alike; which is anything but 
 the truth. All through his argument he teaches that as 
 Christ, by ^'The Scriptures," meant the word of God; so 
 J ames, by "psalms," must have meant the book of Psalms , 
 He keeps out of view the fact, that the two forms of 
 speech are entirely different ; the one having the definite 
 article, *' The," pointing out a definite object; while the 
 Other has no article and points out nothing definite. The 
 one says 'Hlie Scriptures :" and the Other, not /j^e? Ps alms, 
 but merely " psalms." The one must designate " the 
 Scriptures," but the other may designate, not the Psalms, 
 but any psalms whatever, either in existence or out of 
 existence. The nature of language is : that when a 
 definite object is spoken of, the definite article is always 
 used; and when no definite article is used, before a sub- 
 stantive, no definite object is spoken of. "Search the 
 Scriptures," speaks of a definite object; but "sing 
 psalms," speaks of no definite object. A definite ob- 
 ject can never be spoken of, without the definite article 
 before the noun; but James uses no definite article 
 before the noun ; and hence, he does not speak of 
 a definite object. " The Psalms" was not the object be- 
 fore his mind, or he would have said ''the Psalms." Just 
 
130 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 as the Saviour had ^'tlie Scriptures" as the object be- 
 fore his mind, and said Scriptures." If the Saviour 
 had said, ** Search Scriptures," then his language would 
 have been just like that of James, " sing psalms," but as 
 they are, there is no similarity. *'Make up fire," has a 
 different meaning from **make up tlie fire." The one 
 speaks of a fire that does not yet exist; but the other 
 speaks of a fire already in existence. And so, sing 
 psalms," may speak of psalms not yet in existence; but 
 "sing the psalms" speaks of psalms already in existence. 
 Paul does not say *' bring a cloak from Troas," for that 
 w^ould mean any cloak that could be found there, even 
 one not yet made ; but he says, "bring the cloak, ^' the 
 specific cloak that was left there. And so he says 
 " bring the parchments ;" he does not say bring parch- 
 ments" from Troas, for that might mean parchments not 
 yet manufactured. And so James says, "sing psalms, 
 which may mean psalms not yet composed. His lan- 
 guage does not even imply that there were any psalms 
 in existence. And yet Dr. Pressly teaches, that the two 
 passages are precisely alike. He subverts and tramples 
 under his feet the very genius and principles of language,^ 
 and yet he fills the place of principal in an institution of 
 learning! If learning had no other kind of patrons and 
 supporters, what would it come to] 
 
 But he not only manages his argument in violation of 
 the principles of language, but also conceals the fact, 
 that the word "psalms," is not in the original text at alt,, 
 but is supplied by the translators. The translation con- 
 fines the singing, to psalms^ but the original does not. 
 It says simply, "let him sing," or let him praise, or let 
 him sing to an instrument. But about what he is to sing 
 it says nothing. The two clauses of the verse are pre- 
 cisely alike. "Is any among you afflicted 1 — proseukestho 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 131 
 
 — let him pray. Is any merry ? — psalleto — let him sing.' ' 
 The first might as well have been translated, **let him 
 i^rQ,y prayers'^ as the second to be translated **let him 
 BmgpsalmSy^ because there is as much for 'prayers in the 
 one case, as there is for psalms in the other. And to 
 show that the word, Pslleto, does not necessarily mean 
 ^'B>mg psalms, we may refer to Eph. 5: 19. "Be filled 
 with the spirit; speaking to yourselves in psalms and 
 hymns and spiritual songs, singing nnd psallontes in your 
 hearts to the Lord." Here, psallontes, is translated, "ma- 
 king melody. But if it had been translated, singing 
 psalmSf we see how it would read; — "singing and singing 
 psalms in your hearts to the Lord." It is not necessary 
 then, that the word "psalms" should be in the translation, 
 it might as well have been omitted. Yet when taken in 
 its proper meaning as designating any song sung to an 
 instrument, it may then be supplied. But after all, it is a 
 word supplied by the translators, which is not in the ori- 
 ginal; and the Doctor's whole argument from this text, 
 rests upon this supplementary word ! If it had been 
 translated, as it is in the original, "let him sing," he could 
 have formed no argument from it. And yet it is a text 
 of which he makes especial use! Several places in his 
 book he brings it up as very conclusive. An argument 
 founded in ignorance of the original, which would be 
 used only by hewers of wood and drawers of water, is 
 to the Doctor a very important one. Is it not extraordi- 
 nary to see him going no further than the translation, 
 and founding a principal argument on nothing but a sup- 
 plementary word] A man of no pretentions to learn- 
 ing might do it. But the scholar! the Doctor of divinity! 
 Has its equal ever before been published to the world % 
 Is it not always supposed, that a man competent to ex 
 pound the word of God, will never rely upon a transla- 
 
132 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 tion; but will build upon the foundation itself? Suppose 
 Dr. Alexander bad given us an exposition of the com- 
 mon translation of Isaiah, what a thing it must have been^ 
 compared with the immortal work he has reared upon 
 the original. And Dr. Pressly gets only to the translation , 
 and founds w^hat he considers a very strong argument 
 upon a word which is not in the original at all! Yes up- 
 on a word of this very kind! This is the way in which he 
 enlightens his readers! This is the way in which he **as- 
 sists the plain Christian in determining what is the truth ! ! 
 Yes ! he assists him ! If the Doctor had said, To as- 
 sist the plain Christian in coming to a wrong conclusion, 
 let 7ne propose another question," he would have been 
 honestly announcing what he was going to do; and in 
 this part of his argument at least, he would have had the 
 truth. In the name of common morality, how can he 
 reconcile it with his conscience, as a public teacher, to 
 wrap things up in concealment the way he does ; and to 
 hide from the people the real facts, when he professes 
 to expound to them the word of God] And, as an am- 
 bassador of the King of Zion, how can he reconcile it 
 with his accountability, when he deals with the Statute- 
 Book of the kingdom in this way? Surely the cause of 
 truth does not need such management as he has recourse 
 to 1 And enough has been said to show, that there is 
 nothing, in this text, enjoining the use of David's Psalms 
 upon the Christian Church. 
 
 Again, he rests another argument on the assumption that 
 some songs have been transferred to the book of Psalms 
 from other parts of the Bible, On p. 87, he says : "And 
 it is a fact which deserves particular notice, that some of 
 the songs contained in the book of Psalms, are found 
 likewise in other parts of the Bible. The eighteenth 
 Psalm is found in the second book of Samuel, and the 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY, 
 
 133 
 
 niiity-sixth, and parts of some other psalms, are found in 
 the second book of Chronicles. Other songs found in 
 different parts of the Bible are not transferred to the 
 book of Psalms. And the question naturally arises, Why 
 is this distinction madel I can conceive of no answer so 
 satisfactory as this : that the book of Psalms being de- 
 signed for permanent use in the worship of God, those 
 songs have a place in this book, which in the estimation 
 of infinite wisdom, were best adapted to the edification 
 of the Church in all ages.'' Now, if it were "a fact," 
 that some songs have been transferred to the book of 
 Psalms from other parts of the Bible, it might afibrd him 
 some shadow of support for his own notion. But then, 
 there is no evidence that it is ''a fact." All the evidence 
 tends to prove, that no songs have been transferred from 
 other parts of the Bible to the book of Psalms. It is in 
 this, as in much of the proof he brings : A story he has 
 heard from others he takes up and builds an argument 
 upon it, without examining whether itreally has any found- 
 ation in truth. For there is not a particle of evidence 
 that any song has been transferred from another part of 
 the Bible to the book of Psalms. It is not even a fact, 
 though he says it is one which deserves particular notice, 
 that some of the songs contained in the book of Psalms 
 are found likewise in other parts of the Bible. The 18th 
 Psalm is not a copy of the song found in the 22d of 2d 
 vSamuel: They are in substance the same, but they are 
 not transcripts of each other. Any one who looks at 
 them can see they are not. And Dr. Scott says, " The 
 Jewish writers enumerate not less than seventy-four 
 variations." This of itself is sufficient to prove, that 
 the song contained in 2d Samuel is not transferred to 
 the book of Psalms. Dr. Scott's opinion seems to be 
 the correct one : and from what he says, the history of 
 
 12 
 
134 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 this song seems something like the following — As David 
 had the song by him in his own private collection, he 
 gave a copy of it to the writer of 2d Sam. After this 
 David revised it and gave it to the chief musician to be 
 sung in the public congregation. It would then be pre- 
 served in the collection of sacred songs given in charge to 
 the Levites, as we are told by Josephus, the Jewish histo- 
 rian. And whoever compiled the book of Psalms found it 
 there, with the rest, without going to the book of Sam- 
 uel to get a copy. But wherever the compiler may have 
 got this song, it is beyond dispute, that he did not trans- 
 fer the song, which is in the book of Samuel, to the book 
 of Psalms. 
 
 Again, the Doctor says, ^'the ninty-sixth and parts of 
 some other psalms, are found in the second book of 
 Chronicles." But this is not so: something like them is 
 found in the IGth chapter of the first book of Chroni- 
 cles. This is no typographical error, for he gives it in 
 words, not in figures. But it is a sample of his usual want 
 of accuracy; and an evidence that he takes things on ru- 
 mor without examining for himself. Nor is it like a 
 typographcial error to give the "15" of second Chroni- 
 cles instead of the 5th. It looks like as though he had 
 heard somebody say it was in the 15th, and gave it so. 
 But has the song found in Chronicles been transferred 
 to the book of Psalms'? Nothing like it. This song- 
 was used when the ark was brought up from the house 
 of Obed-edom to the City of David. And Dr. Scott, 
 no doubt, gives the correct account of this matter. He 
 says : " The psalm which was sung on this solemn oc- 
 casion, is composed of extracts from several psalms. 
 Probably David had these by him, with many others, 
 for his cwn private use; and he composed from them a 
 song of praise and thanksgiving, to record the mercies 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 135 
 
 of the Lord, suited to the solemnity. But afterwards he 
 gave the other psalms also, one after another, into the 
 hands of the chief singers, for the benefit of the people 
 who attended the worship performed before the ark." 
 We hero learn how these songs are in the book of Psalms 
 without being transferred from the book of Chronicles, 
 David had them in his own private collection : from them 
 he arranged a song of praise for this solemn occasion. 
 Bat afterwards gave them severally to the chief singers: 
 then they formed a part of the sacred collection in 
 charge of the Levites, and there were found by the 
 compiler, and embodied in the book of Psalms, without 
 going to the book of Chronicles for a copy. But these 
 psalms are not found in the book of Chronicles. True, 
 there is something like parts of the 105th and lOGtli 
 psalms; and there is something like the 96th psalm, but 
 that is all. Dr. Pressly says, that the 96th psalm is found 
 in the book of Chronicles ; and the only difference is, 
 that it is not. Any one who takes the trouble to exam- 
 ine will see it is not. The 96th psalm, then, could not 
 be a copy of the one found in the book of Chronicles ; 
 because it is not in that book. And so it is with all the 
 Psalms alluded to : they are not copies of any other 
 gongs anywhere in the Bible. Hence these songs are 
 not transferred to the book of Psalms from other parts 
 of the Bible. And it is not a fact at all, *'which deserves 
 particular notice," that some of the songs contained in 
 the book of Psalms, are likewise found in other parts of 
 the Bible.'' But this is another specimen of the way 
 the Doctor enlightens the people, respecting the facts 
 connected with the word of God. It must be of vast 
 advantage to that branch of the Church, to have their 
 chief theological chair replenished with such an embodi- 
 TDent of accurate Biblical knowledge ! And what though 
 
136 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 it were a fact, that some psalms are found in other parts 
 of the Bible. That would no more prove, that they have 
 been transferred from other parts of the Bible, than the 
 fact of Dr. Pressly's arguments being found in Dr. 
 M'Master's work on Psalmody, would prove, that they 
 were transferred from Dr. Pressly's, to the work of Dr. 
 M'Master. The fact of them beins^ in both affords no 
 proof as to which they were transferred from. Upon 
 the whole then, we see, that this assumption of psalms 
 being transferred from other parts of the Bible, is noth- 
 ing but a story got up by Psalmonites, and handed from 
 one to another, for the purpose of sustaining^ a poor 
 feeble cause. But the aid of such stories is not required 
 for the cause of truth. 
 
 The principal object at which the Doctor aims through- 
 out these two chapters, is to prove, that the purpose for 
 w^hich the Psalms were given, was, that they might be 
 used by the Church in praising God. " That specific 
 end," he says, ''for which they were given, was, that 
 they should be employed in singing God's praise." Im- 
 plying that the book of Psalms would not have been 
 given at all, had it not been the design to furnish the 
 Church with a suitable Psalmody. They are given to be 
 sung, and this is the special, and almost only design for 
 which they were given. He asserts this frequently and 
 maintains it in various forms. Hence, if this is true, we 
 ought to use these Psalms for the purpose for which they 
 were given. But I apprehend this is a very important 
 mistake under which the Doctor labors. And his utter 
 failure in proving this, shows that it is a mistake. When- 
 ever he takes this ground it is impossible for him to sus- 
 tain himself. He cannot produce a single text which 
 teaches, that the book of Psalms was given for '*the spe- 
 cific end of being employed in singing God's praise." 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 137 
 
 All the proof he can find is inferential. He infers it 
 from the arguments we have already noticed — the matter 
 of the psalms — the titles of the psalms — -and their use 
 with divine approbation. But all that these considera- 
 tions can prove is, that the psalms are suitable to be sung: 
 while they do not prove, that they were given for the 
 specific end of being sung. An article may suit many 
 uses besides that for which it was given. The steel of 
 the assassin may suit to murder his victim ; yet this does 
 not prove that the valuable metal was given for that pur- 
 pose. The alcohol of "him that giveth his neighbour 
 drink, may suit to destroy his neighbor ; yet this does 
 not prove that it was given for this specific end. The 
 matter^ and the title ^ and the use^ of animal food, all in- 
 dicate that it is suitable for feeding wild beasts ; yet all 
 these do not prove, that it was given to Noah for this 
 special purpose. And we see that the Doctor's argu- 
 ments are entirely fallacious. The psalms may be suit- 
 able for praise, while they were not given for this special 
 purpose. And the conclusion to which we come is this : 
 That the specific end for which they were given wasTzo^, 
 that they should be employed by us in singing God's 
 praise. This is directly contrary to the Doctor's propo- 
 sition ; and to prove it, I appeal to the infallible word of 
 God. Kom. 15 : 4. " For v/hatsoever things were writ- 
 ten aforetime were written for learning, that we through 
 patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.'' 
 Here there is no fallacy: no inferring : no surmising as 
 to the object for which the Psalms wei'e given. The un- 
 erring word of truth tells us that they were given for our 
 learning, and not for our singing, as the Doctor would 
 have us believe. Whatsoever things were written 
 aforetime;" this covers the whole of the Old Testament 
 Scriptures, book of Psalms, and all . And all, the Apos- 
 12* 
 
138 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 tie says, was given for our learning. And besides, he 
 speaks especially of the book of Psalms. Because he 
 brings a quotation from the 69th Psalm, and says, this 
 was written for our learning: *'For whatsoever things 
 were written aforetime were written for our learning,^'' 
 He teaches very different from Dr. Pressly. The Doc- 
 tor says, " the specific end for which they were given, 
 was, that they should be employed in singing God^s 
 praise.'' The Apostle says. No ! they were given for 
 our learning. And though the Doctor affirms it, and 
 affirms it again and again ; the Apostle always puts 
 liis veto upon it. It is a standing negative to all the 
 Doctor's affirmations and arguments on this topic. 
 
 We see then, that the book of Psalms was given for 
 the same purpose, as that for which the rest of the word 
 of God was given, namely, for our learning. That we 
 misht learn the will of God — that we miorht learn to 
 ''fear God and keep his commandments" — that we 
 might learn how to glorify Him upon earth, and attain 
 to the enjoyment of Him in Heaven. And if we learn 
 this from the Psalms, though we should never sing them, 
 we use them for the very end, for which they were giv- 
 en. And this refutes all the Doctor says about the im- 
 y)iety and presumption of supposing that some portions 
 of the Psalms are not ^'suited to Gospel worship and 
 praise." To suppose so, lie alleges, is to impugn the 
 Spirit of God with want of wisdom. He says, "But are 
 not these Psalms the production of the Holy Spirit? 
 And are parts of them not suited to the end for which 
 they were given?" — O yes Doctor, they are all suited to 
 the end for which they were given; because they were 
 given *'for our learning." Hear him again: — '*That is 
 though these Psalms were given to the Church by the 
 God of infinite wisdom, to be employed in his worship, 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 139 
 
 they were not adapted to the end for which they were 
 given! O vain man, who art thou that repliest against 
 God]" — Yes, O Doctor! who art thou, that repliest 
 against God? by denying what he has affirmed; and by 
 representing Him as doing what He has never done. 
 God affirms that the Psalms were given for our learn- 
 ing, and you deny it! You represent Him as giving the 
 Psalms to us, for "the specific end of being employed in 
 singing his praise," while He declares, that this He has 
 not done. Man, indeed, is vain and haughty, v/hen 
 he can use such presumption! Again he says: "Dr. 
 Watts in preparing a system of Psalms for the use of 
 the Church, has entirely omitted some whole Psalms, 
 and large pieces of many others. And why] Because 
 he considered them unsuitable for the Church under the 
 present dispensation. And do you think, let me ask the 
 humble believer, 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 selected, which 
 may be profitably retained]" — Now Doctor, this is very 
 silly; for it never entered any man's mind except your 
 own, that the word of God was given in a defective 
 form — the notion, "that some parts may be laid aside as 
 useless," is purely the product of your own fancy. The 
 word of God is in the proper form to suit the end for 
 which it was given — that is our learning. And we may 
 learn from every part of it; while we cannot use every 
 part of it in offering praise to God. No part of it may 
 be laid aside as useless; because for our learning, it must 
 all be retained. But it does not follow, that we must 
 sing, and in the same form too, that which was given for 
 our learning. If it had been given for our singing it 
 would have been framed to suit that use: but it has been 
 given for our learning, and it is just adapted to that use. 
 
140 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 It suits the use designed without alteration; but the use 
 not designed it suits only with alteration. And Doctor 
 you are only trying to misrepresent the matter. Here 
 is some more — "To this Psalm 1 1 19thJ Dr. Watts has pre- 
 fixed this remarkable note; *'T have collected and dispo- 
 sed the most useful verses of this Psalm, under eighteen 
 different heads, and formed a divine song on each of 
 them; but the verses are much transposed to attain some 
 degree of connection." Then comes Dr. Pressly's de- 
 clamation: — "Can it be, that the man who employed 
 such language regarded this Psalm as the production of 
 infinite wisdom?" Why yes Doctor; there is nothing 
 here that implies the contrary. "Does this Psalm con- 
 tain the precious truths of God, and yet shall a sinful 
 mortal select such verses as he considers most useful?" 
 — Yes Doctor; it is what you do yourself: and are you 
 sinless? You always select the verses you consider 
 most useful for the purpose designed. When you coun- 
 sel the inquiring, or the doubting, or the afflicted, you 
 always select the verses you consider most useful. And 
 you, "a sinful mortal," do this! horrible* "And pass 
 over the remainder as unworthy of notice:" — But 
 Doctor who does this? Perhaps you do it! — But Dr. 
 Watts was never guilty of such a thing. He considered 
 it all eminently worthy of notice, as suited to the design 
 for which it w^as given, i. e. our learning. — "Is this re- 
 markble Psalm the work of God's holy Spirit, and yet 
 is the mind of the Spirit exhibited so awkwardly as to 
 render it necessary, that the verses should be transposed, 
 to attain some degree of connection?" Doctor; who ever 
 thought of the mind of the Spirit being awkwardly exhib- 
 ited? Do you think it could arise in any body's imagina- 
 tion except your own? Dr. Watts never dreamt of any 
 thing so awkward. He considered the mind of the Spir- 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 141 
 
 it is exhibited in the most appropriate manner; and it 
 was not in that he endeavored "to attain some degree of 
 connection;" but in each of the divine songs he himself 
 composed under different heads. He aimed at having 
 some degree of connection in the matter contained un- 
 der each head. But the Psalm w^as not given under 
 heads, and hence in its matter no degree of connection 
 was necessary. And my dear Doctor; you know very 
 well, that the way you exhibit the matter, is merely a 
 misrepresentation. — appeal to the sober judgment of 
 all reflecting men while I say it would be an indignity 
 to any respectable man, to treat his writings in the way, 
 in which Dr. Watts, according to his own statement, has 
 treated this admirable portion of the word of God." — 
 Doctor; this sounds like something very serious and im- 
 portant; and yet it is nothing but mere faddle — empty 
 declamation, without any force; as it contains nothing 
 but a false insinuation. For no respectable man would 
 feel aggrieved by having his writings treated as Doctor 
 Watts has treated this psalm. If a poet were to select 
 matter from the writings of any respectable man and 
 form it into sacred songs, under different heads, it would 
 be offering no indignity at all to the writer. And espe- 
 cially when the poet knew that it was agreeable to the 
 mind of the writer, that he should do so: and especially 
 too, when the poet states distinctly what he has done, 
 instead of representing his own composition to be the 
 work of the writer from whom he has drawn. And this 
 is what Dr. Watts has done. He never attempted to foist 
 his writings upon the public for the word of God, as 
 Dr. Pressly does with Rouse's paraphrase. And I ap- 
 peal to the sober judgment of all reflecting men, who 
 have read "Dr. Pressly on Psalmody/ when I say he 
 has offered great indignity to the memory of Dr. Watts, 
 
142 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY 
 
 by the fraudulent manner in which he has treated the 
 writings of this "respectable man." Just like the rest of 
 Psalmonistic writers, when he can find no ai-guments to 
 sustain his own cause, he turns all his vengeance upon 
 Dr. Watts. And occupies not less than two chapters in 
 distorting his views: in misrepresenting him: in vilify- 
 ing and abusing his character. And what has all this to 
 do with the subject of controversy'? If he had expatia- 
 ted largely, as to whether the moon is four-cornered, or 
 sharp at both ends, he would have been about as near 
 to the point; and it would have been far more harmless 
 than what he has done. But then he had an object in 
 view. He knew, that if he could blacken the character 
 of Dr. Watts, by representing him as a heretic and hater 
 of the Bible, it would prejudice the minds of very many 
 against his psalms and hymns; and thus aid in making 
 proselytes from the Presbyterian Church. And for this 
 purpose he tries to improve it: — "And I would propose 
 a question for the serious consideration of all conscien- 
 tious Christians, — ^>oes not that Church, which employs 
 in the worship of God, songs prepared on such a princi- 
 ple, by her practice, sanction the contempt, which such 
 language reflects upon the Spirit of Inspiration?" Thus 
 he represents Dr. Watts as casting contempt upon the 
 Spirit of Inspiration, and the Presbyterian Church as 
 sanctioning that contempt; and then asks the conscien- 
 tious christian to look seriously at the conduct of this 
 Church, Indeed, it is not difficult to see, at what the 
 Doctor is driving, while defaming so thoroughly the char- 
 acter of Dr. Watts. 
 
 We see then, there is no evidence, that the book of 
 Psalms was given to the Christian Church to constitute 
 her Psalmody, Indeed there is no evidence that it was 
 given even to the Jewish Church for this purpose. No 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 143 
 
 where throughout the Bible, is the book of Psalms ap- 
 pointed to be the Psalmody of any church. It has al- 
 ways been left with the Church to prepare her own 
 Psalmody; and to use what songs, and what system of 
 songs, she thought proper. David, in company with 
 other prophets, was raised up by divine authority to insti- 
 tute the singing cf praise as a part of public worship in 
 the Jewish Church; but he made no appointment what- 
 ever as to what songs should be used. The appointment 
 made by David may be found in 1st Chronicles, chapters 
 23 and 25. And king Hezekiah conformed to these ap- 
 pointments, as we are told in 2d Chronicles, 29 : 25, 
 "And he set the Levites in the house of the Lord, 
 with cymbals, with psalteries and with harps, according 
 to the commandment of David, and of Gad, the king's 
 seer, and Nathan, the prophet; for so was the com- 
 mandment of the Lord by his prophets.'' We see then, 
 that the divine appointment was to sing and praise with 
 musical instruments; but not a word said respecting 
 what songs should be sung. It was ordained to sing and 
 play with instruments of music, but that is the extent ; 
 the sonofs to be used are not even mentioned. And so 
 it is in every place where this divine appointment is re- 
 ferred to, there is no intimation that any system of songs 
 were appointed. For the appointment of a specific 
 Psalmody we are referred to 2d Chronicles, 29 : 30. 
 
 Moreover, Hezekiah the king, and the princes, com- 
 manded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with 
 the words of David and of Asaph, the seer." But there 
 are various considerations tending to show, that this pas- 
 sage contains no divine appointment for the use of David's 
 Psalms. And in the first place, it is very doubtful whether 
 the common version is the correct one. Instead of a 
 command to sing praise ^^with the words^^ of David and 
 
144 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 Asaph, it may be a command to sing praise ''^according 
 to the commandments'^ of David and Asaph ; as it is 
 in 2d Chronicles, 35 : 15. "And the singers, the sons of 
 Asaph, were in their place, according to the command- 
 ment of David, and Asaph, and Heman, and Jeduthun, 
 the king's seer." We see, that these prophets were 
 joined in authority with David in giving the divine ordi- 
 nance of singing praise. And so the singers were in 
 their place according to the commandment of David and 
 Asaph, and the others. And in like manner Hezekiah 
 and the princes may have commanded the Levites to sing 
 praise according to the commandments of David and of 
 Asaph ; and not, with the words of David and of Asaph. 
 The term rendered, ^^with^'' is often rendered, ^''accord- 
 ing to,^^ as in the 25th verse, **with psalteries, and with 
 harps, according to the commandment of David and of 
 Asaph/' And the term rendered, ^^words,^^ frequently 
 means, authoritative words; that is, edicts, precepts, com- 
 mands. It is so rendered, for example, in Esther, 1: 19. 
 " If it please the king, let there go a royal commandment 
 from him.'' And in Ex. 34: 28. **And he wrote upon 
 the tables the words of the covenant, the ten command- 
 ments,^^ And thus we see, as far as the meaning of the 
 original words is cor.cerned, it might be rendered, accord- 
 ing to the commandments of David and of Asaph. Indeed 
 Gesenius in his Hebrew Lexicon renders, Bithvar, ''ac- 
 cording to command;" and this is the very term in the 
 text. And there is much ground to believe that this is 
 the true meaning of the passage. It is granted, that the 
 Jews were in the practice of singing with the words of 
 David and of Asaph, and why would Hezekiah and the 
 princes command them to do, what they were already 
 doing? There seems to be no reason for the command; 
 because they had just been engaged in singing before 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 145 
 
 the command was given. And I presume it will not be 
 contended that they were singing any thing but the 
 Psalms of David. And if they were singing the Psalms 
 of David, why command them to do it? But we can 
 easily see the propriety of the king and the princes com- 
 manding the Levites to perform the work assigned to 
 them by the authority of David and of Asaph. In the 
 25th verse we are told, ''he set the Levites in the house 
 of the Lord, according to the commandment of David 
 and of Asaph;" and then, in the 30th verse we are told, 
 he addressed them, and exhorted them to discharge the 
 duty assigned to them by this same authority — that is, 
 to sing praise to the Lord according to the command- 
 ments of David and of Asaph. And besides, it would 
 appear that Hezekiah did not give a command exclud- 
 ing the use of all but the words of David, and of Asaph, 
 because he afterwards introduced the use of his own 
 words; his own compositions were sung in the worship 
 at the temple. But the command he gave did not ex- 
 clude the use of his own, nor of Heman, nor of Jedu- 
 thun, nor of 'Moses, nor of Solomon, nor of Zachariah, 
 nor of Ezra; yet, if he had commanded them to sing 
 with the words of David and of Asaph, it would have ex- 
 cluded all these. But the command being to sing praise 
 according to the appointments of David and of Asaph, 
 in obeying the command they could use any songs what- 
 ever. There is reason to believe, then, that this text 
 does not specify any psalmody. 
 
 But though the above may be the true interpretation, 
 yet I found no argument upon it. Because admitting, 
 that they were commanded to sing with the words of 
 David and Asaph, it would still be no divine appoint- 
 ment for the use of David's Psalms. The king and the 
 princes had no divine commission to appoint the use of 
 13 
 
146 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 David's Psalms. When they enjoined it upon the 
 Levites to sing with the words of David and of Asaph; 
 it is not said, as in the 25th verse, **for so was the com- 
 mandment of the Lord by his prophets.'' There was 
 no commandment of the Lord for singing with the 
 words of David, and of Asaph. But the king and the 
 princes acted according to what wa s known to be an 
 established principle in the church: namely, that she was 
 to prepare her own psalmody, and adopt what system of 
 songs she thought proper. On this principle also Hez- 
 ekiah introduced his own songs to be sung in the public 
 worship at the temple. He had no divine authority for 
 so doing, except that authority which was given to the 
 church to use whatever songs of praise she might select. 
 This authority is implied in the divine appointment to 
 sing praise in the worship of God. Neither was Heze- 
 kiah an inspired man, nor his writings inspired composi- 
 tion. One of his songs is found in the book of Isaiah. 
 But this prophet no doubt revised and moulded it by 
 the Spirit of inspiration before he gave it as a part of the 
 oracles of God. The divine ordinance of singing praise 
 is like that of prayer; they are both enjoined by divine 
 authority; but no forms are given for either. The 
 Church may use what prayers and what songs she may 
 think most suitable. Civil Government is another ordi- 
 nance somewhat similar, it is divinely appointed, but the 
 people are left to adopt what form they please. And at 
 the same time, nations are accountable to God for the 
 way in which they manage His ordinance; and so the 
 Church is accountable to God for the way in which she 
 manages His ordinance of singing praise. She ought to 
 give great dilligence in order, that this part of religious 
 worship may be conducted in the very best manner. 
 And it is lamentably neglected. And though no system 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 147 
 
 of Psalmody is enjoined upon the Church, yet it is her 
 duty to have the best and most suitable system provided 
 and in use. We say, that among all the divine appoint- 
 ments found in the Bible respecting the worship of God, 
 there is not one determininof what song^s shall be sunor. 
 In all these appointments the principle is recognized, 
 that it is the province of the Church to provide her own 
 songs of praise; and that she may adopt whatever sys- 
 tem of Psalmody she thinks best. If the book of Psalms 
 has been given to the Church to constitute her Psilmody, 
 is it not marvellously strange, that there is not a hint of 
 it throughout the whole Bible. In all the countless calls, 
 requiring us to sing praise, we are never once told what 
 songs we are to use. Now if there was a prescribed 
 system of Psalmody, this would be altogether unaccount- 
 able. We are called upon to sing, to sing songs, to sing 
 praises, to sing psalms. But never once called upon to 
 sing the Psalms, or to sing David's Psalms, or to sing 
 the book of Psalms — not such a call in the whole Bible. 
 Now if Dayid's Psalms were the divinely appointed 
 and only Psalms to be sung, this is, indeed, the most 
 marvellous thing that ever has been heard of — the book 
 of Psalms was appointed for the Church's Psalmody 
 and she has never once been told of it! They that can 
 believe it may! And yet Dr. Pressly has for the cap- 
 tion of one chapter: * 'Divine appointment of the book of 
 Psalms to be used in the worship of God." But such 
 Divine appointment he has failed to find in the Bible. 
 All that he can produce for it is, that the Jews used 
 them with divine approbation. And hence he might from 
 the same authority, have a chapter with this heading: 
 "Divine appointment of dancing to be used in the wor- 
 ship of God.'' Because the Jews engaged in dancing as 
 a religious exercise and with divine approbation: thus 
 
148 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 David danced before the ark. And according to the 
 Doctor's mode of reasoning he might contend that no 
 other form of worship will be acceptable; and that sit- 
 ting quiet, is ''offering strange fire before the Lord/' 
 And according to the Doctor's principle he ought to 
 maintain, that Monarchy is the only divinely appointed 
 form of civil government — that Republicanism has no 
 divine warrant — and to establish it is daring presump- 
 tion against the authority of Heaven. Because it is 
 much clearer from the Bible, that Monarchy was the di- 
 vinely appointed civil government of the Jews, than 
 that the book of Psalms was thus appointed for their 
 Psalmody. Then, if the book of Psalms must be our 
 only Psalmody: Monarchy must be our only form of ci- 
 vil Government. The authority requiring the latter is 
 clearer than the authority requiring the former. And it 
 is obvious, that the Jewish Church used the Psalms of 
 David, not because there was any specific divine ap- 
 pointment requiring it; but because it was her divinely 
 appointed duty to sing praise, and hence her province 
 to use whatever songs she deemed suitable. 
 
 And so the Christian Church may, no doubt, use these 
 psalms with divine approbation ; because it is her duty 
 to sing praise, and her province to provide and use what- 
 ever psalms she may consider proper. That the Chris- 
 tian Church may use these songs there is no disposition 
 to deny: but must she use them to the exclusion of all 
 others'? It is fully admitted that the Jews used tham, 
 and that we may use them ; and why does Dr. Pressly 
 spend so much time in proving what is not denied? Be- 
 cause he occupies nearly the whole of two chapters in 
 proving that the Jews sung the Psalms of David, and 
 that we may sing them. But says scarcely anything on 
 the point of controversy, e. must we sing them to the 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 149 
 
 exclusion of all others'? It is positively a fact, that on 
 this point he has hardly anything to say. After he has 
 labored through eighteen pages to prove that the Jews 
 used these psalms and that we ought to use them, he de- 
 votes only four pages to prove, that we should use them 
 to the exclusion of all others. On this point we would 
 have supposed, that all his strength and all his arguments 
 would be expended. But no I It seems that all his 
 vigor; and assurance, and arguments are gone when he 
 arrives at this all-important point. And all he can say 
 is : It would appear to be the divine will, that this 
 should be used to the exclusion of all others.'' His 
 confidence is all gone ! After his long argument through 
 eighteen pages, this is the amount of his conclusion : *'It 
 would appear to" be so ! He just reminds us of the man 
 who took so long a race to jump the ditch, that when he 
 came to it, he was so exhausted, he had to sit down, and 
 could not get over. Just so with the Doctor — while he 
 is proving that the Jews used David's Psalms, and that 
 we may and ought to use them, he seems to get along 
 swimingly, no let or hindrance impedes his way; but 
 when he comes to prove, that the Christian Church ought 
 to use them to the exclusion of all others — there he sticks 
 fast ! He has run with all his speed right up against 
 the pons assinoritm — -and there he is — over he cannot 
 get! Any one who looks into his book may see it. It 
 is perfectly obvious, that where he needed arguments 
 he had none; nor could he get any. And his want of 
 argument, on the point to be proved, amounts to a moral 
 certainty, that the point is not susceptible of proof. If 
 there was any proof for it he would have had it; for his 
 whol-^^iuse depends on this point : Should the Christian 
 Chu % be confined to the book of Psalms? To prove 
 this /-J the design of his whole work. And when 
 f 23* 
 
150 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 comes directly to the point, his lips are almost sealed, 
 he has scarcely a word to say. He can bring arguments 
 neither from Scripture, nor from reason, nor from com- 
 mon sense, nor from history, nor from any other source! 
 And this shows that his notion is utterly without founda- 
 tion — no more defensible, than that **the moon is made of 
 green cheese!" He could offer as much proof for the 
 one as he has done for the other. And it w^ould be a 
 good deal like what he has done, were he to start with 
 this proposition : " The moon is beautiful, and is made of 
 green cheese ;" and labor through eighteen pages to 
 prove that she is heautiful, and then occupy only four 
 pages in proving that she is nothing but a cheese. In 
 proving what needs no proof his arguments are abund- 
 ant: but in proving what needs proof, his arguments are 
 very scanty. Yel he could offer the same kind, and 
 more abundant proof for the moon's being cheese than 
 he offers for his own notion. His own notion '^appeai's^^ 
 to be the correct one ; and the moon api^ears to be a 
 cheese. A cheese is of a circular form, and the moon 
 a])j)ears to be circular. A cheese is a kind of whitish 
 color; and the m.oou appears to be a kind of whitsih 
 color. A cheese has a flat face ; and the moon appears 
 to have a flat face. And cheeses vary in size ; and the 
 moon appears to vary in size too. And the proof is con- 
 clusive — yes, more abundant, and more conclusive, than 
 what the Doctor has offered in support of his own favor- 
 ite notion. It is heartless work for a man to undertake 
 to prove that for which there is no proof. And that is 
 the work undertaken by those who endeavor to show, 
 that by divine appointment, the Christian Church, in her 
 worship, ought to sing nothing but the Psalms of, ©avid. 
 
 And after all the Doctor has said, in relation to the use 
 of the book of Psalms, I apprehend it will be rather 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 151 
 
 difficult to find out what he really does believe. He 
 says he believes it to be the v^ill of God that these 
 should be used to the exclusion of all others. And 
 then, he says, he does not precisely believe this, for he 
 considers it a matter of little importance whether these 
 be used to the exclusion of all others or not. P. 69, 
 While I decidedly concur with those who plead for 
 the exclusive use of the book of Psalms, I do not think 
 that this diversity of opinion [from those who plead for 
 other Scripture songs] should give rise to any difficulty 
 in the Church of God." That is, in his opinion, it is of 
 little importance whether we obey the will of God or 
 not. It is the will of God that we should use the Psalms 
 exclusively; but whether we do so or not is of little mo- 
 ment! This is theology! Aye too, and he everywhere 
 insists upon it, that the will of God, in this matter, is 
 our only rule ; And points us to the awful doom of 
 Nadab and Abihu for disobeying the divine will. Now 
 does he believe that the will of God is, that we should 
 use the Psalms of David exclusively, or does he not? 
 See his pp. 69 and 68. On p. 47, he says, ^' The songs 
 contained in the book of Revelation were given to the 
 Church by the Holy Spirit. And I suppose when the 
 Holy Spirit is pleased to communicate to his Church, by 
 the ministry of one of his servants, a song of praise to 
 be employed in the worship of God, no one will deny, that 
 she may with propriety use it." And he afterwards de- 
 nies it himself; p. 88 : " The fact that God has provided 
 for his Church a collection of sacred songs, which he 
 himself has denominated ' The Book of Psalms,' is with 
 me, a conclusive reason, why these songs should be used 
 in the worship of God, to the exclusion of all others." 
 He believes that the songs contained in Revelations may 
 be used with propriety; and he believes they should not 
 
152 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 be used ! He believes, that God gave them to his 
 Church to be employed in his worship; and he believes 
 it is the wi]\ of God that they should not be so employ- 
 ed ! For he believes, it is the v^ill of God that the book 
 of Psalms should be used exclusively, p. 87. This is 
 just like when he asserts over and over, that the point of 
 controversy is about using hymns : and then asserts over 
 and over, that the point of controversy is not shout using, 
 but about making of hymns. And does he believe, 
 that the controversy is about making or about using 
 them? And after he tells us, on p. 47, that the songs in the 
 book of Revelation ** Were given to the Church by the 
 Holy Spirit, and are part of the sacred volume.'' On p. 
 97, he says, **One thing, however, is certain, that neither 
 our Lord, nor his Apostles, have furnished any psalms 
 or songs in the New Testament for the use of the 
 Church." In the one he tells us, there are songs in the 
 New Testament given for the use of the Church : in the 
 other he tells us there are no songs in the New Testa- 
 ment given for the use of the Church ! He believes 
 there are songs there for the use of the Church ; but he 
 believes there are no songs there for the use of the 
 Church ! He believes the Spirit gave those songs for 
 the use of the Church ; but he believes the Spirit did 
 not give them for the use of the Church ! This is a speci- 
 men of the way he agrees with himself. And could any 
 one unravel him? Is he not the paradox of paradoxes? 
 And who could make out the Doctor's creed on Psalmody? 
 He believes this, and believes that ; but he does not be- 
 lieve this, and he does not believe that; and truly it 
 would take a philosopher to tell what he does believe. 
 His creed on this subject is about as tangible as that of the 
 honest Roman Catholic, who, when asked what he be- 
 lieved, answered, ^'I believe what the Church believes;" 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 153 
 
 and when asked, what does the Church believel answer- 
 ed, "The Church believes what I believe;*' and when 
 asked again, what is it you and the Church both believel 
 he answered, We both believe the very same thing." 
 And so it is with Dr. Pressly on this subject. He be- 
 lieves precisely what he believes, and nothing else ! 
 And is it possible for him to make his congregation com- 
 prehend what he believes, or what they ought to believel 
 On one point, I suppose, he is clear and decided, name- 
 ly — That by "Divine Appointment," they are using 
 Rouse's Paraphrase in the Worship of God! 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The Psalms of Dayid Not giyen to the New Testament 
 Church to constitute her Psalmody, because they are 
 not sufficient. 
 
 The opinion that the book of Psalms was given to 
 constitute the Psalmody of the Chnrch, w^e have seen, is 
 erroneous. And it is the fundamental error vs^hich runs 
 through Dr. Pressly's work on this subject. Nearly all 
 his arguments, in one form or another, are based upon 
 this groundless assumption. The very thing to be 
 proved he assumes to be granted; and argues from it 
 just as though he was arguing from something known 
 to be true. And in this way he deceives his readers by 
 drawing conclusions from false premises. If he had 
 first proved that the book of Psalms was given to con- 
 stitute the church's psalmody, he might have drawn 
 from it strong and valid arguments for the exclusive use 
 of the book of Psalms. But he knew he could not prove 
 this, and to answer his end he must assume it, though 
 there is not a hint of it, in either the Old or New Tes- 
 tament. And the New Testament is very explicit in 
 teaching, that the book of Psalms was not given for the 
 psalmody of the church, but for our learning, that we 
 through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might 
 have hope. And the sacred writers of the New Testa- 
 ment quote very frequently from the Psalms, yet in all 
 these quotations, there is not the most distant hint, that 
 the book of Psalms is the psalmody of the church, or 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 155 
 
 that it was given for this purpose; nor any intimation that 
 they ought to be sung by the church. Indeed the idea, 
 that the church ought to sing the word of God, seems to 
 be foreign to the Scriptures. The word of God, is never 
 any where spoken of in this aspect; nor any portion of 
 it, as the portion which is to be sung. It is always spo- 
 ken of as given for a different purpose. The Saviour 
 says, ^'Search the Scriptures,'' implying that the Scrips 
 tures were given for our learning, not for our singing. 
 He never says, Sing the Scriptures, nor even, ''Sing the 
 Psalms," a portion of the Scriptures. He never inti- 
 mates, that they were given for that purpose. And so 
 the Apostle Paul, in speaking of the Old Testament 
 Scriptures, says, "Whatsoever things were written afore- 
 time, were written for our learning,'' and not for our 
 singing. And also, "All Scripture is given by inspira- 
 tion of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, 
 for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the 
 man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto 
 all good works." He never intimates that all Scrip- 
 ture, or that any Scripture, is profitable for singing; or 
 that any portion of it was given, that the man of God 
 might be furnished with an inspired system of Psalmody, 
 This is Dr. Pressly's doctrine, but it is not the doctrine 
 of the Bible. And in like manner, the Apostle Peter, in 
 speaking of the Old Testament, says, **We have also, a 
 more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye 
 take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place." 
 No hint here either, that a portion of the Old Testament 
 was given for our singing, or for "the specific end that 
 it might be employed in singing God's praise." This is 
 Dr. Pressly's doctrine, but we find nothing like it, from 
 Christ and his Apostles. They all teach, that the book 
 of Psalms was given for a different purpose. And when 
 
156 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 • 
 
 Christ and his Apostles make known the specific end for 
 which the Old Testament Scriptures were given us, does 
 it not look like presumption to contradict them, and 
 maintain that a portion of them was given not for this, 
 but for another "specific end]" And when the word of 
 God assures us, that the book of Psalms was not given 
 for the specific purpose of constituting the church's psal- 
 mody, is not that conduct very reprehensible which as- 
 sumes, that it was, and then proceeds to argue from this 
 unwarranted assumption'? But the Doctor was in pre- 
 cisely those circumstances, when it is necessary to as- 
 sume, instead of prove. For had he been required to 
 prove, he must have stopped short: but let him assume 
 and he can make out to manufacture an argument. But 
 we cannot grant his assumption, for this would be yield- 
 ing the point in debate. Because, if the book of Psalms 
 was given to be the Psalmody of the church, there is 
 an end to the controversy. If the Doctor had proved 
 this he might then have laid down his pen, because the 
 work would have been finished: and the many arguments 
 he has based upon his assumption would have been use- 
 less. But he assumes the thing to be proved, and then 
 argues that it must be correct, just because it has been 
 assumed. And the assumption is its own proof. But if 
 the assumption be true, that is, if it be admitted on all 
 sides, there is no use in any arguing to prove what is al- 
 ready admitted. And if it be admitted, that God has 
 provided a system of Psalmody for his church, there is 
 no use in arguing, from this admission, that he has. And 
 this is the nature of a good deal of the Doctor's reason- 
 ing, he takes it for granted that God has provided a book 
 of Psalms for his church, and from that, argues that he 
 has. Any man that carefully reads his work will see that 
 this is the case. But from the fact, that there is no in- 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 157 
 
 timation any where in the word of God, that the book 
 of Psalms was given to constitute the churches psal- 
 mody, we may very safely conclude, that it was not giv- 
 en for that purpose; for if it had been given for that pur- 
 pose, it is reasonable to believe that the church would 
 have, in some way or other been notified thereof. 
 
 But again: there is another fact which proves beyond 
 dispute that the book of Psalms was not designed to be 
 the church's Psalmody; and it is, that in the apostolic 
 age, the church was not confined to these Psalms. 
 We learn this, not from any doubtful history; but from 
 the unerring word of truth, 1 Cor. 14: 26. *'How is it 
 then brethren] when ye come together every one of you 
 hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a rev- 
 elation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done un- 
 to edifying." The notion that the Apostle reproved the 
 Corinthians for having a psalm, a doctrine, etc., is so ob- 
 viously contrary to the truth, that it needs no refutation. 
 He would not have reproved them for having what the 
 Holy Spirit bestowed upon them. But he could reprove 
 them for the unseasonable exercise of the gifts of the 
 Spirit, He could not reprove them for the gifts, which 
 in the first verse he told them to desire; and which he 
 said were given to them for the profit and edification of 
 the church; ch. 12: 7. When these christians came to- 
 gether in the public congregation, one would have a 
 psalm, another a doctrine, another a revelation, etc., and 
 each was anxious to exhibit his own, and perhaps they 
 were engaged in various exercises at the same time; and 
 hence the disorder for which the Apostle reproved them. 
 They had psalms, then, but they were not taken from 
 the book of Psalms; they were composed by themselves 
 under the supernatural influences of the Spirit. These 
 psalms were brought to the church: these psalms were 
 14 
 
158 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 used in the church; and the proof is positive, that the 
 church was not then confined to the use of David's 
 Psalms. If the Look of Psalms had been the church's 
 Psalmody, the Apostle would not have suffered such a 
 thing. The church at that time needed the enlighten- 
 ment of Dr. Pressly: he would have shown them, that 
 they were all wrong, for they must bring no psalms into 
 the public congregation, but those found in the book of 
 Psalms. The Apostle lived too early to enjoy the light 
 of these latter times! What a pity, that Dr. Pressly 
 was not there to instruct him! The Doctor would not 
 have tolerated such an irregularity. And if the Apostle 
 had been the same kind of a champion, for the same 
 kind of truth, he would not have tolerated it either. And 
 if the church under the immediate care of the Apostles 
 was not confined to the book of Psalms, why should she 
 be confined to it now? If the book of Psalms did not 
 furnish psalms enough for the use of the church then, 
 why should we suppose that it furnishes psalms enough 
 for the use of the church now? The book of Psalms 
 was as complete then as it is now: and if the church 
 then needed psalms additional to these, so she still needs 
 them. 
 
 And it is worthy of especial notice, that these Psalms 
 composed by the Christians of Corinth were given by 
 the Holy Spirit. Cor. 12 : 8—11. For to one is given 
 by the Spirit, the word of wisdom ; to another the word 
 of knowledge, by the same Spirit; to another faith, by 
 the same Spirit ; to another the gifts of healing, by the 
 same Spirit; to another the working of miracles ; to 
 another prophecy: to another discerning of spirits; to 
 another divers kinds of tongues; to another the inter- 
 pretation of tongues ; but all these worketh that one and 
 the same Spirit, dividing tS3 every one severally, as he 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 159 
 
 will." And these supernatural gifts were given by the 
 Spirit for the edification of the Church ; verse 7 : " But 
 the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to 
 profit withal." Then, in 14 : 26, we are told, that for the 
 benefit of the Church, the Spirit gave to some doctrines; 
 to others tongues ; to others revelations ; to others inter- 
 pretations^ and to others psalms. Now if the book of 
 Psalms was the prescribed and sufficient Psalmody of 
 the Church, why did the Spirit give new additional 
 Psalms] If Dr. Pressly is correct, the Spirit of God 
 was mistaken ! It was the mind of the Spirit that more 
 Psalms were needed for the edification of the Church, 
 or He would not have given more ; but Dr. Pressly, 
 everywhere, teaches that more psalms were not needed. 
 P. 86. "And by the instrumentality of a man, (David) 
 whom God called to the work and fitted for it, a collec- 
 tion of sacred songs has been communicated to the 
 Church, which Christians all over the world, in every 
 age, have found from comfortable experience, to be ad- 
 mirably adapted to the end for which it was given." Here 
 he says, Christians all over the world, in every age need 
 none other than the book of Psalms; hence those Christians 
 to whom the Holy Spirit gave other Psalms did not need 
 them ! The Spirit of God believed that these Psalms 
 were requisite for the edification of the Church ; but the 
 Doctor knows better ! He can tell the Spirit, that it was 
 a useless work for him to communicate any psalms be- 
 sides those they had already! And his charging the 
 Spirit of God with folly is implied in numerous pas- 
 sages. Hear him again, on p. 89. " God has not only 
 provided for his Church songs of praise, but he has given 
 her a book of Psalms. It is perfect, not only in its 
 parts, but as a system of praise, and it needs no addi- 
 tion." The Holy Spirit, by giving additional psalms, 
 
160 
 
 MORTO.X OX PSALMODY. 
 
 taught, that the book of Psahiis was not enough — that it 
 needed addition. But Dr. Pressly asserts positively, that 
 it is enough — "it is perfect, and needs no addition.*' 
 It is extraordinary to see a "sinful mortal" undertaking 
 to contradict and iustructthe God who made him! Into 
 \vhat impious folly men are led, by contending for erron- 
 eous opinions I And besides impeaching the Spirit of 
 Infinite \Visdom with folly, he also asserts directly the 
 opposite of what is revealed in the word of God, by 
 denvine. that the Soirit of Psalmodv was amonsf the as- 
 ceiision eifts of the Redeemer, P. 56, "And when our 
 glorious Lord, vrith whom is the residue of the Spirit, 
 arose from the dead and ascended up far above all 
 heavens, thiat he might fill all things; and gave some 
 evano-elists ; and some pastors and teachers ; for the per- 
 fecting of t]]e saints, for the edifying of the body of 
 Christ; if it had been necessary for the edification of 
 his Church, is it not reasonable to suppose, that among 
 other gifts, he would have conferred the spirit of Psalm- 
 ody T' Thus he teaches, that the Spirit of Psalmody 
 was not given, whiie it is stated distinctly, that it was 
 one of the gifts communicated by the descent of the 
 Spirit, He fiatly denies v/hat is revealed in the word 
 of God. And he represents the ascended Redeemer as 
 not bestowing^ the very eift which the Word says He did 
 bestow, and thus slanders his exalted Saviour. Does 
 the Doctor believe that he is a Popish priest, and that he 
 is writingr for Roman Catholics, who never see the Bible? 
 when he can so deliberately falsify the word of God] — 
 Xo : But I suppose I should recollect, that he is clothed 
 with authority; and these are some of his oflScial dogmatay 
 while acting "in the name of the Protestant Church of 
 Christ." How very advantageous it is, to be supreme, 
 that a man can just say what he pleases I He says indeed, 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 161 
 
 But amonof the various services to w^hicli individuals 
 w^ere called by the Head of the Church, and for which 
 he qualified them, by imparting to them the gifts of the 
 Holy Spirit, the preparation of a system of Psalmody for 
 the edification of the body of Christ is never mentioned." 
 He thinks this will justify him in representing the ascend- 
 ed Redeemer as not giving the Spirit of Psalmody. But 
 the Bible tells us, that he did give the Spirit of Psalmody, 
 though the jprejparation of a system of Psalmody is never 
 mentioned. The preparation of a system of doctrines* 
 or of revelations, or of interpretations, is never men- 
 tioned, yet these were among the gifts of the Spirit; and 
 so the Spirit of Psalmody was given, though the pre- 
 paration of a system of Psalmody is never mentioned. 
 And what did the ascended Redeemer teach his Church 
 by giving to her his Spirit, as the spirit of doctrine, of 
 revelation, and of interpretation? Obviously he taught 
 her, that though she had the doctrines, and interpreta- 
 tions, and revelations of the Old Testament Scriptures, 
 yet she needed others additional. And so he taught her, 
 by giving to her the Spirit of Psalmody, that though she 
 had the book of Psalms, yet she needed others in addi- 
 tion to these. This matter is positively beyond all con- 
 troversy : if the Redeemer had not considered his Church 
 as needing additional psalms. He never would have given 
 her additional psalms, by the direct influence of his Spirit. 
 If his Spirit had not been needed as the Spirit of Psalm- 
 ody, he never would have given it as such to the primi- 
 tive Christians. But, by giving these additional psalms, 
 he taught the Church that her system of Psalmody was 
 not yet completed; just as by giving additional doc- 
 trines, he taught the Church that her system of doctrines 
 was not yet completed. And as the Church's system of 
 doctrines, her Creed, or Confession of Faith, is drawn 
 14* 
 
162 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 from, and founded upon the word of God, by the labors 
 of uninspired men, so her system of Psalmody is to be 
 provided in the same manner. And she is no more re- 
 quired to adopt any portion of the word of God for her 
 system of Psalmody, than she is required to adopt the 
 Bible for her Confession of Faith. And from this ac- 
 count, that we have of the primitive Christians compos- 
 ing and bringing Psalmy into the public congregation, 
 and that by the influences of the Spirit, the matter is 
 completely settled, that the book of Psalms was not giv- 
 en to the church to constitute her psalmody. 
 
 I know it may be objected, that these psalms were 
 composed by the extraordinary influences of the Spirit, 
 and these influences being withheld, there are none now 
 qualified to compose psalms for the use of the church. 
 But this objection is not valid: for if it were, there would 
 be none now qualified to perform any office in the church. 
 Because it appears, that at the time these psalms were 
 given all the various functionaries in the church were 
 qualified with supernatural endowments. This is obvi- 
 ous from the 12, c. of 2. Cor. taken in all its parts. The 
 Apostle having shuwn that there were diversities of gifts 
 by the Spirit, then says that God hath set them in the 
 church; *'First apostles; secondarily prophets; thirdly 
 teachers; after that miracles; then gifts of healing, helps, 
 governments, diversities of tongues. All these various 
 functions were then exercised in the church by the aid of 
 supernatural endowments. But now these endowments 
 are withheld, yet some of these functions may, and are 
 still exercised. And if it be asked, What of them may 
 now be exercised? I would say, Just all of them that 
 can. And this is a very simple rule by which to deter- 
 mine how many of the various functions, exercised in 
 the apostolic church, may still be continued. There is 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 163 
 
 no prohibition to the exercise of any function that had 
 place in the apostolic church. No function has ceased 
 because it was forbidden, but simply because it could 
 not be exercised. The nature of each function fixed the 
 limit of its own duration. If supernatural endowments 
 were essential to the exercise of any function, whenever 
 these were withheld it ceased to exist; not by prohi- 
 bition, but by necessity. The function of an Apostle: 
 of a prophet: of him that wrought miracles: of him that 
 spake with tongues, etc., were of this kind. They have 
 ceased in the church, because the supernatural endow- 
 ments essential to their exercise are withheld. But this 
 is the only thing that forbids their exercise. They may 
 still be exercised if they can. If a man can prophesy 
 he may: if a man can speak with tongues, he may: if a 
 man can work miracles, he may. The church may still 
 call these functions into requisition if they be within her 
 reach. And so, the function of him, who was then a 
 teacher by the aid of supernatural endowments, may 
 still be exercised if it can: and it is. And the functions 
 of those who were then helps: governments,'* — say 
 elders and deacons, — may still be exercised if they can: 
 and they are. And the function of him, who then by the 
 Spirit of psalmody, composed psalms, may still be exer- 
 cised if it can: and it is. The church may call into exer- 
 cise this function whenever it may be requisite. The fact 
 that at the organization of the Christian Church, her exalt- 
 ed King and Head, by liis Spirit qualified some, for the 
 work of composing psalms, authorizes her in all subse- 
 quent time, to call into exercise this function, if it be still 
 within her reach. Its exercise ilieUy is her warrant for its 
 exercise in all time future, if the requisite qualifications 
 are still possessed. And thus we see that though all 
 these functions were then exercised under supernatural 
 
164 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 influences, yet those of them, to which these influences 
 were not essential, may still be exercised, while these in- 
 fluences are now withheld. The function of teaching, 
 of ruling, and of composing psalms are of this descrip- 
 tion. And this passage of Scripture proves beyond all 
 controversy that the church is not to be confined to the 
 book of Psalms: and that it does not constitute her psal- 
 mody: that it was not given for this end; and that it is 
 the province of the church to prepare her own psalmody, 
 just as she may consider most suitable for her own edifi- 
 cation. When Dr. Pressly was discussing the whole 
 ground, why did he pass over this text in silence? Ob- 
 viously because he was afraid of it. Had he considered 
 himself competent to dispose of ir, he would, no doubt, 
 have made the attempt. 
 
 But again: there is another consideration which 
 proves, that the book of Psalms was not given to the 
 church to constitute her Psalmody. It is, that in prophe- 
 cy she is represented as using songs of praise the matter 
 of which is not contained in the book of Psalms. It is 
 admitted, that John in the isle of Patmos, in prophetic 
 vision, had the church presented to his view. The scene 
 of the visions, is in heaven, but the church on earth is 
 the object presented by these visions. John is made to 
 behold her, in her sufferings, her conflicts, her triumphs, 
 and rejoicings, even from her rise down to the end of 
 time. In the 5th ch. of Revelations, this church is rep- 
 resented as singing a song of praise, the matter of which 
 is not in the book of Psalms. "And they sung a new 
 song, saying. Thou art worthy to take the book and to 
 open the seals thereof, for thou wast slain, and hast re- 
 deemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred 
 and tongue and people and nation; and hast made us 
 unto our God, kings and priests, and we shall reign on 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 165 
 
 the earth." Dr, Scott says, This song is new, both in re- 
 spect of the occasion, and also of the composition. It is 
 not called a new song merely because it is sung upon a 
 new occasion, but because the composition is new: it 
 contains new matter: matter not contained in any song 
 used before that time, in the church. It is perfectly ob- 
 vious, that the ideas contained in this song are not to be 
 found any where in the book of. Psalms. — "Thou art wor- 
 thy." Who? "The Lamb." And who is the Lambi 
 **The next day John seeth Jesus coming imto him, and 
 saith, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the 
 sin of the world." Thou the Lamb — Thou Jesus of 
 Nazareth art worthy. Here the man Jesus, the Son of 
 Joseph and Mary, is represented as a Lamb; but there 
 is no such idea in the book of Psalms. The Psalms never 
 speak of the man Jesus. They speak often of the Messiah 
 the Redeemer; but no where reveal that Jesus of Naz- 
 areth is that Messiah: that Redeemer. But in this song 
 Jesus of Nazareth is spoken of. Here the church is rep- 
 resented as addressing .Jesus. **Thou art worthy." But 
 there is no such idea in the Psalms. The church is not 
 represented any where in the Psalms as saying to Jesus, 
 "thou art worthy, to open the book, for thou wast slain." 
 The church is not represented as saying to any one, 
 "Thou wast slain;" nor "Thou hast redeemed us to God 
 by thy blood;" nor, ''Thou hast redeemed us out of every 
 kindred and tongue and people and nation." These, 
 and many other ideas contained in this song, are not 
 found in the book of Psalms. And a song having these 
 ideas, would not be any one of the Psalms of David, 
 But we are told here, that the church actually uses 
 songs of this kind. Songs containing matter not found 
 in the Psalms; and hence, songs that are none of those 
 Psalms. We do not suppose, that the church ever sings 
 
166 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 this song in this identical form; but that she uses songs 
 of this hind; with this matter; containing these ideas. It 
 teaches us, that the primitive church was in the practice 
 of using songs of praise of this description. Songs in 
 which Jesus of Nazareth was magnified and exalted ! 
 Songs in which they ascribed all worth, and power, to 
 the man who was crucified and who was contemptuous- 
 ly spoken of by their enemies as "the dead god." This 
 kind of songs of praise the Christian church sings, and 
 hence she is not confined to the book of Psalms. And 
 by the testimony of prophecy these Psalms were not de- 
 signed to constitute the Psalmody of the church. 
 
 In the 15th chapter the church is presented, as enga- 
 ged in singing another song of praise. "And I saw as 
 it were a sea of glass mingled with fire; and them that 
 had gotten the victory over the beast, * * * stand 
 on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they 
 sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song 
 of the Lamb; saying, Great and marvellous are thy 
 works. Lord God Almighty, ^ # # f^^ j}jy judg- 
 ments are made manifest." This is obviously a song of 
 thanksgiving for the deliverance of the church and the 
 destruction of her enemies. It is sung by those who had 
 gotten the victory over the beast and over his image, etc. 
 i. e. over the Papacy, and over the persecuting civil pow- 
 ers in league with it, and by which it was supported. — 
 The church being delivered from this anti-christian sys- 
 tem, raises the voice of thanksgiving while she stands on, 
 or at the sea of glass. There is manifestly an allusion 
 to the deliverance of the church at the Red Sea, stan- 
 ding thereat and praising the Lord. And the church 
 standing on, or at the sea of glass, "sing the song of Mo- 
 ses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb." — 
 There are three characteristics of this song which ought 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY 
 
 167 
 
 to be noticed. It is a song of thanksgiving for deliver- 
 ance granted to the church. It is the song of Moses the 
 servant of God; — and it is the song of the Lamh, Each 
 of these has its own separate and distinct meaning. And 
 v^hy is it called the song of Moses and the Lamb, and 
 not the song of David and the Lamb, or the song of 
 Isaiah and the Lamb? or some other eminent servant of 
 God? Obviously because Moses sustained a relation- 
 ship to the church, which no other man did. He was 
 the Lawgiver of the church. He is called a mediator 
 between God and the church. In the cloud and in the 
 sea, the church was baptized unto Moses, as the deliverer, 
 leader, and lawgiver thereof. Hence the Lamb, or Christ 
 and Moses are often presented in contrast. "Moses as 
 a servant was faithful in all his house — the church — but 
 Christ as a Son over his own house." **The law was 
 given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus 
 Christ." And accordingly, Moses is the representative 
 of the Mosaic dispensation; and Christ the representa- 
 tive of the Christian dispensation. The song of Moses, 
 then, will be a song res^Decting the church under the 
 Mosaic dispensation; and a song of deliverance respect- 
 ing the church under the Mosaic dispensation; will be a 
 song 'recounting the deliverances of the church under 
 that dispensation; such as that sung at the Red Sea, and 
 tha sung by Deborah and Barak. And in contradis- 
 tinction from this, "the song of the Lamb," will be any 
 song recounting the deliverances obtained by the church 
 under the Christian dispensation. And as the song of 
 Moses and the Lamb, is merely the representative of such 
 songs, as are sung by the church on this occasion; these 
 songs, are songs recounting the deliverances granted to 
 the church, both in ancient and modern times; both un- 
 der the Mosaic and Christian dispensations. It is firmly 
 
168 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 believed, that the distinctive characteristics of these two 
 songs are these now mentioned. And hence, in the book 
 of Psalms, songs answering to "the song of Moses/* 
 might be found; but songs answering to "the song of the 
 Lamb," could not be found; because there are no songs 
 there recounting the deliverances obtained by the Chris- 
 tian church. And especially, there are no songs there 
 recounting the victories gained by the church over the 
 beast, and over his image, and over his mark and over 
 the number of his name, and adoring the Lord God Al- 
 mighty, because his judgments are made manifest, in the 
 destruction of these enemies of the church. When the 
 church uses such songs, she uses songs not contained in 
 the book of Psalms. And moreover, she uses songs not 
 found any where in the Bible. Because there are no 
 songs in the Bible recounting the victories gained by the 
 church over the "Man of Sin," unless this is done in 
 some measure, in the one contained in the 19th of Rev. 
 All such songs must be prepared by the church for her- 
 self: and that by the agency of uninspired men. And 
 in this prophecy, songs of this kind she is positively rep- 
 resented as singing. Hence she uses songs not contained 
 in the book of Psalms; and songs too, which are the 
 compositions of uninspired men. 
 
 Again: in the 19th chapter the church is represented 
 as engaged in another song of praise. And it has many 
 features not belonging to any song in the book of 
 Psalms. "And after these things I heard a great voice 
 of much people in Heaven saying Alleluia; Salvation, 
 and glory, and honor, and power unto the Lord our God; 
 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath 
 judged the great whore which did corrupt the earth with 
 her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his ser- 
 vants at her hand, And again they said Alleluia." In 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 169 
 
 this song the Church praises the Lord for the judgments 
 inflicted upon "the great whore." The same Mother of 
 harlots seen riding upon the scarlet colored beast with 
 seven heads and ten horns. Which symbolizes the 
 Church of Rome riding upon the civil power of the ten 
 Kingdoms ; and trampling under the feet of this huge 
 bloody beast the Saints of the Most High ; and causing 
 that as many as would not worship the image of the beast 
 [the Pope] should be killed," with the civilsword. The 
 song is sung by the Church after the downfall of Popery. 
 And in the song there is specific mention made of the 
 abominations of Popery: the polluting influence of the 
 corrupt system in the earth: and how Popery had shed 
 the blood of the servants of th« Lord : and allusions to 
 the righteous judgments of God in overturning that 
 wicked system. But there are no songs in the book of 
 Psalms containing matter of this kind. It is taught here 
 ;hat the Church uses songs of this kind, and therefore 
 ibe cannot be confined to the book of Psalms. "And a 
 ^oice came out of the throne saying, Praise our God all 
 ye his servants^ and ye that fear him, both small and 
 g ;eat. And I heard as it were the voice of a great mul- 
 titude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice 
 of mighty thunderings, saying: Alleluia, for the Lord 
 God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice 
 and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is 
 come, and his wife hath made herself ready." Here is 
 more matter contained in this song which is not found in 
 the Psalms. It is sung at the introduction of the glori- 
 ous millenium, when the Church being delivered from 
 all oppression, and all anti-christian corruptions, will be 
 made ready and meet to be publicly espoused to Christ 
 the bride-groom of his own ransomed Church: when 
 henceforth he will constantly manifest his favor, showing 
 15 
 
170 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 that she is his delight, and his beloved, and never again 
 will his gracious presence be w^ithdrawn. There is posi- 
 tively no song in the book of Psalms that speaks of "the 
 marriage supper of the Lamb," and declares that it is 
 come; or that the glorious millenium has now arrived; 
 and that the Lord hath judged the great whore which 
 did corrupt the earth ; and that he has avenged the blood 
 of his servants at her hand. Songs containing these facts 
 must be drawn from some other source than the book of 
 Psalms. But the prophecy assures us that the Church 
 sings such songs of praise, and hence she is not confined 
 to the book of Psalms. And it follows, that it was not 
 given to constitute her Psalmody. And it follows too^ 
 that such songs must be prepared by uninspired men, 
 for, in the Bible, this matter is not contained in any songS 
 of such a form as fits them for the Church's use. And 
 these songs contained in the book of Revelation are 
 merely brief representatives of the kind of songs used 
 by the Church on these various occasions. But these 
 representatives teaches the undeniable fact, that the 
 songs used by the Church contain a great amount of 
 matter not found in the book of Psalms. How then can 
 we account for the following declaration of Dr. Pressly: 
 If all the songs of praise found throughout the Bible, 
 were examined with care, I believe it would be seen, 
 that there is not an idea expressed in any one of them, 
 which is not exhibited in nearly the same identical 
 words, in some part of the book of Psalms," P. 89. 
 Now, it might well be asked, did the Doctor ever see 
 the book of Psalms, and the songs contained in other 
 parts of the Bible? And if he did, how can it be ac- 
 counted for, that he has published such a declaration? 
 "Not an idea," he says, "in any one of them, but is 
 found in the book of Psalms!" After this, what may 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 171 
 
 he not say] And not only every idea; but, "exhibited 
 in nearly the same identical words!" Truly, it needs 
 no comment; its character is written upon it very fore- 
 head! But on this subject the Doctor has exhibited 
 himself in a more remarkable manner then even here. 
 It is on p. 47. I give a large extract, as it is a curiosity. 
 Dr. Ralston had asked, where did the Church get the 
 subject-matter of the songs contained in the book of 
 Revelation? And had said, ** The correct answer goes 
 far in deciding the point in dispute." To this Dr. Pressly 
 replies; "With the venerable author 1 cordially concur 
 in opinion, that the ^'correct ansicer'^ to this question, will 
 go far in deciding the disputed point. I am even pre- 
 pared to go further, and say, that the "correct answer" 
 to thi& question would completely terminate the contro- 
 versy. But with all due deference I must be permitted 
 to doubt whether my Father has given the "correct an- 
 swer." The question is, Where did the Church get 
 the subject-matter of the songs contained in the book of 
 Revelation?'' .1 answer: "The subject-matter of the 
 songs was taken neither from the Old Testament nor 
 from the New; but the songs themselves were given to 
 the Church by the Holy Spirit, and are a part of the 
 sacred volume." Here he says, "the Church got the 
 subject-matter of the songs neither from the Old Testa- 
 ment nor from the New; but the songs themselves were 
 given to the Church by the Holy Spirit." Now the 
 songs contained in the 15th and 19th chapters are sung 
 by the Church after the fall of Antichrist: after the 
 Church is delivered from the domination of the Man of 
 Sin. And we may say, that this is not earlier than the 
 nineteenth century." Now where does the Church in 
 the nineteenth century get the subject-mater of these 
 songs? Dr. Pressly says, "she gets it neither from the 
 
172 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 Old Testament nor tbe New; but the songs themselves 
 are given to the Church by the Holy Spirit." Nov7 can 
 the Doctor inform us where it was that this occurred — 
 that the Holy Spirit gave songs to the Church in the 
 nineteenth century] Where was it that the Holy Spiiit 
 inspired men in the nineteenth century, to give these 
 sono^s to the Church] The Church uses them in the 
 present age, and she gets the subject-matter of them 
 neither from the Old Testament nor the New; but he says 
 they are given to her by the Holy Spirit. According to 
 the Doctor, then, there are new revelations in the pres- 
 ent age. And there are inspired men in the present age. 
 And he says, these songs given to the Church by tbe 
 Holy Spirit, in the present age "are a part of the sacred 
 volume." Hence, the canon of Scripture was never 
 closed until the nineteenth century. And these songs 
 were never in the book of Revelation until the nineteenth 
 century! And the one in the 19th chapter is not in it yet! 
 For the Church has not yet sung it; and when she does 
 sing it, she will get it neither from the Old Testament nor 
 from the New; but direct from the Holy Spirit ! And 
 who, but Dr. Pressly, could believe it] And far more 
 absurdities than these are implied in this passage. How 
 supremely ridiculous a man will make himself, while 
 contending for error } Teaching that the songs used by 
 the Church in the nineteenth century are not taken from 
 the word of God, though they are in it ; but that they are 
 given to the Church direct by the Holy Spirit! O such 
 £t cause ! that requires^ such reasoning ! We see here 
 also, how the Doctor confutes himself; and proves his 
 other assertions respecting these songs to be fake. He 
 said that every idea in them is found in the book of 
 Psalms, and expressed in nearly the same identical lan- 
 guage. And now he says the Holy Spirit gave them to 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 173 
 
 his Church. And what was the use of the Holy Spirit 
 giving them to the Church when they were abeady in 
 the book of Psalms] The Holy Spirit never does any 
 thing unnecessary. His giving these songs proves, that 
 it was necessary to give them, and this proves that they 
 were not in the book of Psalms. And thus the Doctor, 
 by saying the Holy Spirit gave these songs to the Church, 
 proves his own assertion false. He proves it false in 
 another way. He says, The subject-matter of these 
 songs was taken neither from the Old Testament nor 
 from the New." Hence it was not taken from the book 
 "'f Psalms : it is different from the matter contained in 
 that book : therefore the ideas cannot be the same, nor 
 expressed in the same identical language. And he thus, 
 not only confounds himself, but his language is highly 
 derogatory to the Holy Spirit. He says, the **Holy 
 Spirit gave these songs to the Church," and then says, it 
 was useless for him to do so. P. 89. " What then would 
 be gained, in so far as the wants of the Church are con- 
 cerned, were all the songs throughout the Bible added to 
 this divine collection." He asks the Holy Spirit, A¥hat 
 is gained by adding these songs, which He gave to the 
 Church, to this divine collection? Thus, he would point 
 out to the Holy Spirit, the folly of giving songs to the 
 Church which are of no advantage. And he says this 
 divine collection, **is perfect, not only in its parts, but as 
 a system of praise, and it needs no addition," while he 
 says the Holy Spirit has added to it, and has given other 
 songs to the Church. The Holy Spirit has changed what 
 was perfect : and has added to what needed no addition ! 
 It is indeed strange how his people can study his book, 
 and not be shocked at the impiety implied in many of 
 his assertions ; when what he asserts in one place ia 
 compared witlx what he asserts in anothei? : they are so 
 15* 
 
174 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 self-contradictory and so contradictory to the revelations 
 of the Bible! and involve so much that is disparaging to 
 the w^isdom of God I But w^hen men undertake to de 
 fend error, there are always features developed of pre- 
 cisely this description. These prophecies, then, teach 
 very clearly, that the Nev^ Testament Church should use 
 songs of praise not contained in the book of Psalms. 
 Songs drawn from the New Testament Scriptures, and 
 founded upon events connected with the history of the 
 Church ; and of consequence songs of praise composed 
 by uninspired men. 
 
 Again, the book of Psalms w^as not designed to con- 
 stitute the Psalmody of the church because it is not 
 sufficient for that end. It is infinitely well adapted to 
 the end for which it was given to us, i. e. our learning. 
 In common with the rest of the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures, it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for 
 correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man 
 of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished unto all 
 good works. But it does not contain all that is valuable 
 and suitable to be incorporated in the Psalmody of the 
 Christian church. The Psalmody of the Church ought to 
 correspond to her character; and there ought to be a har- 
 mony pervading the several parts of her worship. But 
 there are traits of character appertaning to the Christian 
 church to correspond with which there is nothing in the 
 book of Psalms. For instance, the New testament church 
 had a predecessor; and she is the successor to the church 
 of the former dispensation. She will then have frequent 
 allusions to the nature and condition of her predecessors. 
 There is much of this in the Epistles to the Galatians 
 and the Hebrews. The church now in her sermons 
 and her prayers, has frequent allusions to the church of 
 the former dispensation. But in the Psalms there can 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 175 
 
 be no allusion to a preceding cliurcli ; for when they 
 were given there had been no predecessor. And conse- 
 quently when in our sermons and prayers, we contras! 
 the superior privileges of the church of the present 
 dispensation with those of the church of the former, and 
 use the Psalms, our songs of praise do not harmonize 
 with the other parts of our worship. Our sermons and 
 our prayers will be peculiar to the present dispensation; 
 but our Psalmody will not. And thus our Psalmody 
 does not correspond to the other exercises: it is out of 
 place because it does not allude to the chief subject of 
 the other parts of the exercises. And hence the parts 
 of worship are disjouited: there is something like a dis- 
 cord; and all things do not seem to be done in order. 
 
 Again: the ritual of the New Testament Church is al- 
 together different from that of the Old; and hence her 
 dialect must be different. The common dialect of the 
 Old Testament church, was to speak of high-priests, and 
 priests, and Levite«, and altars, and trumpets, and sacri- 
 fices; of the blood of bulls, and of goats, and of rams; 
 of heave offerings, and wave offerings, and thank offer- 
 ings; and beaten oil, and fine flour, and incense, and wa 
 ter of purification, and holy garments, and consecrated 
 vessels; and show bread; and feasts of new mt)ons, of 
 trumpets, of the passover, of pentecost, of atonement, 
 of tabernacles, of harvest, of jubilee, etc. And these 
 things, and many more, being used in her rites and cer- 
 emonies, her dialect or language must be peculiar; be- 
 cause it is formed upon the ritual of the church. But the 
 New Testament church in her ritual has none of these 
 things, and her language cannot be based upon them; 
 hence her dialect must be very different from that of the 
 other church. She speaks of one great High-Priest, the 
 Lord Jesus Christ. And instead of speaking of the 
 
176 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY* 
 
 blood of bulls and of goats, etc., she constantly speaks 
 of the blood of Jesus Christ which cleanseth from all sin. 
 And she has no priests; but she speaks of presbyters, or 
 elders; and deacons; and ambassadors of Christ; and 
 ministers of the churches. But there is no language in 
 the Psalms correspondioig to these. And as this is the 
 common language of the church, we would suppose it 
 ought to be used in eyery part of her worship. But if 
 the book of Psalms constitute her Psalmody, this is im- 
 possible. The Psalms never mention the blood of Je- 
 sus Christ; nor presbyters; nor elders; nor deacons; nor 
 ambassadors of Christ; nor ministers of the churches; 
 nor many other things with which the language of the 
 church is constantly conversant. This dialect of the 
 church is always used in her sermons and her prayers, 
 and must she not use it in singing praise? Why should 
 she use a dialect in that part of her worship, which is 
 foreign to her real character] Why should she be chris- 
 tian in every part of her worship, excej^t in singing the 
 praise of God? Why must she exclude the dialect of 
 the Christian church from this delightful part of the di- 
 vine service? It is both unreasonable and unscriptural 
 to suppose, that the glorious King of Zion ever ordained 
 such an inconsistency for his church. And since the 
 church has undergone such an entire change under the 
 present dispensation, why must she be confined to the 
 psalmody of the former dispensation. When she is 
 changed in every thing else, why must she remain un- 
 changed in this? Her laws, and her rites, and her cer- 
 emonies, and her forms of worship, are all changed, and 
 the change is so great as to be symbolized in prophecy, 
 by a new heavens and a new earth, and yet there must 
 be no change iji her Psalmody! Old things have passed 
 away, and all things have become new, and the old Psal- 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 177 
 
 mody, is the only Psalmody still ! When the church is 
 changed in every other part of her worship, where is 
 there either Scripture or reason to prove, that she is unr- 
 changed in this'? Just no where. You might as well 
 suppose, that when the government of this nation is 
 changed from that of a British province, to that of an 
 independent Republic, and a new constitution, a new 
 Executive, and a new Legislature adopted, the nation 
 must still use the English laws, without either alteration 
 or addition. This supposition would not be a whit more 
 absurd than the other. And just as the English laws 
 may be useful to this nation^, though they do not suit all 
 her purposes, so the book of Psalms is exceedingly val- 
 uable to theChristian church, though it is not suitable for 
 all her purposes of praise. 
 
 Again, the vocation of the New Testament Church 
 renders the book of Psalms insufficient to constitute her 
 Psalmody. Her vocation, in one very important respect, 
 is different from that of her predecessor; for she is em- 
 phatically a missionary institution. It is true indeed, 
 that the vocation of the Church in all ages is to repre- 
 sent the God of Truth, and maintain the capse of right- 
 eousness in a fallen world. And the Jewish Church was 
 to do this especially by her own preservation ; by keep- 
 ing herself separate from the nations of the earth. And 
 by observing the laws and ordinances, and institutions 
 apponited for her by her God and King. But though 
 she was not to exclude any who desired to unite with 
 the Church of the true God, yet she ws not commissioned 
 to go forth and convert the nations of the earth to the 
 true religion. This is the peculiar and high vocation of 
 the Christian Church: to go forth clad in the armor of 
 Salvation and conquer the world : to invade the domiu-* 
 ions of the Prince of darkness t everywhere tg deliver 
 
178 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 the people from his cruel bondage ; and bring the na- 
 tions to bow in delightful submission to the peaceful 
 sceptre of King Jesus, Jesus said to his Church, as 
 she was then represented by the Apostles, " Go ye into 
 all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, 
 and lo ! I am with you always, even unto the end of the 
 world/' The high calling of the Christian Church, then, 
 is to convert the world to the faith of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. This is the imperative duty imposed upon her 
 by the high authority of her Lord and King. And her 
 distinctive character is, that she is and must be a mission- 
 ary church. This glorious vocation of subduing the 
 world to her divine Lord, she should keep constantly in 
 view. Hence then, in her sermons, in her prayers, and 
 in her praises, her peculiar and high vocation ought 
 surely, to have a place. But if she use only the Psalms, 
 in her songs of praise, to this high vocation she can n^ver 
 once allude. She can never intimate that she is what 
 she is ; namely, a missionary Church to the world. She 
 may pray and preach much respecting her duty in this 
 matter, but she can never refer to it in her songs of praise, 
 Because the glorious work of missions is never men- 
 tioned in the book of Psalms. And will not this account 
 for some men's partiality to these Psalms, because in using 
 them, they are never plagued with having the cause of 
 missions pressed upon their attention. A subject, the 
 mention of which, discommodes them so much, they 
 will natui'ally wish to have left out of their Psalmody. 
 And the Psalmody which has it not, is just what pleases 
 them. But the Church ought ever to remember her own 
 duty and privilege, and endeavor to fulfil her high voca- 
 tion ; and use every proper means that will facilitate the 
 work of gathering the nations into the Church of God. 
 And the character of her Psalmody will have a very im- 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 179 
 
 portant influence in this matter. If the songs of Zion 
 bring clearly before the minds of the people the glory 
 and importance of evangelizing the nations of the earth, 
 it will awaken in their hearts a warmth and devotion to 
 the cause of the Redeemer abroad; and then, by their 
 agency, the streams of Salvation will be made to flow 
 through far distant lands. But if the Psalmody of the 
 Church does not bring this subject into contact with the 
 minds and hearts of the people, one valuable means of 
 advancing the interests of this cause, will thus lie entire- 
 ly neglected. And I doubt not, it would be the duty of 
 the Church to use a gospel Psalmody on this account, if 
 there was no other. And the churches refusing to do it, 
 are negligent of their duty; because they are refusing to 
 adopt such lawful means as will further the interests of 
 Zion, and enable her to fulfil the high vocation to which 
 she has been called by her exalted Head and King. It 
 is well known that the Psalmody of a people has a mighty 
 influence in moulding their views, and feelings, and prac- 
 tice. And all that may be effected for the good cause by 
 having a missionary Psalmody, is entirely lost in those 
 churches where they use nothing but Rouse's paraphrase. 
 This Psalmody does not discourage the work of Missions; 
 but it does not present and bring home the work to the 
 hearts of the people. And this may be one cause why 
 the churches using this Psalmody are generally so slug- 
 gish and inactive in this all important work : because 
 they have not the life and impulse that a missionary 
 Psalmody would impart to their feelings, and their prac- 
 tice in the service of the Lord. And thus we see, that the 
 prosperity of Zion, may be, and no doubt is, hindered 
 by using a Psalmody not corresponding to the high vo- 
 cation of the Christian Church, as the appointed of God 
 to evangelize the nations of the earth. It is perfectly 
 
180 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 obviciis, then, that the book of Psalms was not designed 
 to constitute the Psalmody of the Christian Church, be- 
 cause such a Psalmody does not correspond to her pe- 
 culiar character, and is not such as is best adapted to 
 enable her to discharge her whole duty, as enjoined by 
 her divine Redeemer. 
 
 Again, the sacraments of the New Testament Church 
 constitute another peculiar feature of her character. 
 Baptism is the divine ordinance of initiation amd recog- 
 nition in the Church of Christ. And hence it is to her 
 an all-important ordinance. None can be recognized 
 as entitled to the privileges of the Church without 
 the application of this rite. And through this divine 
 ordinance all the accessions of the Church must come; 
 and it is essential to her very existence as a Christian 
 Church. And yet, must she never once allude to it, in 
 all her songs of praise? If she be confined to the book 
 of Psalms, this is the necessary consequence ; for these 
 Psalms know nothing of this divine ordinance. We may 
 have much respecting it in our sermons and in our pray- 
 ers, but we must exclude it forever from our praises ! 
 This ordinance, by which we are received into the bosom 
 of the Church, to partake of its glorious privileges and 
 in which we dedicate our dear offspring to our covenant 
 God, we must never refer to when we praise our cove- 
 nant God ! Is this the consistency of Christianity? This 
 rite, which seals to every subject of it a title to all the 
 privileges of the visible Church of God, and which seals 
 to every believer a title to all the blessings of the cove- 
 nant of grace, and is therefore so dear and precious to 
 all the people of God, yet they must never allude to it 
 when they lift up their voices in His praise ! Who could 
 believe it? An ordinance, too, which constitutes the very 
 badge of discipleship among the followers of the Re- 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 181 
 
 deemer; by which the children of the Church are distin- 
 guished from the world; and which forms the very wall 
 of separation between the church and the world j and 
 yet, to this sacred inclosure which gathers them into com- 
 munion with the blessings of God's house, in all their 
 songs of praise they must never once i*efer! Who 
 would ever suppose, that the infinitely wise God has 
 given an ordinance to his church, which she must never 
 mention, to which she must never refer, when she lifts 
 up her voice to praise the Lord who gave her that ordi- 
 nance] The minds of men who can believe it are surely 
 much stultified by some kind of influence. And those, 
 who hold that the church ought to use nothing but the 
 book of Psalms, must believe it ; for in using these she 
 can never refer to this ordinance. I am aware, that in 
 answer to such arguments Dr. Pressly would say, This 
 is reasoning after the manner of men ; but not accor- 
 ding to the wisdom of God ; for when God has given a 
 Book of Psalms to his church, it is not for sinful short- 
 sighted man to say what is fit or reasonable, in this mat- 
 ter, or what is not. Thus, with his groundless and un- 
 scriptural assumption, that God has appointed the book of 
 Psalms for the Psalmody of the church, he would over- 
 turn both scripture and reason ; represent the Head of 
 the church as acting unwisely ; and set aside much that 
 is fit and becoming in the church of God. 
 
 Again: the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is another 
 disting^uishinof ordinance of the New Testament church. 
 
 o o 
 
 It has been considered the solemn and delightful char- 
 acteristic festival of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 But this festival is not recognized in the book of Psalms. 
 And the church that has this for her Psalmody, can never 
 speak of this precious ordinance, in any of her songs of 
 praise. They may preach, and pray, and converse, and 
 16 
 
18^ 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 meditate about the Lord's supper; but in alf their exerci- 
 ses, they can never sing about the Lord's supper. And 
 when this is the case, there must surely be a deficiency 
 in their Psalmody. It cannot be, what the church of Je- 
 sus Christ requires, when there is no place in it, for this 
 delightful ordinance. The people of the Lord may sit 
 around the table of solemn communion, and renew their 
 covenant engagements with their God and Redeemer 
 — their fellowship may be with the Father and with his 
 Son Jesus Christ — they may be filled with rapturous joy 
 in contemplating the riches of redeeming grace — and 
 wonder at the unspeakable love and condecension of the 
 Son of God, in assuming their nature, in bearing the 
 curse for them, in falling under the stroke of divine 
 wrath for their redemption, and in leaving them these 
 tokens of his love — these emblems of his broken body 
 and shed blood — and their souls may be filled with holy 
 joy and gladness — their hearts may be overflowing with 
 gratitude to Jesus for this sacred festival — they may 
 thank him in their thoughts — they may thank him in 
 their prayers— but the voice of praise must never be raised 
 among the redeemed, to bless him for this joyous festival 
 prepared for them by his dying love! Ye people of the 
 Lord, can ye believe it? Can ye believe, that your Re- 
 deemer has forbidden you, on such an occasion, to unite 
 your voices in a joyful song of praise? saying: — 
 
 **The Lord of life this table spread, 
 
 With his own flesh and dying blood; 
 We on the rich provisions feed, 
 
 We taste the wine and bless our God. 
 Jesus thy feast we celebrate. 
 
 We show thy death, we sing thy name 
 Till thou return, and we shall eat 
 
 The marriage supper of the Lamb.'' 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 183 
 
 Truly, the Lord of life never ordained such an absur- 
 dity in his church as is implied in the doctrine, that his 
 people must never use any songs of praise, having for 
 their subject matter, the ordinance of the Lord's supper. 
 Just think of it! That the church redeemed by the 
 death of Christ, must never sing of the holy festival 
 which he has left as the memorial of his dying love ! 
 it not marvellous that men having the Bible, should ever 
 have invented such a fiction? And now they try to bol- 
 ster it up with the unwarranted assumption, that the 
 book of Psalms was given to constitute the Psalmody of 
 the church: and with their endless cant, about inspired 
 and uninspired composition. Just as though there was 
 some divine appointment for the church defining the 
 kind of composition she is to use. The whole concern — 
 the system, and what is brought to support it, when 
 viewed in the light of divine truth, is seen to be highly 
 unscriptural, and absurd. And this want of adaptation 
 in the Psalms to the wants of the Christian church, is 
 sufficient proof, that they never were intended to con- 
 stitute her Psalmody; and that it is her province and her 
 duty, to prepare for herself, her own songs of praise. 
 
 Again : "Thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall 
 save his people from their sins.'' But this sacred name 
 of the Redeemer is not found once in the book of 
 Psalms. And must the name of Jesus, be excluded from 
 the Psalmody of his own church ] How can the Christian 
 church engage in the worship of God without using the 
 name of Jesus ] It is impossible : and why banish his 
 name from one important part of that worship ] Who 
 could believe it; that the church is to have her sermons 
 and her prayers filled up with "Jesus Christ, and him cru- 
 cified," and that he must never be named in her songs of 
 praise? Did the foolish mind of man ever invent 3» 
 
184 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 greater absurdity? — that the church redeemed by the 
 blood of Jesus, when she lifts up her voice to bless him 
 for salvation, must not dare to name his name 1 That 
 name so dear in heaven and upon earth: which the eter- 
 nal Jehovah has proclaimed above every name — "there- 
 fore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a 
 name, which is above every name; That at the name of Je- 
 sus every knee should bow. And that every tongue should 
 confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the 
 Pather/' But Psalmonistic Churches in their songs of 
 praise can never make this confession. When they lift up 
 their voices in a song of praise, they can never glorify God 
 the Father by confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord of 
 all. They need not point us to such psalms as the 2nd 
 or 110th, for this exalted name, Jesus, is not in the whole 
 book of Psalms. And they will teach us, that this name, 
 which God has proclaimed from his throne, as the most 
 exalted and glorious, at which the inhabitants of heaven, 
 and of the earth, and of those under the earth, bow in 
 submission, must never be once named in the church, in 
 any of her songs of praise ! A name which is the theme 
 of constant adoration by the church in heaven, and the 
 church on earth ; but it must never be heard upon the 
 voice of her songs ! What kind of doctrine is it, that 
 would exclude the name of Jesus from the praises of his 
 own church ] A name so dear to the hearts of the re- 
 deemed; and of such frequent occurrence in the language 
 of the church. Take up the New Testament and see 
 how much of it you can read without naming the name 
 of Jesus, Ten times in one short chapter it falls from 
 the lips of the apostle Paul — more than six hundred and 
 fifty times it occurs in the New Testament — and the 
 church may sing praises to the end of time, but must 
 i:iever use this name! This is Psalmonism. — When the 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 185 
 
 ransomed sinner feels, that he is pardoned — that God is 
 reconciled to him through the blood of Jesus — when he 
 feels that the load of guilt which lay upon his conscience, 
 and crushed him down to the dust of wretchedness, is 
 washed away in the blood of the Lamb — how can you 
 prevent him from exclaiming, ''glory be to Jesus,'* 
 "whose blood cleanseth from all sin/' And what is the 
 difference whether he say it, or sing it ] But you cannot 
 prevent him from singing it: he will sing it in his heart: 
 yes, and he will sing it with his voice too. If you do 
 not let him sing it in the church, he will sing it on the 
 high way and in the fields : — 
 
 Jesus! Glory be to Thee ! 
 Jesus ! Thou hast set me free ! 
 Precious J esus ! Thou art mine ! 
 Jesus ! I am ever Thine. 
 "How sweet the name of Jesus sounds 
 
 In a believers ear ! 
 It sooths his sorrows, heals his wounds, 
 And drives away his fear. 
 
 Dear Name ! the rock on which I build. 
 
 My shield and hiding place ; 
 My never failing treasury, filled 
 
 With boundless stores of grace. 
 
 Jesus, my Shepherd, Husband, Friend, 
 
 My Prophet, Priest, and King ; 
 My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, 
 Accept the praise I bring.^' 
 Yes indeed, the man who feels, that he is redeemed 
 by the precious blood of Jesus will praise his name in 
 a song ! 
 
 Suppose one were to come from a far distant country, 
 where they had never heard of Christianity. And 
 every sabbath would regularly attend Dr. Pressly's 
 church — ^he finds that they worship Jesus — that Jesus is 
 16* 
 
186 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 their Saviour — that the name of Jesus is frequent in 
 their sacred books — that he is the constant theme of all 
 their sermons and all their prayers ; and yet in all their 
 songs of praise Jesus is never named ! Would he not be 
 astonished] He would ask the Doctor v^hy they had Jesus 
 in every thing, except in their songs of praise 1 And the 
 Doctor would tell him, that Jesus had forbidden them, to 
 use his name in singing; for he was their Lord and King, 
 and he had given them a book of Psalms in which his 
 name was not found — and it v/as the will of Jesus, "that 
 this should be used to the exclusion of all others,'* 
 Would this remove his astonishment 1 Jesus their God 
 and Saviour, had ordained, that his name should be used 
 in every part of his worship; but had forbidden them to 
 use it in singing his praise ! — His amazement would only 
 be increased. — Having returned to his own land he 
 would tell them there, that he was among a people who 
 worshipped one Jesus : and Jesus was their Saviour ; 
 and the name of Jesus was in their sacred books ; and 
 very frequent in their sermons and in their prayers : and 
 yet they never once mentioned the name of Jesus in all 
 their songs of praise. Would they believe the Traveller? 
 Would they not say, that he wished to astonish them 
 v/ith a marvellous story? He would tell them further, 
 that this Jesus whom the people worshipped as their 
 Saviour, had ordained, that his name might be used in 
 every part of his worship except in singing his praise. 
 And their incredulity would only be increased. To re- 
 move it he might tell them, that this Jesus at an early 
 period had given to the people a book of Psalms, and 
 the name, Jesus^ did not happen to be in it ; and after- 
 wards he appeared among them by this name, and told 
 them to use it in every part of his worship ; but as the 
 Psalm-book happened to be given too soon, or by some 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY, 
 
 187 
 
 oversight did not correspond to the new circumstances, 
 yet they must use it as it was; because he could not 
 change his mind to have it altered now. This might 
 remove their incredulity ; but would it heighten their 
 regard for this Jesus '? They would be ready to say, 
 that these must be strange people when they worship 
 one who committed such a blunder in making the ar- 
 rangements for his own worship. The account given 
 by the Traveller would confound their sense of propri- 
 ety ; and the explanation would be derogatory to the 
 name of Christianity. And this that he would learn 
 here and carry home, would indeed be, a base slander 
 upon Jesus, and the worship which he hath ordained. 
 Does it not appear most unreasonable, that in all the 
 church's songs of praise, the name of Jesus must never 
 once be heard] The church is prasinghim from her ori- 
 gin down to the end of time ; and yet his name must 
 never be heard with her, upon the voice of melody and 
 song! How perfectly absurd is such a thought! And 
 just think of it ! When the joy and blessedness of mil- 
 lennial glory shall fill the whole earth; and the songs of 
 thanksgiving and praise rise from every land — when the 
 teeming millions of China, and of the hills and vales 
 over all Asia, and Europe, and Africa, and America, 
 shall send up one universal, and long hallelujah of praise 
 from the joyful earth to the joyful heavens — then the 
 name of Jesus must be left out ! — What nonsense ! A- 
 way with such foolery from the church of God! It 
 is a disgrace to the Christian name, that it ever 
 has been mentioned ; and that it has found abettors 
 among the followers of Jesus ! But when the church 
 shall be visited with the full blaze of that millennial light, 
 and purity, and truth, such a doctrine will then be heard 
 no more at all in her. There will be no hesitation 
 
188 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 then to praise the name of Jesus in a song. All will 
 then be willing to obey the appointment of God the Fa- 
 ther, in every part of their worship : — 
 
 The honored name they'll all avow; 
 At Jesus' name the knee they'll bow. 
 The Father's name, to praise and bless, 
 They'll Jesus' sovereignty confess ! 
 
 Yes, then, and now, and till then, ever and always, 
 will the Church of Jesus Christ raise the loud songs of 
 glory, and gladness, and thanksgiving, to the exalted 
 name of Jesus. "And I beheld, and heard the voice of 
 many angels round about the throne, and the living crea- 
 tures and the elders: and the number of them was ten 
 thousand times ten thousand; and thousands of thousands 
 saying with a loud voice. Worthy is the Lamb that was 
 slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and 
 strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing. And 
 every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, 
 and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all 
 that are in them, heard I saying. Blessing, and honor, 
 and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the 
 throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever,'* — Yes, 
 Jesus, the Lamb that was slain will be praised in a song 
 by his blood-bought people as long as they have breath 
 and being. Dr. Pressly might as well think to stem the 
 ocean's tide, or stay the rolling thunder in its pathway 
 cross the heavens, as that he will prevent those redeem- 
 ed by the blood of the Lamb from praising, in their 
 songs, the precious name of Jesus, their gloriously exalted 
 Saviour and King! 
 
 Again : the book of Psalms was not designed to be 
 the Psalmody of the church; for if she is confined to their 
 exclusive use she cannot do her whole duty to her Lord 
 and Redeemer. It is the imperative duty of the church, 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 189 
 
 to confess, at all times, and in every part of her worship, 
 that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. Her own 
 safety, and her obligations to Jesus her divine Lord and 
 King demand this — **Ye are the light of the world " — 
 "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him 
 will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 
 But whosoever will deny me before men, him will I also 
 deny before my Father which is in heaven." No man, 
 nor the church of God should ever refuse to confess Je- 
 sus Christ. But by reading or singing from the book of 
 Psalms we can never confess, that Jesus is the Christ. — 
 The Jews use these Psalms while they bitterly deny it. 
 While in the regular use of these Psalms "they agreed, 
 that if any man did confess that Jesus was the Christ he 
 should be put out of the synagogue." There are many 
 prophecies in the Psalms respecting the Messiah ; but 
 none of these prophecies confess that Jesus is that Mes- 
 siah. The Old Testament Scriptures tell us every where 
 and in various ways, that the Messiah shall come. But 
 the New Testament Scriptures tell us, that he is come, 
 and point us to him, saying, This man, Jesus of Naza- 
 reth, the son of Joseph and Mary, is he of whom Moses 
 in the law, and the prophets did write. This the Jews 
 denied, and agreed to put every man out of the syna" 
 gogue who would confess that this Jesus was the Messi- 
 ah. God the Father spoke in an audible voice from hea- 
 ven to tell the people, that this Jesus was the promised 
 Messiah. John says, ''These things are written that ye 
 might believe that Jesus is the Christ, — or Messiah — the 
 Son of God." Peter says, "Therefore let all the house 
 of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same 
 Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." 
 The grand object of all this testimony, which is so abun- 
 dant in the New Testament, is to bring the people to 
 
190 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 believe and confess, that Jesus of Nazareth, the son of 
 Joseph and Mary, is the Messiah promised in the Old 
 Testament Scriptures. And this is the imperative duty 
 of the church, and in every part of her worship, to con- 
 fess, that Jesus is the Messiah ; and to praise Jesus as that 
 Messiah — to praise Jesus as the Redeemer promised to 
 the church in the book of Psalms. Dr. Pressly indeed 
 views this matter in a very different light. And his rep- 
 resentation, I consider a rare specimen of superlative 
 nonsense, and very erroneous interpretation. For he 
 represents the Old Testament church as praising God, 
 not for a 'promised Kedeemer; but for a Redeemer who 
 had already come : and men as trusting in Jesus before 
 they had ever heard of Jesus. P. 94. He says to Dr. 
 Ralston, *'But is it true, that the Psalms present the Sa- 
 viour to the view of our faith, as one who was yet to 
 come? Is it really so, my venerable Father, permit me 
 respectfully to ask, — is it the truth, that in the Psalms 
 given to the church under the Old Testament, she prai- 
 sed God for a promised Redeemer, who had not yet 
 come]" Very soothingly he says, '^my venerable Fath- 
 er;'' but impliedly he says, My venerable Father, per- 
 mit me respectfully to say, that you are a ; for it 
 
 is not the truth, that the church praised God for a Re* 
 deemer who had not yet come. Well my — not vener- 
 able — but, my dear Doctor ! "it is really so." It is the 
 truth, that the church under the Old Testament praised 
 God for a promised Redeemer who had not yet come. 
 Doctor, had He come? "No." Did the church praise 
 God for him] "Yes." Well then, she praised God for 
 a Redeemer who had not yet come. Doctor, is it true- 
 that their Psalms represented to them, that the Redee- 
 mer had come? "Yes." Well then, their Psalms taught 
 them a positive falsehood ; for he had not come, Doc- 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 191 
 
 tor, do you not know, that prophetical language always 
 speaks of something future, no matter what tense the 
 verbs may be in, whether it speaks of something that 
 has occurred, is occurring, or will occur] If it did not 
 speak of something future, it would not be prophetical 
 language; but historical. When the church under the 
 Old Testament sung these words : "The assembly of the 
 wicked have enclosed me ; they pierced my hands and 
 feet;'' they never imagined that this had occurred to the 
 Messiah. Applying it to the Redeemer, they knew it 
 told them of something, that would take place at some 
 future time. Doctor, did you think, that they thought it 
 had taken place already? Do you not know that all 
 such language awakened in the people an expectation of 
 something to come ; and led them to look forward to 
 the fulfilment of the promise implied in the prophecy] 
 Doctor, did you not know this] and you a Professor of 
 Theology! and an expounder of the Bible! And if you 
 did know it, why do you represent it otherwise] Why 
 do you represent the Old Testament church as praising 
 God, not for a promised Redeemer; but for a Redeemer 
 who had already come] Doctor, does the cause you 
 plead, need such arguments; or is it only your way of 
 defending it] And then look at the bottom of p. 95, 
 you say, **Ever since the first promise of a Savior was 
 given to our lost world Jesus Christ has been the only 
 hope of sinful man. By faith in him, as exhibited to 
 tiiem upon the infallible testimony of God, believers were 
 saved under the Old Testament ;" — Yes Doctor, but Je- 
 sus Christ was never exhibited until he was born at 
 Bethlehem ; and how could men have faith in him before 
 they had heard of him] They had faith in a promised 
 Messiah ; but, before they could have faith in Jesus they 
 must learn that J esus is that Messiah ; and this they could 
 
192 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 never learn until Jesus came. And my dear Doctor! 
 will you allow me respectfully to tell you, that no man 
 ever believed in Jesus before he was born. And even 
 then none believed in him until they had sufficient evi- 
 dence, that he was the Messiah, the promised Saviour, 
 The Shepherds believed it, because the angel told them 
 it was so. The devout Simeon believed in Jesus; but 
 not until it was revealed to him by the Holy Ghost, that 
 the child Jesus was that promised Messiah in whom he 
 had been trusting all his life. He had saving faith ; and 
 was justified on account of his faith in a promised Re- 
 deemer, long before he believed in Jesus as that Redee- 
 mer: for he never believed in Jesus, until Jesus came. 
 And you see Doctor, it is not true, That ever since the 
 first promise of a Saviour, Jesus Christ was the only 
 hope of sinful man. Because he was not the hope of any 
 man until he came into the world, and was made known 
 to men as that Redeemer who was promised. And all 
 that is written in the New Testament; and all the mir- 
 acles wrought by the Saviour, and by his Apostles ; and 
 all the miraculous events connected with his birth, life, 
 death, resurrection, and ascension, were designed to 
 convince men, that this Jesus was the Redeemer; and 
 to persuade them to put their trust in him. And if men 
 always trusted in Jesus before he came, what was the 
 use of all this, to lead them to do what they were doing 
 already] Why my dear Doctor! your representation is 
 most exquisite foolery; and if you were to try your skill 
 again, I do not think you could beat this : Where you 
 represent the Old Testament church as praising Grod, not 
 for a promised Redeemer ; but for a Redeemer already 
 come! — and where you teach, that the Psalms do not 
 speak of a promised Redeemer; but of a Redeemer al- 
 ready come! — and where you teach, that men trusted in 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 193 
 
 Jesus before he was manifested, and before they ever 
 heard any thing about Jesus! It must be a poor cause? 
 Doctor, that requires such reasoning. 
 
 We say then, if the church be confined to the book 
 of Psalms, she can never in her songs of praise, con- 
 fess, that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. She may 
 do it in the other parts of her w^orship; but she can nev- 
 er do it in her Psalmody. And they that deliberately 
 adopt this Psalmody, are in this part of their worship 
 refusing to discharge a duty which their divine Lord 
 and Master has enjoined upon them. The Apostle 
 John says, *'Many deceivers are entered into the world, 
 who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. 
 This is a deceiver and an antichrist.'' It is not merely 
 those who deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, 
 that the Apostle reproves here; but those who do not 
 confess this truth. Their sin, is a sin of omission. And 
 Psalmonites are chargeable with this sin of omission, in. 
 one part of their worship; for in singing praise they al- 
 ways refuse to confess, that Jesus Christ is come in the 
 flesh. And the Jews, who deny this truth can sing 
 with them — can use the same language they use — and 
 confess all that they confess, in any of their songs of 
 praise. We do not say, that Psalmonites, in this part 
 of their worship, deny, that Jesus Christ is come in the 
 flesh: we only say they do not confess it: and it is 
 their duty to confess it in this part of their worship as 
 well as in any other. Neither do we say, that they are 
 the deceivers mentioned by the Apostle; but ouly, that 
 in this part of their worship, on this point, they act like 
 these deceivers: they conform to them in refusing to 
 make this confession, whatever their thoughts and feel- 
 ings may be. And it is not enough, for Christians to 
 feel and believe that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh; 
 17 
 
194 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 they should be willing to confess it with their voice in 
 every pai't of the worship of Jesus Christ. While they 
 confess it in their sermons and their prayers; they 
 ought to confess it in their praises too. But Psalmonites 
 can never do it, for this truth is not contained in the 
 book of Psalms. ^'Hereby know ye the Spirit of God. 
 Every spirit that confesseth, that Jesus Chiist is come 
 in the fiesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth 
 not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God; 
 and this is that sjnrit of antichrist whereof ye have heard 
 that it should come; and even now already is it in the 
 world." AVe see, that the Apostle makes this confes- 
 sion a very solemn and important matter. It is the 
 criterion by which to distinguish between the Spirit of 
 God, and the spirit of antichrist. It is surely very im- 
 portant, then, to show in every part of our worship, that 
 w^e are influenced by the Spirit of God, and not by the 
 spirit of antichrist. But the Psalmonite cannot do it; 
 for the Jew can sing with him, while he is influenced by 
 the spirit of antichrist: and none could tell from their 
 practice, whether they are not both influenced by the 
 same spirit. If the Psalmonite shows, that he is not 
 influenced by the spirit of antichrist, he must do it in 
 some other way than by singing his Psalms. And when 
 the Psalmonite is influenced by the Spirit of God, why 
 does he not show it in his Psalmody, by confessing in 
 his songs of praise, that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh? 
 In his spirit he confesses it; but in his w^ords he does not 
 confess it: thus his language does not express the feel- 
 ings of his heart. Now, his Redeemer never required 
 him to have this discrepancy between his feelings and 
 his language. Whatever truth he believes in his heart, 
 he may confess with his voice, and in praising God as 
 well as at any other time. Every truth proper to be be- 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 195 
 
 lieved, in praising God, is proper to be expressed in 
 praising God. But Psalmonites, in praising God, 
 refuse to express this very important truth; and never 
 once acknowledge that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. 
 In their songs of praise they can never copy after the 
 example of their blessrd Redeemer, v^hen brought be- 
 fore the judgment seat — "Again the high priest asked 
 him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ the son of the 
 Blessed] And Jesus said, I am." In all their songs 
 of praise, from Sabbath to Sabbath, and from year to 
 year, they can never make this confession of their divine 
 Mast.er — that Jesus is the Christ, the «on of the Blessed. 
 And what kind of a system is it, which teaches them, 
 that in one part of their worship, they must never 
 make the same confession respecting Jesus which lie 
 made himself? And how can they believe, that such a 
 system has its foundation in the word of God? And 
 how can they believe, that Jesus Christ has appointed 
 for them a Psalmody which prevents them, from ever 
 using his own narne, in any of their songs of praise? — 
 and which prevents them from confessing in their songs, 
 that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh — and which pre- 
 vents them fiom following the example of their Re- 
 deemer in one part of their worship; so that they can 
 never confess that Jesus is the Christ the son of the 
 Blessed. It is manifest, they never learned to believe 
 such things, from the teachings of the word of God. 
 And how can they believe, that in singing the praise of 
 God, their tongues should never confess that Jesus Christ 
 is Lord to the glory of God the Father? And how can 
 they believe, that they are in the discharge of their duty> 
 when in one part of the worship of God, they refuse to 
 do this? Do they think, when they get to heaven, they 
 will refuse to acknowledge, in their songs of praise, that 
 
196 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 Jesus Christ is Lard, to the glory of God the Father! 
 And if they will acknowledge it in their songs in heaven, 
 why may they not acknowledge it in their songs on 
 earth] If it is sung with divine acceptance in heaven, it 
 may be sung with divine acceptance upon earth. And 
 the Bible says, that every tongue shall confess it, both in 
 heaven and upon earth; and ought not the church of 
 God to confess it in her songs of praise] And how can 
 any hold themselves blameless, while they refuse to do 
 this] The word of God commands us, to "Give unto the 
 Lord the glory due unto his name;" and God has told us 
 what will be for the glory of his name — He says, for 
 every tongue to confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, will 
 be for the glory of God the Father. Now, if in our 
 songs of praise, we refuse to make this confession, we 
 refuse to give unto God the glory due unto his name; and 
 we cannot be blameless. When God has made known 
 to us the way in which we should glorify him, if we re- 
 fuse to adopt that way we cannot be guiltless. It is set- 
 ting at naught the authority of God; and assuming that 
 our wisdom is superior to his; and that we know better 
 how the Lord ought to be glorified than he does himself! 
 And Psalmonites are by no means innocent in this 
 matter, because they refuse to glorify God in the manner 
 which he has prescribed. He tells them, that they are 
 to glorify him, in their songs of praiso, by confessing 
 that Jesus Christ is Lord; but this they refuse to do. 
 And hence they refuse the way appointed by infinite 
 Wisdom; and regulate their conduct, in this matter, by 
 their own notions, and prejudices, and groundless as- 
 sumptions. But their notions, and assumptions do not 
 render them innocent while they are refusing to obey the 
 authority of Heaven. And there is positively nothing- 
 plainer, than that they cannot do their duty in this part 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 of the worship of God, while they use nothing but the 
 book of Psalms. Their character, as christians, requires 
 them to have in their Psalmody a great quantity of di- 
 vine truth, which is not contained in the book of Psalms; 
 and while they use nothing but this, they must be defi- 
 cient in their duty. Many other considerations might 
 be presented, all proving that the Church, in order to the 
 discharge of her duty, must use other songs of praise, be- 
 sides those contained in the book of Psalms: and that her 
 divine Lord and King never made such arrangements 
 for his own church, as would render it impossible for 
 her, to do her duty towards himself. And as he has not 
 given by inspiration those songs of praise, which he re- 
 quires her to use, it follows, that he requires her to pre- 
 pare them for herself: and hence they must be prepared 
 by uninspired men. Unless the church uses songs of 
 this kind she cannot do her duty. Her divine Re- 
 deemer enjoins it upon her to employ such songs of 
 praise in his worship. And all the considerations pre- 
 sented, prove it to.be the will of God, that his church 
 should employ, in his worship, songs of praise composed 
 by uninspired men. 
 
 I?* 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Same authority for using our own language in Praise as 
 IN Prayer — History of Psalmody. 
 
 It is almost a universal sentiment, that when the heart 
 is filled with reverence, love and gratitude to God, we 
 may give expression to our feelings in such language 
 as we may be able to command: that we may pour forth 
 our adoration and thanksgiving to the Author of our 
 mercies, in the use of our own words, without waiting 
 to recite the words of Scripture. It is granted, that the 
 people of God may use their own language in praying 
 to Him; and that in their prayers they are to praise Him. 
 And if it is proper for them to sai/ his praises in their 
 own language, why may they not also sing his praises 
 in their own language] If a man may praise God in his 
 ownw^ords without music, why may he not praise him 
 in his own words with music] Do not both Scripture 
 and reason teach us, that the language suitable for pray- 
 er, is also suitable for praise] and suitable to be used 
 in singing praise] It is very difficult to show, that while 
 we may use our own language in prayer, it is improper 
 to use it in praise. Dr. Pressly has tried it; but it is an 
 entire failure. Commencing on p. 119, he says, "This 
 reasoning is plausible, and is well adapted to influence 
 minds, whose views of propriety are regulated rather 
 by considerations of humnn prudence, than by the au- 
 thority of God, * * But we have already had occasion 
 to remind the reader, that in matters connected with the 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 199 
 
 worship of God, the decisions of human wisdom are often 
 found to be at variance with the divine apointment.'* 
 True, but where is there any divine appointment autho- 
 rizing us to use our own language in prayer, and forbid- 
 ding us to use it in praise] Just nowhere. And the 
 Doctor knows this; for if there had been any divine ap- 
 pointment to this effect he would have pointed u^ to it; but 
 this he has not done. His language, indeed, shows, that 
 he assumes there is such an appointment; but, then, his 
 assumption is not worth a fig; for he assujnes and asserts 
 a great deal which still need to be proved. But though 
 he cannot bring ariy divine appointment of this nature, 
 yet he tries to manufacture one which he thinks will 
 answer his purpose.— "However plausible this argument 
 may appear at first view a little examination will satisfy 
 the honest enquirer after truth, that it is entirely falla- 
 cious, the things which are comparetl are dissimilar, and 
 consequently the reasoning is inconclusive ^ let 
 us notice a little more in detail some particulars in which 
 they differ." 
 
 *'In prayer we come to God to ask for those things 
 which we need; but in praise we ascribe to him the 
 glory which is due unto his name/' — Here he leaches, 
 that in prayer we are not to ascribe to God the glory 
 which is due unto his name! And I would ask every candid 
 christian if this is not contrary to the teachings of the 
 whole word of God] In prayer we are not to give unto 
 God the glory due unto his name! Is it possible, that a 
 man with the Bible before him, sittino: in a theolotrical 
 chair, can believe this doctrine] And this, he says, is one 
 point wherein prayer and praise differ, that in praise we 
 are to give unto God the glory due unto his name; but 
 in prayer we are not! Yet every one knows, "that in 
 our prayers we are to praise God;'' and if we are not to 
 
200 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 give unto him the glory due unto his name, what kind of 
 glory are we to give? The theological Professor will 
 Burely be able to define it. And the next edition of 
 his curious work that comes forth, I hope, will enlighten 
 us on this subject. This is a part of his divine appoint- 
 ment, which forbids us to use our own language in prai- 
 sing God. — "As our situation and circumstances are ever 
 varying, our wants are very different at one time from 
 what they are at another. Our petitions must conse- 
 quently be framed in accordance with our wants. But 
 God is unchangeable and his praise is always the same. 
 That glory which is proper to be ascribed to his name 
 at one time^ will always be proper."— Here he flatly 
 contradicts what he taught above. He taught there, that 
 the glory given in praise, Is not to be given in prayer; 
 but now he says, the glory given at one time is always 
 proper: hence it is proper in prayer as well as in praise. 
 And he is right here though he does contradict himself: 
 because the glory ascribed to God in praise, is suitable 
 to be ascribed to him in prayer. And this shows, that 
 there is not the difference between these two ordinances 
 which the Doctor alleged; and that therefore if we may 
 use our own language in the one, so may we in the other . 
 The Doctor's reasoning in this paragraph involves aprin- 
 ciple, which is at war with the plainest teachings of the 
 word of God, and at war with the grateful feelings of 
 every believer. It is, that God is to be praised for what 
 he is in himself; but not to be praised on account of what 
 he does unto us. Were he to admit this, it would be 
 admitting that our praises as well as our prayers, ought 
 to be adapted, in some measure, to our circumstances. 
 Hence he teaches, that in our praises we are^to disregard 
 the Lord's dealings with ourselves, and with the church? 
 and praise him only for what he is in himself. And there 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 201 
 
 is nothing in plainer contradiction to the word of God 
 than this. No less than four times in a single psalm do 
 we find the following: "Oh that men would praise the 
 Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to 
 the children of men." And such is the language of every 
 heart grateful for the Lord^s mercies. — "What shall I 
 render to the Lord, for all his kindness shown" — "Bless 
 the Lord O my soul and forget not all his benefits'* — "I 
 will sing of mercy and judgment; unto thee O Lord will 
 I sing." What a miserable system it must be, when for 
 its support, the plain teachings of God^s word must 
 be gainsaid! And, indeed, I am satisfied, that ta- 
 king the Doctor's whole work on Psalmody, there are 
 principles involved in it, which would require the suppres- 
 sion of about one half of the system of revealed truth. 
 Readers in general do not observe it, because they dc' 
 not examine into the principles implied in his argument?. 
 And his arguments too, have the geniblance of truth, 
 while error and sophistry, both lie under the deceitful 
 covering. But if all augmentation of this description 
 were taken out of his work, there would be but a very 
 small portion remaining. And what would remain, would 
 deceive nobody; but the Doctor's cause would then have 
 a very slim support. 
 
 His 2nd and 3d positions to prove, that though we use 
 our own language in prayer, yet we may not use it in 
 praise is, — "That since in singing God's praise a written 
 form is necessary, there is provided for the church, in 
 the word of God a book of Psalms while there is no 
 book of prayers. This is a fact which deserves special 
 attention." — And it is a fact too, that God has provided, 
 for his church a book of Job, and a book of Proverbs, 
 and a book of Isaiah; but do these facts prove, that any 
 one of these books was given to the church to constitute 
 
202 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 her Psalmody'? Here again, the Doctor has to assume 
 the very thing about which the controversy exists. He 
 assumes y that God has provided for his church her system 
 of psalmody, but has not provided her system of prayer: 
 and thus proves, that He does not allow her to use her 
 own language in praise though she may use it in prayer. 
 This is his unwarranted assumption on which he has al- 
 ways to rest for support. And the very thing he ought 
 to prove; because the very thing we pointedly deny. 
 We know, that God has given to his church a book of 
 Psalms; but we deny, that it was given for the purpose 
 of constituting her Psalmody. And that it was not has 
 been proved from the plain declarations of the word of 
 God; and from the insufficiency of the Psalms to meet 
 the wants of the Christian church, in her songs of praise- 
 And we maintain, that there is no more provision made 
 for the Psalmody of the church, than there is for the 
 prayers of the church. Every one, at all familiar with 
 the book of Psalms, knows, that it is emphatically a book 
 of prayers. It is so much so, that if the Doctor's notion 
 is correct which makes such a difference between praise 
 and prayer, that the language suitable for the one is not 
 suitable for the other, then, there would be a large por- 
 tion of the book of Psalms altogether unsuitable for 
 praise; because a large portion of it is the language of 
 prayer. And it is entirely by the aid of this groundless 
 assumption that the Doctor endeavors to ward off the 
 force of the argument, which we draw from our practice 
 in prayer. Hear him again: — ''men may say, that as we 
 may use our own language in prayer so may we in praie; 
 but the fact that God has himself provided for us a book 
 of Psalms, while he has given us no book of Prayers, 
 rebukes the unwarranted assertion." — And often he re- 
 peats it, that God has given the book of Psalms to con- 
 
MORTON OiN PSALMODY. 
 
 203 
 
 stitute the Psalmody of the church, while he offers not a 
 particle of proof. This unfounded figment, hatched in a 
 Psalmonistic nest, is pushed forward on every occasion, 
 to sanction his absurdities; and to set aside the teachings 
 of both Scripture and reason. For both Scripture and 
 reason teach, that it is the duty of the Christian church 
 to use songs of praise containing matter which is not 
 found in the book of Psalms. Just as the prayers of the 
 church ought to embody the peculiar revelations of the 
 New Testament, and correspond to her character, so 
 ought also her songs of praise. Her prayers and praises 
 ought to harmonize; but if her praises are taken only from 
 the book of Psalms this is impossible. But in order 
 that it may be possible, God has made the same provi- 
 sion for his church in relation to both these ordinances^ 
 She has the book of Psalms to aid her in botii. She has 
 the whole word of God contained in the Scriptures of 
 the Old and New Testament, to aid her in both. And 
 nowhere is there any intimation, that provision has been 
 made for the one, which has not been made for the other. 
 The church might just as well be confined to the prayers 
 of inspiration as the praises of inspiration. The pray, 
 ers contained in the Bible would form a system of prayer 
 as well adapted to the w^ants of the church, as the songs 
 contained there, would be adapted to her wants, as a 
 system of praise. 
 
 The Doctor's 4th position is based upon the same fig- 
 ment. He says, ^' And why, with reverence I would ask 
 did not the great Prophet of the church furnish in the 
 New Testament a book of sacred hymns, or direct some 
 one of the Apostles to perform this service] The only 
 rational answer, which can be given to this inquiry, 
 is, that he did not consider it necessary. He had alrea- 
 dy raised up a sweet Psalmist of Israel, whom he had 
 
204 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 qualified for the work, and by whom he had provided 
 for his church, such a collection of psalms and hymns 
 and songs, as to his infinite wisdom and goodness 
 seemed proper.'' — This is precisely the same tale over 
 again, that the book of Psalms was given to be the Psal- 
 mody of the Christian Churchj therefore, there is no 
 book of Psalms in the New Testament. But is this 
 notion either Scriptural or rational: That, hundreds of 
 years before the existence of the Christian Church, a 
 sweet Psalmist of Israel was raised up to prepare for her 
 a system of Psalmody; and then at her organization Apos- 
 tles and Evangelists had to be raised up to prepare for her 
 every thing else essential to her existence and character] 
 If the Psalmody of the Christian church was prepared 
 under the Jewish dispensation, why might not every 
 thing else appertaining to her have been prepared at 
 the same time] It may be replied, that her existence and 
 peculiar character depend upon the advent of the Mes- 
 siah; so that nothing, which is peculiar to her as a Chris- 
 tian church, could be provided before the coming of 
 Christ. Every thing that enters into the constitution of 
 her character as a Christian church, is based upon the 
 fact, that Christ has come. Therefore all that enters in- 
 to the formation of her character, must be provided after 
 the coming of Christ. 
 
 Well then, does the Psalmody of the Christian church 
 constitute no part of her character] Most assuredly it 
 does; and a very important part. And hence, her Psalm- 
 ody being one part of her peculiar character, it was im- 
 possible for it to be provided before the coming of 
 Christ; because all that enters into the formation of her 
 chai'acter results from that event. "A sweet Psalmist of 
 Israel," then, could not prepare anything, which consti- 
 tutes a part of the character of the Christian church; be- 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 205 
 
 cause every part of her character has its complection 
 from the fact, that christ has come. The entire charac- 
 ter of the Christain church is founded in the New Tes- 
 tament Scriptures; and every part of her character has 
 its foundation there: and her Psalmody, constituting a 
 part of her character, must have its foundation there: 
 and if not, then it forms no part of her character. But 
 none would say this. Inasmuch, then, as this portion of 
 her character has its foundation in the New Testament 
 Scriptures, it could not be prepared before these were 
 written: htnce, it could not be prepared by a "sweet 
 Psalmist of Israel." Indeed, the idea, that the Psalmody 
 of the Christian church was finished by a "sweet Psalm- 
 ist of Israel," while nothing else appertaining to her, 
 was finished without the labors of Christ and his Apos- 
 tles, is to say the least, entirely unreasonable: and it is 
 unscriptural: and it it is positively impossible; if her 
 Psalmody is what it ought to be. Because it ought to 
 embody the revelations of the New Testament Scrip- 
 tures; else it is not adapted to the character of the New 
 Testament church. But it was impossible for a "sweet 
 Psalmist of Israel" to prepare a Psalmody of this kind. 
 But why did "the great Prophet of the church" not 
 think it necessary to furnish a book of Psalms in the 
 New Testament] The rational and scriptural answer 
 to this, is not, that he had furnished one already; but, 
 that he qualifies his church with all needful gifts and 
 graces, and by his word and providence furnishes her 
 with all suitable matter for the performance of her own 
 work, which is to prepare her own songs of praise. This 
 is, and always has been, the province of the church; and 
 the great Prophet of the church qualifies her for it; just 
 as he qualifies her for the other various duties, which he 
 has assigned to her. As ic is her proper work to pre- 
 18 
 
206 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 pare her own prayers, so it is her work to prepare 
 her own songs of praise. The whole history, circum- 
 stances and character of the Christian church prove this 
 to be the case. As there are not, in the word of God, 
 all such prayers as her condition requires, so neither are 
 there songs of praise. In respect to both, the same pro- 
 vision has been made by her divine Head; and the work 
 of appropriate preparation devolves upon herself. Every 
 consideration which proves it requisite for the church to 
 prepare her own prayers, proves it also requisite for her 
 to prepare her own songs of praise. It is true indeed 
 some churches have attempted to confine themselves to 
 the songs of Scripture; but they might just as well have 
 confined themselves to the prayers of Scripture. The 
 prayers of Scripture would suit the condition and cha- 
 racter of the Christian church, just as well as the Scrip- 
 ture songs of praise. 
 
 His fifth position is founded upon the same unwarran- 
 ted assumption combined with another view, which is 
 entirely fallacious. — "That as provision has been made 
 in the case of praise, which has not been made with re- 
 gard to prayer, so there is a promise of divine help in 
 the performance of the duty of prayer, which is not 
 given in relation to praise, It is graciously promised by 
 Him who is the hearer of prayer,—-*'! will pour upon 
 the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusa- 
 lem, the Spirit of grace and supplications." * ^ * **But 
 there is no promise in all the New Testament, of the aid 
 of the Holy spirit as the spirit of Psalmody to aid us in 
 preparing our songs of jDraise." — Now this reasoning is 
 very fallacious, and very unscriptural. Because, what 
 he says has not been promised, has been promised in re- 
 ality and in truth, though not in the same words which 
 he uses. Every promise of grace throughout the Bible, 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 207 
 
 to aid the churcli in the performance of her duty, is to 
 her a promise of help in preparing her songs of praise. 
 And a promise of the spirit, as the Spirit of Psalmody, 
 is entirely unnecessary; not because her Psalms were 
 already prepared; but, because it is implied, in the pro- 
 mise of the Spirit, as the spirit of prayer. Every pro- 
 mise of assistance in prayer, is a promise of assistance 
 in praise. And the God of infinite wisdom does not do 
 what is uncalled for. When He gives a promise of as- 
 sistance m prayer, that is enough; because it covers the 
 whole ground of praise; and another promise in relation 
 to praise would have been altogether useless. When a 
 man is qualified by grace for the exercise of prayer, then 
 he is qualified by grace for the exercise of praise. If by 
 the aid of the Spirit he composes a prayer, then by that 
 aid he has composed a song of praise: it may not be in 
 verse; but the prayer has in it the true elements of praise. 
 Every prayer, in all its parts, consists of praise to God: 
 even the confession of sin, and pleading for pardon, is as- 
 cribing glory to God. And every prayer may be turned in- 
 to a song of praise. The prayer that is appropriate in the 
 public congregation, may be used as a song of praise in 
 the public congregation; the prayer appropriate in the 
 family, may be used as a song of praise in the family: and 
 the prayer appropriate in the closet, may be used as a 
 song of praise in the closet. The subject-matter of all 
 prayers, is suitable for songs of praise. And every man 
 having the slightest acquaintance with the Bible knows 
 this: that what is suitable for prayer is also suitable for 
 songs of praise. Why the greater part of all the songs of 
 praise in the Bible consists of prayer. And a more falla- 
 cious and unscriptural notion could scarcely be invented 
 than this — That there is a promise of aid in the exercise 
 of prayer; but no promise of aid in preparing our songs 
 
208 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 of praise; because all the promises relating to the one, 
 are promises likewise relating to the other; inasmuch 
 as every prayer is virtually a song of praise. 
 
 The sum and the substance of the Doctor's arguments 
 on this point, are contained in these closing remarks : — 
 " But still it remains true, that prayer and praise are 
 not only two different ordinances, but that God regards 
 them as different; and has made provision to aid us in 
 the performance of the duty of praise, which he has not 
 furnished for our assistance in prayer. And consequent- 
 ly, to say, that since it is proper in prayer to use our 
 own language, therefore it is right to do the same in 
 singing God's praise, is to reason after the manner of 
 men, but not in accordance with the wisdom of God.'* 
 We readily admit, that prayer and praise are different 
 ordinances; and that God regards them as different; 
 yet it does not follow, that the same language may not 
 be employed in both. Praying is different from singing; 
 but the prayer and the song of praise may be one and 
 the same thing. The very same composition used in 
 prayer may be used in singing ; and hence, the very 
 same language which is suitable for prayer, is also suita- 
 ble for a song of praise. Take for example the 102nd 
 Psalm ; it is called " A Prayer of the Afflicted." And 
 who would say that it is not suitable to be used in prayer ] 
 and who would say that it is not suitable to be used in 
 singing praise ] And thus we see clearly, that though 
 prayer and praise are different ordinances, and though 
 God regards them as different, yet the very same lan- 
 guage is suitable for both ; and hence, our own language 
 being suitable for prayer, it is also suitable for praise. 
 Why if the Doctor's position were correct, that the 
 language of prayer is not suitable for praise, there would 
 be but a small portion of the book of Psalms suitable 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 209 
 
 for the "specific end" for which he says it was given; 
 because the book of Psalms is in a great measure a book 
 of prayers. The first seventy-two are called prayers, in 
 the 20th verse of the 72nd : — " The prayers of David, 
 the son of Jesse, are ended." This text, of course, will 
 have no authority with Dr. Pressly, for he says he sings 
 the inspired Psalms, and this verse is not in his Psalms . 
 then, according to his own principle, he cannot esteem 
 it as any part of the word of God. But it will have 
 authority with those who do not take this apocryphal 
 book of the Psalmonites as their rule of faith. For 
 though the text is no part of the inspired Psalms of the 
 Psalmonites, yet it is a part of the inspired Psalms con- 
 tained in the Bible. And it calls the previous part of 
 the book of Psalms " The Prayers of David." And the 
 92nd Psalm is called A prayer of Moses, the man of 
 God." Now, if the language of prayer is not suitable 
 for praise, then the Doctor ought never to sing the 92nd 
 Psalm, nor the 102nd, nor the 17th, etc. And we have 
 upon record A Prayer of Habakkuk the Prophet;" 
 and, " To the chief singers on my stringed instruments," 
 he gives it to be sung. And where in all the world did 
 Dr. Pressly get his notion that the language of prayer 
 is not suitable for a song of praise % Perhaps he got it 
 in his Psalmonistic Apocrypha; but certain it is, he did 
 not get it in the Bible. And then, too, if the same lan- 
 guage was not suitable for prayer and praise, we could 
 use the Lord's Prayer for neither, because it consists of 
 both. And it being a model of prayer, it teaches us 
 that all our prayers are to consist of both ; proving to a 
 demonstration that the same language is suitable for 
 both. Perhaps the Doctor would allege that he never 
 said the same language was not suitable for both. But 
 if he has not said it his whole labor is to prove it. For 
 IS* 
 
210 
 
 MORTON ON PSALxMODY. 
 
 he labors to prove '*that it is by no means a legitimate 
 conclusion, that as we may use our language in prayer 
 80 may we in praise admitting that our own language 
 is suitable for prayer, but maintaining that it is not suita- 
 ble for praise. And then in five distinct positions he 
 labors to prove that prayer and praise are so different 
 in their nature, that the language suitable for the one is 
 by no means suitable for the other. But we think 
 enough has been said to show that his view is entirely 
 indefensible ; not only without support, but directly con- 
 trary to the plain instructions of the word of God. His 
 oft repeated assertion *'that God has made provision to 
 aid us in the performance of the duty of praise, which 
 he has not furnished for our assistance in prayer,'' even 
 if it were true, would not prove that for which he de- 
 signs it : because God may have made provision for 
 praise which is not made for prayer, and yet it may be 
 proper for us to use our own language in praise as well 
 as in prayer. More provision being made for the one 
 than for the other, proves just nothing as to what lan- 
 guage is to be used in either. There may be in the 
 Bible more of the language of praise than there is of 
 prayer, while at the same time our own language is to 
 be used alike in both. But it is exceedingly doubtful 
 whether there is more of the language of praise than 
 there is of prayer, in the word of God. And tor myself 
 I do not believe that there is. Prayer does not consist 
 merely of confession and petition ; but consists of every 
 thing found in any song of praise. Look for example 
 at the 90th Psalm; which is called A Prayer/' and the 
 17th Psalm, and the *' Prayer of Habakkuk." We see 
 in these what the Bible calls prayer ; and we see that 
 the whole book of Psalms is full of the very same kind 
 of matter and language. So that we have an entire 
 
MORTON ON PSALMaDY. 
 
 211 
 
 book of Prayers contained in the word of God, just as 
 well as an entire book of Psalms. And there is in reali- 
 ty no more provision made for us in the one case than 
 there is in the other. Indeed, the prayers and the 
 praises of the Church have always been considered as 
 one and the same thing. In early times, when men be- 
 gan to call upon the name of the Lord, their prayers 
 and their praises were the same. When they sung, it 
 was merely chaunting their prayers. And when singing 
 praise came to be a stated part of public worship, it was 
 still the language of prayer accompanied with song and 
 mui:ic of instruments. And so it was among the primi- 
 tive Christians, their prayers and songs of praise were 
 classed together as devotional compositions without any 
 difference. This is stated distinctly by Coleman in his 
 Ch. Ant. "It is worthy of remark, that the earliest 
 christian fathers make no mention of Psalms and Hymns 
 as a part of religious worship. These were classed with 
 the prayers and thanksgivings of the Church. Origen 
 is the first author who distinctly mentions them. ' We/ 
 says he, *sing Hymns to God, who is our all, and to his 
 only begotten [Son] tie word of God.' Eusebius also 
 says *that the Psalms and Hymns of the brethren, writ- 
 ten at the beginning by the faithful, do set forth the 
 praises of Christ, the word of God, and attribute divini- 
 ty to him.' There is abundant evidence that they had 
 Psalms and Hymns in the primitive Church, even from 
 the beginning; and yet Origen, a writer of the third 
 century, is the first who distinctly mentions them, be- 
 cause they were esteemed and spoken of by the early 
 Christians as identical with their prayers and thanksgiv- 
 ings: all proving that prayer and praise are virtually 
 the same; and that they have always been considered in 
 the Church as being essentially of the same nature. — 
 
212 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 And most obviously the Doctor's whole reasoning on this 
 point, is founded in fallacy, and sustained by sophistry, 
 and confirmed with views directly contrary to the word 
 of God. The truth against which he was contending, 
 is so perfectly manifest, that all this was necessary, in 
 order to have the appearance of combatting it with suc- 
 cess. It is so clearly taught in scripture, and so plain a dic- 
 tate of reason, that we may use our own language in 
 praise as well as in prayer, there must be recourse to 
 all these sources of help in order to the obscuration of a 
 truth so manifest. Just in pr<)portion to the greater 
 plainness of any truth, does it require the greater art, 
 and sophistry, and management to dispose of it, and to 
 neutralize its convincing power upon the mind. It is 
 hoped, however, that what has been said will be sufficient, 
 in a measure, to remove the sophistical covering, so that 
 the honest inquirer after truth may be able again to see 
 it, in its own native loveliness and worth. 
 
 The Doctor has a chapter devoted to the history of 
 Psalmody. And viewing it in the light of history, it is 
 truly a curiosity. He professes to give the history of 
 Psalmody in the church down to the fifth century. But 
 the fact of the matter is plainly this, that instead of his- 
 tory, it is only a misrepresentation of history. He at- 
 tempts to make history say what it does not say; and 
 not only, what it does not say; but the very opposite of 
 what it does say. Because he endeavors to make the 
 impression, that history affords no evidence of the church 
 using any thing for songs of praise, but the book of 
 Psalms. He culls out such portions of history as appear 
 to speak favorably, or as he thinks he can make bend to 
 his own purpose, and these he gives as the voice of his- 
 tory on this subject. But cautiously conceals all the 
 portions of history that contradict his own views, or 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 213 
 
 which he apprehended could not be made to speak in his 
 favor. We do not say that his items of history are in- 
 correct; but these items he gives as the history of Psal- 
 mody, to the fifth century, while in reality they are not. 
 His items may all be true; but these items do not give 
 the voice of history on this subject. They are only a 
 part of what history says, and to them must be added the 
 other part before we can have true history in relation to 
 this matter. But had he taken both parts, it would have 
 defeated the end he had in view, in appealing to history; 
 for it would have proved, that the church was never con- 
 fined to the book of Psalms, in the worship of God, but 
 used also the compositions of uninspired men. This 
 however he did not want, and hence he is compelled to 
 give some items uf history as the voice of history on this 
 subject. And when a man does this, can he be relied 
 upon as a faithful historian? A historian professing to 
 give a narrative of the battles of the revolutionary war, 
 and culling out all those in which the British were 
 successful, and leavino^the others unnoticed, would most 
 assuredly not be considered faithful. Were a farmer to 
 bestow special cultivation on three acres of his farm, and 
 these would yield sixty bushels of wheat to the acre, 
 while the rest of the farm would yield only twenty, and 
 then publish, that on his farm, he has sixty bushels to the 
 acre, would it be the truth'? It would be the truth res- 
 pecting his three acres; but not the truth respecting his 
 farm; and this retained as the history of his farm would 
 be a falsehood. And what Dr. Pressly has done on the 
 history of Psalmody, is precisely like this. He selects 
 a few items of history which he thinks can be made to 
 say that the book of Psalms was used in the worship of 
 God, and gives these as the history of Psalmody; while 
 he says not a word of the items of history which state 
 
214 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 that the church used also the compositions of uninspired 
 men. This will appear in the sequel. 
 
 It has been seen, already how the Doctor endeavors 
 to make the New Testament speak in his favor. And 
 he has yet another passage, which he says proves that 
 "our Lord and his Apostles on the occasion of the pas- 
 sover, and Paul and Silas in prison/' sung hymns from 
 the book of Psalms. In the Doctor's book there are 
 many curiosities, but I apprehend this one transcends 
 them all. The term *^k^mned'^ he says, is used in three 
 different instances in the New Testament; and one o^ 
 these is in Heb. 3: 12, ''In the midst of the church I 
 will sing praise unto thee." — ''In this latter instance," he 
 says, "we have a quotation from the 22nd Psalm; so that 
 word here evidently does refer to one of the hymns con- 
 tained in the book of Psalms; and that it does in the other 
 instances refered to, there is no ground to doubt." P. 
 157. Now of all the explanations of Scripture the world 
 has lately seen, I venture to say, this is the most remark- 
 able: — The words in the 22nd Psalm, "I will sing praise 
 unto thee," refers to the 22nd Psalm! — Just look at it! 
 The words sing praise, refer to the other word, ^Hheef^ 
 hence, thee, must stand for the 22nd Psalm: and the mean- 
 ing is, "In the midst of the church I will sing praise un- 
 to the 22nd Psalm!" This is fully equal to the way in 
 which the Papists translate Heb. 1 i: 21. "By faith Jacob 
 worshipped the top of his rod." To sing praise to the 
 22nd Psalm is surely very like it. It is no wonder the 
 people have such a high regard for the Psalms of David, 
 when they are taught by their Doctor that to them they 
 ought to sing praise ! And if this is not the way in 
 which " sing praise^ ^ refers to the 22nd Psalm, how is it ] 
 I positively do not see how else it can be. It cannot be 
 because it is a quotation from that Psalm ; for such 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 215 
 
 a notion would not be a whit less ridiculous : to say 
 that a quotation must refer to, or speak of, that from 
 which it is taken. Who would suppose that the quota- 
 tion in the next verse, " I will put my trust in him," 
 speaks of the 16th Psalm ? or that he says he will put 
 his trust in the 16th Psalm? Or that, Behold I and the 
 children which God hath given me," speaks of the 8th 
 chapter of Isaiah ? Or, Thy throne, O God, is forever 
 and ever,'^ speaks of the 45th Psalm ? And who would 
 suppose that, In the midst of the church I will sing 
 praise unto Thee,'' refers to speaks of the 22nd Psalm I 
 I might venture to say, that among all the news-boys 
 about Pittsburgh, none could be found so senseless as to 
 believe it. And does Dr. Pressly believe it ? He says 
 it; but does he believe it? It would, indeed, require a 
 wide stretch of charity to suppose it resulting from such 
 a deficiency of common sense as this would imjoly. 
 And what kind of beings must he think he is writing for, 
 when he can assume that such inventions will pass with 
 them for arguments ? This is another sample of the 
 manner in which the Professor explains the word of 
 God. And it is a part of his historical testimony show- 
 ing that the early christians used nothing but the book of 
 Psalms. He never once refers, however, to the fact, 
 that the Christians at Corinth had Psalms of their own 
 composition, when they came together for the purpose 
 of worshipping God. Facts of this kind do not consti- 
 tute any part of his history of Psalmody, 
 
 He then passes on from the testimony of scripture and 
 says, **Let us inquire in so far as we have the light of 
 history for our guide, what was the practice of the 
 church in the age immediately succedding the time of 
 the Apostles." Here we see he professes to set forth 
 whatever the light of history reveals upon this subject; 
 
21G 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 and thus deceives his readers. For by the light of his- 
 tory he guides them only to such facts as may lead them 
 to believe, that nothing but the Psalms of David were 
 used in the Church; and forbears to lead them by that 
 same light to such facts as teach, that other songs of 
 praise w^ere also used. His first testimony is the letter 
 of Pliny, Governor of Bithyi.ia and Pontus in Asia mi- 
 ner, to the Emperor Trojan, written about A. D. 111. 
 Pliny states in this letter, that the Christians of Bithynia 
 "were wont to meet together on a stated day before it 
 was light, and sing alternately a hymn to Christ as a 
 God." The Doctor will have it, that this piece of history 
 speaks in his favor. He says, "It will not be denied 
 by any who are acquainted with the book of Psalms, 
 that these sacred hymns sjDeak of Christ * * * Christ 
 the Lord of glory is the great subject of this book. 
 Then with the strictest propriety it might be said, that 
 in singing these Psahns, the primitive christians celebra- 
 ted the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ as a divine per- 
 son. * * * * The conclusion, then, to which we 
 are conducted, is, that there is nothing in this account of 
 the worship of the primitive christians, which in any 
 degree militates against the opinion that they employed 
 in the worship of God the songs of inspiration; much less 
 is there any thing to prove that they were accustomed 
 to employ Hymns composed by uninspired men." Thus 
 the Doctor makes appear that the primitive christians 
 used the book of Psalms to the exclusion of all other 
 compositions. But let us compare with this what the 
 celebrated historian Neander says on this subject, p. 192: 
 ** Singing also passed from the Jewish service into that 
 of the Christian Church. St. Paul exhorts the early 
 christians to sing spiritual songs. What was used for 
 this purpose were partly the Psalms of the Old Testa- 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY* 
 
 217 
 
 ment, and partly songs composed with this very, ohject: 
 especially songs of praise and thanks to God and Christ, 
 and these we know Pliny found to be customary among 
 the Christians. In the controversies with the Unitarians, 
 about the end of the second century, and the beginning 
 of the third, the hymns in which, from early times, Christ 
 had been honored as a God, were appealed to."— Now 
 this history is very different from that of Dr. Pressly. 
 And if the Doctor is right why did he not state that 
 **Neander's History" falsifies on this subject? It says, 
 the Psalmody of the primitive Church consisted partly 
 of the Old Testament Psalms; and partly of songs 
 composed for the special object of giving praise and 
 thanks to God and Christ, It says also, that songs of this 
 kind, *'Pliny found to be customary among the Chris- 
 tians," in the beginning of the second century. It says, 
 also, *'In the controversies with Unitarians, the hymns in 
 which from early times Christ had been honored as a God 
 w^ere appealed to." Now why did not Dr. Pressly bring 
 forward this piece of history which so flatly contradicts 
 himself, and show, that it is incorrect? Ah! no; he knew 
 it was correct, and therefore leaves it in oblivion; when 
 he tells his readers, that he is guiding them "by the light 
 of history!" 
 
 Another authority brought forward, is that of Clem- 
 ent of Alexandria, a writer of the second century. He 
 takes extracts from Clement's writings, w4th which we 
 need not burden our pages; and on them makes these re- 
 marks: This Christian Father seems to have regarded 
 the Psalms of David, as well adapted to the expression 
 of that praise, which the Christian should ascribe to God; 
 and he does not seem to have felt the necessity for any 
 others more suitable for that purposec 2. He consid- 
 ered, that in singing these psalms, the christian complies 
 19 
 
218 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 with the apostolic directions in Col. 3: 16^17." — Now 
 if Clement's views harmonize so precisely with those of 
 Dr. Pressley, how is it, that he was guilty of composing 
 hymns; and of what Dr. Pressly calls "offering strange 
 fire before the Lord." Coleman, in his "Christian Anti- 
 quities,'' says, "The most ancient hymn of the primitive 
 Church extant, is that of Clement of Alexandria which 
 is given below." It is in the Greek Language; and in 
 a literal translation commences thus: — 
 
 Bridle of unskillful youth, 
 
 Wing of fowls that wander not, 
 
 Helm sure of infancy, 
 
 Shepherd of the royal lambs, 
 
 Thy guileless children congregate; 
 
 All piously to sing; 
 
 With mouths from evil free, 
 
 Sincerely for to celebrate 
 
 The children's leader, Christ. 
 And ends thus: — 
 
 Let us all together sing — 
 
 Sincerely let us sing the Mighty Child! 
 
 Peaceful chorus — 
 
 Begotten of Christ — 
 
 People of prudence. 
 Let us simultaneously sing the God of peace. 
 We see then, from Clement's own practice, that the 
 Doctor makes him hold views, which he never held; and 
 say what he never said. But this is the Doctor's way, 
 when his authorities do not teach precisely what he 
 wants, he will make them teach it. 
 
 Tertullian, another writer of the second century, is 
 his next authority. This author, in speaking of the man- 
 ner in which public worship was conducted, says, " The 
 Scriptures are read, Psalms are sung, and then sermons 
 are pronounced." On this the Doctor has the following : 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 219 
 
 ^* Though there is no epithet here applied to the term 
 Psalms which would enable us to determine with abso- 
 lute certainty what sacred songs are meant ; yet as the 
 word is used without any qualification, and in connection 
 with the Scriptures, there seems to be no room to doubt 
 that it is employed in the usual acceptation, as refering 
 to the songs of inspiration.'' Here too, he has Tertul- 
 lian saying just what he wants. But hov/ ? Because 
 Tertullian says, *' The Scriptures are read, and Psalms 
 are sung, and sermons are pronounced," and Fsalms 
 being mentioned in connection with the Scriptures, the 
 Psalms of David must be meant ! And according to the 
 Doctor's logic, inasmuch as the sermons w^ere human 
 composition, and the Scriptures mentioned in connec- 
 tion with them, these Scriptures must have been human 
 composition ! Is not the Doctor a very profound logi- 
 cian? And the Doctor's logic too, makes Tertullian say 
 what he never designed to say ; because it makes him 
 say that the christians used nothing in their worship but 
 the Psalms of David ; but this is directly contrary to Ter- 
 tuUian's own statement. Col. Ch. Ant. p. 327, **The fol- 
 lowing description of christian intercourse is also from 
 Tertullian, Apol. 39: They sit not down at table till pray- 
 ers have been offered to God." * * * * ''After their 
 hands are washed and lights are brought in, each one is 
 invited to sing something before the company to the 
 praise of God, whether it be borrowed from the Holy 
 Scripture, or as his own heart may dictate to him." 
 How very unmanageable Tertullian is, when he will 
 just say the contrary of what the Doctor wants him ! 
 And when he has the assurance to say that the Doctor 
 is endeavoring to make him give a false representation 
 of what was the practice in the Primitive Church, 
 A. D. 3G5, a Council was held at Antioch in which 
 
220 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antiocli, was deposed for 
 denying the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. That 
 part of the charges brought against him, which has a 
 bearing upon the subject of Psalmody is given in the 
 following translation of Doctor Pressly : — Paul put a 
 Btop to the Psalms in honor of our Lord Jesus Christ, as 
 though (they had been) modern, and the compositions of 
 modern men, and prepared women on the great day of 
 Easter, in the midst of the Church, to sing praises in 
 honor of himself," Now, from this piece of history it 
 is perfectly manifest that the church had been in the 
 practice of using Psalms different from any found in the 
 Psalms of David. Paul put a stop to the Psalms that 
 were in use, because they spoke of Jesus Christ as a 
 divine person. But it is well known that Arians and 
 Socinians, indeed, all Unitarians, can cheerfully read 
 and sing the Psalms of David, and still deny the divinity 
 of Christ ; because they maintain that this doctrine 
 is not taught in the Psalms; just as they maintain that 
 it is not taught any where in the word of God. It could 
 not be the Psalms of David, then, which Paul put a stop 
 to, on account of their being in honor of Jesus Christ. 
 For Paul, like other Unitarians, denied that these 
 Psalms gave any honor to Christ as a divine person ; and 
 hence, he could have no objection to their use on this 
 account. But he stopped the use of the Psalms because 
 they were in honor of the Lord Jesus Christ; hence 
 they must have had language something like this ; 
 
 ^'Ye saints proclaim abroad 
 
 The honours of your King; 
 To Jesus your incarnate God, 
 
 Your songs of praises sing/'* 
 
 And history informs us, that this kind of songs and 
 psalms were composed by christians in honor of Jesus 
 
Morton on psalmody. 221 
 
 Christ, even from the beginning. The language in Euse- 
 bins the celebrated historian of the fourth century, is;— 
 **To be short, how many psalms, and hymns and canticles, 
 were written from the beginning by the faithful; which 
 do celebrate and praise Christ the word of God, for no 
 other than God indeed/' — -Now this explains to us very 
 clearly what psalms they were, which Paul put a stop 
 to — psalms composed by faithful christians from the 
 beginning, in honor of Jesus Christ, speaking of him as 
 no other than God indeed. And Eusebius gives this as 
 the language of a writer in the second century, "That 
 from the beginning, psalms and hymns and canticles^ 
 were composed by the faithful Christians, in honor of 
 Jesus Christ.'' And though these psalms had been 
 common in the church for the greater part of three hun- 
 dred years, yet Paul took as much liberty with them as 
 though they had been mere novelties — as though they 
 had been modern and the compositions of modern men. 
 "And the implied idea is, that the psalms which had 
 been sung in that church, were not modern, nor the 
 compositions of modern men; but were the songs," 
 which had been used in the church for centuries — which 
 had been composed by faithfnl christians from the begin- 
 ii:g; and the use of which had long been established by 
 the universal practice of the church of Jesus Christ. 
 "And the daring impiety of Paul appeared in this, that 
 he treated the divine songs, which celebrate the praises 
 of the Lord Jesus, as though they had been the compo- 
 sitions of men of his own times — recent productions; 
 just as though their use had not been fully established 
 by the universal suffrage of the church for ages. The 
 whole weight of the church's authority for many genera- 
 tions had sanctioned the use of these Psalms, composed 
 in honor of our Lord Jesus Christ, and now Paul con- 
 19* 
 
222 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 temptously tramples upon the authority of the church in 
 casting out the Psalms which she had established; and in 
 treating them as though they had no authority — just as 
 though they were modern — mere novelties — and the 
 compositions of modern men — men who had no estab- 
 lished reputation in the Church of God. If a Presbyte- 
 rian minister should be settled in a congregation where 
 the Psalms and Hymns of the Presbyterian church had 
 been used for ages, and would put a stop to these, be- 
 cause they were in honor of our Lord Jesus Christ, the 
 charges brought against him might be in the same words 
 as those brought against Paul; ''That he had put a stop 
 to the Psalms in honor of our Lord Jesus Christ, as 
 though they had been modern, and the compositions of 
 modern men." He might be charged not only with put- 
 ting a stop to these Psalms, but also with the daring im- 
 piety of treating these "divine songs, which celebrate the 
 praises of the Lord Jesus, as though they had been" mere 
 novelties, of a modern description; and the compositions 
 of modern men. Whereas the psalms and hymns had 
 not been new things in the church; but had been estab- 
 lished in the church for many generations. It is per- 
 fectly plain, that this portion of history, even when Dr. 
 Pressly has manufactured a translation to suit himself, 
 still concurs with other passages, which teach that the 
 primitive church used the compositions of uninspired 
 men. 
 
 But it may well be questioned, whether Dr. Pressly's 
 translation is correct; because many historians agree in 
 translating the passage differently. And the object they 
 had in view, was to give the meaning of the original; but 
 the Doctor's object was to have a translation to suit his 
 own purpose* I may mention at least four who all have 
 the same translation; and all different from Dr. Pressly: 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 223 
 
 Hanmer, Milnor, Cruse and Neander. These histo- 
 rians consider Paul as calling the church psalms, then in 
 use modern compositions, when compared with the 
 Psalms of David. For though these psalms, composed 
 by Christians from the beginning, had long been in use in 
 the church, and were no novelties, yet, compared with 
 David^s Psalms, they were quite modern. And because 
 they had not the antiquity of David's Psalms, Paul made 
 this the pretended ground of having them banished from 
 the church, while the true cause was, that they taught 
 the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. The following 
 extract from Neander's History explains a great deal 
 connected with Paul's conduct in this affair. 
 
 "At Antioch it seems the profane custom of testifying 
 approbation to preachers, by waving of handkerchiefs, 
 exclamations, and clapping of the hands, which sets 
 preachers in the same class with actors and declaimers 
 for effect, had already passed into the church from the 
 theatre, and from the exhibition schools of the rhetorici- 
 ans. The vain Paul saw this with pleasure; but the bishops 
 who were his accusdrs, were well aware that this custom 
 was contrary to the dignity and order which ought to 
 prevail in the house of God. The church hymns which 
 had been in use since the second century, he banished 
 as an inovation apparently proceeding on the principle, 
 which has been set up by others in later times, that only 
 passages out of the Holy Scripture ought to be sung in 
 the church: and thus he probably suffered nothing but 
 Psalms to be used. There is no sufficient ground for the 
 suspicion, that Paul did this in order to pay court to hig 
 patroness Zenobia, as being a Jewess. It is more pro- 
 bable that Paul, who might be well aware how deeply 
 the import of church hymns impress itself upon the heart, 
 when he banished those old hymns, (which spoke of 
 
S24 
 
 Morton on psalmody. 
 
 Christ as the incarnate Logos,) tniglit hope also to banish 
 the doctrines they contained from the hearts of men. 
 When we find it stated, that the man who thus care- 
 fully removed the expressions used to designate Christ, 
 was delighted to receive the incense of exaggerated ex- 
 pressions about himself, in poems and declamations in 
 holy places, and to be called in bombastic rhetorical 
 phrases an angel sent down from heaven, we cannot con- 
 sent to receive such an accusation from the mouth of vio- 
 lent enemies, as one on which we can entirely depend; 
 but we have no reason whatever, for declaring it to be 
 false/' 
 
 It is seen here that Neander's opinion is, that Paul 
 called these Psalms modern, compared with the Psalms 
 of David, and under this pretext had them banished 
 from the church; and this has been the current opin- 
 ion of historians down to the time of Dr. Pressly, who 
 will have it, that Paul banished the Psalms of David, as 
 though they had been modern; that is, he paid no more 
 respect to the Psalms of inspiration, than is due to the 
 modern compositions of uninspired men. He says, *'In 
 support of this interpretation of the Epistle of the Council, 
 which condemned the heresy of Paul, the following con- 
 siderations are submitted to the judgment of the unpre- 
 judiced reader." The Doctor often appeals to the %in- 
 jprejudiced; these of course are Psalmonites, for all 
 others he believes are prejudiced against his views. But 
 the Doctor is free from all prejudice; and all Psalmon- 
 ites are just like him: they are all so perfectly free from 
 prejudice in this matter, that it is remarkable! If others 
 were as free from prejudice as they are, how clearly 
 they could see the force of the Doctor's argument; and 
 here it is: — '*The sacred songs which the church in An- 
 tioch had been accustomed to sing, and the use of whidi 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 225 
 
 Paul of Samosata is said to have abolished are termed 
 Psalms * ^ * Now while I freely admit, that this term 
 does not conclusively establish the fact, that these sacred 
 songs w^ere the Psalms of David, yet it furnishes a strong 
 presumptive argument in favor of this supposition. It 
 will, I suppose, be admitted by all who are concerned 
 in this controversy that this term is more commonly used 
 to designate the Psalms of inspiration, and that it is not 
 the term usually employed in reference to the com- 
 positions of uninspired men." — He takes it for granted; 
 that what is now customary in Allegheny, in his congre- 
 gation, was just what was customary in Antioch in the 
 thii'd century! What an effulgence of both wisdom and 
 knowledge , beams forth through all his reasoning! And 
 then look! — He proves it was the Psalms of David which 
 Paul banished from the church, just because they are 
 called psalms! And thus too, the Doctor proves, that the 
 psalms sung by the women in honor of Paul himself were 
 the psalms of David; for thsy also are called psalms^ 
 And thus according to the Doctor's logic, Paul put a stop 
 to the Psalms of David, and prepared women in the 
 midst of the church, to sing the psalms of David in ho^ 
 nor of himself! Would it not be well for the Doctor to 
 open a school for the specific end of teaching logic? It 
 would surely attain to great celebrity! But then, of 
 course, not being among the unprejudiced I am unable 
 to see the force of his logic. It is the unprejudiced few 
 who can see it in all its beauty! It is worthy of remark 
 here, that in the account of the occurrence at Antioch, 
 there is the same evidence, that the women sung the 
 Psalms of David in praise of Paul; as there is, that the 
 apostle James meant the Psalnis of David, when he said, 
 "Is any merry] Let him sing psalms." Because the 
 verbs psalmodein and psalleto are from th^ same root in 
 
226 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 Greek, and have the same signification. But the "Doctor 
 will have it, that wherever the the term psalms is found 
 it must mean the Psalms of David; and he appeals to all 
 if this is not the common acceptation of the term; 
 that it designates the Psalms of inspiration. But this 
 argument he knows will have weight with the unpreju- 
 diced; because by psalms thev always mean the Psalms 
 of David. And hence they think it must have, and al- 
 ways had, no other meaning. And according to their 
 views Presbyterians sing the Psalms of inspiration: and 
 the women of Antioch, praising Paul, sung the Psalms 
 of inspiration: and the Pagan Greeks sung the psalms of 
 inspiration, hundreds of years before they knew there 
 were any such Psalms! But it is only the unprejudiced 
 who make these discoveries. And the Doctor has re- 
 course to this argument frequently, though it may not 
 be expressed just as it is here. Whenever the term 
 psalms is found it must designate the Psalms of David, 
 for that is the usual signification of the term now, at least 
 among the Psalmonites. And in this country, the term 
 corn, is commonly used to designate Indian corn. So 
 then by the Doctor's reasoning wherever the term corn 
 occurs in the Bible it must always mean Indian corn: 
 and in the writings of Europeans it must mean Indian 
 corn: and the corn-laws of England must mean laws res- 
 pecting Indian corn! This oft repeated argument, is 
 manifestly intended for the unprejudiced few, because it 
 is only a class of people possessing a certain amount of 
 information, who would at all be capable of feeling the 
 force of it. But what else can we esteem it, than most 
 consummate trifling, when we see a man attempting to 
 build arguments upon the meaning of a term, which has 
 always been used to designate such 9- variety of compo- 
 sition? 
 
MORTOM ON PSALMODY. 
 
 227 
 
 But he has another argument to prove that it was the 
 Plsams of David w^hich Paul banished — "But that the 
 psalms; the use of which Paul abolished, were not the 
 compositions of modern men, and could not be set aside 
 by him under the pretext that they were modern, will 
 appear from this consideration : That which he is said 
 to have introduced would be equally, if not in a greater 
 degree, obnoxious to the same objection. The psalms 
 which he removed were such as were in honor of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ; those which he appointed to be 
 sung in their stead were in honor of himself. Now it is 
 certain that none of the Psalms of David would be 
 adapted to the purpose of celebrating the praises of 
 Paul of Samosata." The psalms sung in honor of Paul, 
 he says, could not be the Psalms of David ; and yet they 
 are called Psahns ! Thus at once he refutes his own ar- 
 gument, which he had confidently built upon the mean- 
 ing of the word psalm. The word psalm proved every 
 thing with him before ; but now it proves nothing ! 
 Who could help laughing '? He shows, indeed, how per- 
 fectly ridiculous it is for him to be founding arguments 
 upon the word psalm. But he says Paul could not 
 have banished the psalms under the pretext that they 
 were modern; for those which he appointed to be sung 
 in their stead were obnoxious to the same objection ; 
 they must be even more modern. But here the Doctor 
 entirely misrepresents the matter ; because it is not said 
 that Paul introduced any psalms in the stead of those he 
 banished. It is said that on one occasion, " the great 
 day of Easter," he had women prepared to sing psalms 
 in honor of himself; but this singing was not in the stead 
 of that which he abolished ; it was a different thing from 
 the singing at the time of public worship in the church. 
 Can the Doctor really believe that after the psalms were 
 
228 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 banished there was then no singing in the church, but 
 that of the women praising Paul 1 Who but himself 
 could have ever thought of such an absurdity ? And this is 
 what he wants his unprejudiced readers to believe, that 
 when Paul banished the psalms he allowed nothing to 
 be sung then in public worship, but his own praises! 
 The Doctor must think that his readers are not only un- 
 prejudiced ; but that they have a ready disposition for 
 the reception of the marvellous. And yet his principal 
 argument is founded upon this misrepresentation. But 
 it is no part of the charges against Paul, that he had 
 introduced any thing in the flace of the psalms he sup- 
 pressed. The two charges specified are — his miscon- 
 duct in suppressing the psalms — and his misconduct on 
 the great day of Easter. The Council did not blame 
 Paul on account of the psalms he was still using in the 
 worship of God ; but on account of preparing women 
 to praise himself at the Easter festival; and on account 
 of banishing the psalms which were in honor of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. And it is probable that Paul introduced no 
 psalms in place of those he banished; but confined the 
 church to the use of only a part of what had hitherto con- 
 stituted her Psalmody. The Psalmody of the church may 
 have consisted of " the psalms and hymns and canticles 
 wrtiten from the beginning, by the christians in praise of 
 Jesus Christ, and also of the Psalms of David; the 
 former then Paul stopped, and allowed the continued 
 use of David's Psalms alone. And hence there is no 
 charge against Paul for the psalms he still used in public 
 worship ; but only on account of what he had banished. 
 The church has always allowed the use of David's 
 Psalms ; but she does not allow the banishment of all 
 others. 
 
 This piece of history in relation to Paul of Somosata, 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 229 
 
 is very conclusive in proof of the primitive church using 
 the compositions of uninspired men. This is more obvi- 
 ous when the Greek is translated according as it has 
 always been understood by distinguished scholars and 
 historians ; and the reading is this : — " The Psalms in 
 honor of our Lord Jesus Christ he stopped, inasmuch 
 as they were modern, and the compositions of modern 
 men ; and prepared women to sing Psalms in honor of 
 himself, in the midst of the Church on the great day of 
 Easter." He stopped the Psalms in honor of Christ, 
 in tliat they were modern, or, inasmuch as, they were 
 modern. And the meaning is^ because they were mod- 
 ern. Every scholar knows that the proper translation 
 of OS dee is, in that, or inasmuch as, and that they assign 
 the reason why something is done ; and that these two 
 Greek particles together, are never used to convey the 
 idea of comparison or similitude. And hence they can- 
 not properly be rendered " as though," which Dr. Pressly 
 has invented to suit his purpose. It does really appear 
 to me, that by a great show of learning he has attempted 
 to practise deception upon his unprejudiced readers. 
 Because he tries to make them believe that the Greek, 
 in the Extract from Eusebius, is the same as the Greek 
 to which he refers in the New Testament ; but this is 
 not the case. He brings several passages from the New 
 Testament to show that his translation of the Extract is 
 correct; but in not one of these passages is the Greek 
 ihe same as it is in the Extract : hence these passages in 
 the New Testament prove nothing as to how the Greek 
 of the Extract ought to be translated. The Greek in 
 '*Acts 22, 30," is not the same as the Greek in the Extract; 
 and the translation of the one proves nothing as to how 
 the other may be translated. In Act. it is os, and prop- 
 erly translated ^^o.s though;'^ but in the Extract it is 
 20 
 
230 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 dee^ and according to the best authorities cannot be trans- 
 lated ^^as though,''^ but ought to be translated in that, or 
 inasmuch as. The Doctor appeals to the authority of "the 
 learned Valesius;'* and says that he translates with 
 ^^quasij^ intimating that quasi has no other meaning than 
 i^as ihough^^ or as if. But every scholar knows that this 
 word often me ans as, just as, or inasmuch as. And it 
 seems to me that it is hardly fair treatment for his un- 
 prejudiced readers to make any kind of attempt to mis- 
 lead them, where they are incapable of examining for 
 themselves. But perhaps the unprejudiced will take it 
 for granted that it is all correct. And no doubt some 
 will maintain that it must be so, just because the Doctor 
 says it; and then, that decides the matter. I think, how- 
 ever, it would have subserved his cause more if he had 
 passed over this piece of history in silence, just as he 
 has others which tell us the same truth; namefy, that the 
 primitive church used songs of praise composed by un- 
 inspired men. But the Doctor supposed he could make 
 this passage speak in his favor, and hence he made the 
 effort; but it has proved to be a most remarkable fail- 
 ure. And indeed, his whole labor on the history of 
 Psalmody is nothing but a failure; for in all his authori- 
 ties he cannot find a single intimation that the church, or 
 people of God, were ever confined to the use of David's 
 Psalms in their songs of praise. And we have seen, on 
 the contrary, that the full and explicit testimony of history 
 is, that the primitive church was in the regular practice 
 of using psalms and hymns and canticles, or spiritual 
 songs, composed by uninspired men. And Coleman in 
 his "Christian Antiquities'' has given us another of these 
 hymns composed by Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, a writer 
 of the fourth century. The following are some verses 
 of this hymn, in Bishop Mant's version : 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 231 
 
 "Lord, who didst bless thy chosen band, 
 
 And forth commissioned send. 
 To spread thy name from land to land, 
 
 To Thee our hymns ascend. 
 In them the heavens exulting own 
 
 The Father's might revealed, 
 Thy triumph gained begotten Son, 
 
 Thy Spirit's influence sealed. 
 Then to thy Father, and to Thee, 
 
 And to thy Spirit blest, 
 Ail praise for these thy servants be 
 By all the church addrest/' 
 But, to facts and evidences of this kind Dr. Pressly 
 never once refers, while he professes to give the history 
 of Psalmody dovv^n to the fifth century. And in the 
 history of Psalmody it is not necessary to follow him 
 any further; for though he appeals to the early fathers, 
 yet there is not one of them will say what he desires: 
 not one of them will even intimate that the primitive 
 church used the Psalms of David exclusively in the wor- 
 ship of God, By these authorities he can show that 
 some of these psalms were used on some occasions; but 
 who wishes to deny this? He can show too, that these 
 early fathers understood the book of Psalms as speak- 
 ing frequently of the Redeemer; and who wants to deny 
 this respecting the book of Psalms'? He can prove also, 
 that the early fathers esteemed the book of Psalms as a 
 very excellent portion of the word of God; and in his 
 catalogue of authors he might have included Dr. Watts 
 and Dr. Ralston; for all good men, in all ages, have 
 esteemed the book of Psalms as a valuable and very- 
 precious portion of the word of God. 
 
 It is not the intention to dwell on the history of 
 Psalmody. But were we to do so, it would fully appear 
 that the Church of Christ has never used the Psalms of 
 
232 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 David to the exclusion of all others; and that she has 
 always held the principle and practised upon it, that it 
 is proper to use in the worship of God songs of praise 
 composed by uninspired men. ^'Milnor's Church His- 
 tory" affords much testimony to this effect. And many 
 pages might be filled showing that the martyrs of Jesus, 
 when brought to seal their testimony with their blood, 
 even on the scaffold and at the stake, praised the Lord 
 in songs composed by uninspired men, The Waldenses, 
 who long and faithfully contended against the corrup- 
 tions of Popery, used in the worship of God songs of 
 praise of this description. John Huss and Jerome of 
 Prague, who suffered martyrdom in the fifteenth century, 
 <iid the same. In speaking of Jerome, the historian 
 says: — "As he went to execution he sung the Apostles 
 creed and the hymns of the church, with a loud voice and 
 a cheerful countenance. He kneeled at the stake and 
 prayed. Being then bound he raised his voice and sung 
 a paschal hymn, then much in vogue in the church — 
 Hail! happy day and ever be adored, 
 When hell was conquered by great lieaven^s Lord/^ 
 And after the glorious Reformation burst upon a be- 
 nighted w^orld, the people of God practised in the same 
 manner. Luther, who was raised up to be so eminently 
 instrumental in shakuig Babylon to her foundations, and 
 in bringing out from her the Lord's own people, both 
 composed and sung hymns of praise to God. The his- 
 torian says, "A short time before Luther ventured to ad" 
 minister the Lord's Supper in the German language, he 
 had the precaution to compose and print a very useful 
 little book, containing thirty-eight German hymns, with 
 their appropriate tunes, for the express purpose of con- 
 veying and fixing in the memories of the common peo- 
 ple a deal of religious instruction in a very concise and 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 233 
 
 agreeable manner/' And so has it been in relation to 
 the venerable church of Scotland. She has never held 
 the principle, that the book of Psalms, ought to be used 
 in the worship of God to the exclusion of all others. 
 The following extract is sufficient. **At the very same 
 time that Rouse's version Was preparing, for the use of 
 the Scotch churches, Mr. Zachary Boyd's Scripture Songs 
 engaged the attention of the Assembly. An act for the 
 examination of them was passed by the General Assem- 
 bly, in the year 1648, which was just the year before 
 Rouse's version of the Psalms of David was prepared. 
 In the year 1706, the Assembly recommended, that (he 
 Scripture songs by Mr. P. Sympson, minister of Renfrew, 
 should be used in private families. The recommenda- 
 tion was repeated in 1707, and in 1708 the commission 
 of the Assembly were instructed and appointed to con- 
 sider the printed version of the Scripture Songs, with 
 the remarks of Presbyteries thereupon; and after ex- 
 amination thereof, to conclude and emit the same; they 
 were authorised for' the use of the church." It is per- 
 fectly manifest, that the church of Scotland has never 
 held the principle, that David's Psalms are to be used 
 exclusively in the worship of God. The opinion, indeed, 
 has no foundation, either in Scripture, in reason, or in 
 the universal practice of the Christisn Church. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 The Cause — The Occasion— And the Support of Psalmonism, 
 
 The principal arguments in support of Psal monism 
 have been briefly examined; and every candid and im- 
 partial reader v^ill see, that they are utterly without 
 foundation. The word of God affords to them no sup- 
 port whatever. And we have seen from the light of his- 
 tory, that the Church of God never held, or practised on 
 such a principle. And the dictates of reason and com- 
 mon-sense accord precisely with the teachings of Scrip- 
 ture, and the practice of the Church in relation to this 
 matter. Indeed there are but few notions entertained so 
 entirely destitute of support. And hence it may be 
 considered almost unaccountable, that men have enter- 
 tained views so entirely indefensible except by sophistry 
 and misrepresentation. But who does not know, that 
 many wild and indefensible notions have been origina- 
 ted and set forth by the erring children of men? The 
 cause, no doubt, is found in the deranged state of the 
 human mind, resulting from sin's influence on the facul- 
 ties of the soul. Under the deleterious influence of 
 moral evil, man's mind is prone to wander and run into 
 folly — its aberations have been innijmerable — its vaga- 
 ries wild and extravagant. And even good men in this 
 life, are not entirely free from this pernicious influence 
 of sin — in their minds there is the same erratic tendency: 
 the extravagance of which is prevented, only by the en-^ 
 lightening and sanctifying influence of divine grace. 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 235 
 
 And then, the disordered state of the human mind be- 
 ing the cause, it is not difficult to point out the occasion 
 which led this erring mind to entertain Psalmonistic 
 views. But when we inquire after the origin of Psal- 
 onism, we must direct our attention to 'practice instead 
 of to principle. Because the principles of Psalmonites 
 have grown out of their practice, instead of their prac- 
 tice being founded in principle. Their exclusive 
 use of what they call David's Psalms, has led them to be- 
 lieve, that nothing else should be used. And this is the 
 process, — When Rouse's paraphrase came into general 
 use in the churches, it was soon found that the people 
 could not "sing with the spirit and with the understanding 
 also" unless the Psalm was previously explained. Then 
 from the practice of explaining the Psalm arose tlie 
 opinion, that these Psalms were inspired; because it 
 was understood, that no writings were to be expounded 
 in public worship but the word of God. And the ex- 
 planation itself had a tendency to make the impression, 
 that Rouse's paraphrase was the Psalms of inspiration. 
 And then, the people being long accustomed to sing 
 what they understood to be the Psalms of inspiration, 
 the impression gradually took possession of their minds, 
 that these alone ought to be used. And thus, their prac- 
 tice imperceptibly leading them to entertain these views, 
 they began to invent arguments, and to seek for princi- 
 ples whereby they might be sustained. And hence we see 
 how it is, that the practice comes first and then the prin- 
 ciples follow after. The principles have to be manufac- 
 tured to suit the practice, and therefore they have no 
 foundation in Scripture, nor reason, nor in the usage of 
 the Church of God. 
 
 For Psalmonism then, there is no refuge, in the Bible 
 —in history — utility; neither yet in reason, nor in com- 
 
236 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 mon-sense. Like Noah's dove, because it is not in the 
 ark of Scripture it finds no rest for the sole of its foot. 
 To this, however, we must make an exception. For 
 though it may be driven from a variety of resting places, 
 it still has a covert to which it can retreat and rest in 
 safety — a strong hold — 
 
 Intrenched in which defiance forth it flings, 
 And vaunts alond, in face of every foe. 
 For who, by art or argument can move 
 The adamantine walls of prejudice! 
 Imbibed in youth, and blended with the mind, 
 From infancy, by training's every stroke? 
 
 For this opinion, that Psalmonism is sustained chiefly 
 by the prejudice of education, there are several reasons 
 — we olfer but a few. 
 
 The first is, that there are scarcely any wh^) hold these 
 views, except such as have been educated in them from 
 their earliest infancy. And on the contrary, I suppose 
 there could scarcely be a man found, who, being educated 
 otherwise, has embraced Psalmonism, because convinced 
 by investigation. It is admitted, that men perhaps may be 
 found who have embraced Psalmonism, although other- 
 wise educated. But their change of views has resulted, not 
 from an investigation of this subject; but altogether from 
 other circumstances, viz: because they have in some 
 way become connected with, and been brought under 
 the influence of Psalmonites. For instance, a man may 
 unite with a Psalmonistic church, not because he thinks 
 the book of Psalms alone should be used in praising 
 God; but merely because he esteems that church as hol- 
 ding the truth on some other doctrine. And then by 
 mingling with the people, and adopting their modes of 
 worship, he gradually imbibes their views on the subject 
 of Psalmody, and commences, of course, to offer the 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 237 
 
 usual arguments in their defence. And in this manner, 
 men may become Psalmonites, who were otherwise edu- 
 cated. But as was said, I consider it almost impossible 
 to find a man who has adopted these views merely by an. 
 investigation of the subject of Psalmody. Now, if among 
 those who hold Psalmonislic views, none have ever em- 
 braced them because convinced of their truth by investi- 
 gation, then obviously, these views are held by the mere 
 force of educational prejudice. And moreover, that the 
 system is sustained chiefly by the prejudice of education^ 
 is testified by the fact, that very many, and not a few of 
 them distinguished for piety, talents, and literary attain- 
 ments, who were educated in the Psalmonistic views, 
 have abandoned these views; clearly proving that they 
 held them for a time by the mere force of their early 
 education, for after impartial investigation they renoun- 
 ced them, as being without support in the word of God. 
 
 But again: another consideration which corroborates- 
 the opinion that the system is sustained by the prejudice 
 of education, is this, that the Psalmonites have held 
 other peculiar views in relation to this part of religious 
 worship, the greater part of which they have now re- 
 linquished, as having no foundation except in prejudice; 
 others of these peculiarities some Psalmonistic churches 
 still retain. Of these things I have a personal knowl- 
 edge, because I was once a Psalmonite myself. I held 
 the Psalmonistic views, however, not because I was con- 
 vinced by investigation, but merely because my father 
 held them before me. And in my native land this sub- 
 ject has never yet been fully investigated: during my 
 time, indeed, it was scarcely ever mentioned. Well, 
 then, to come right to the point, I recollect when we had 
 no small commotion in our church about what tunes it 
 was proper to sing. Our *'singin' book'' contained 
 
238 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 twelve tunes, or rather, I should say, parts of twelve 
 tunes — eleven common metre and one long. This book 
 was the only one that had been used for generations j 
 hence it had become truly consecrated; and then the 
 settled opinion was, that to sing anything except one of 
 these "old twelve tunes" was just the same as "offering 
 strange fire before the Lord" — nothing less than **a 
 human invention." For there was a kind of indefinite 
 notion that David had made these twelve tunes, as well 
 as Rouse's paraphrase of the Psalms. The opinion that 
 David was the author of Rouse's Psalms was quite pre- 
 valent. And the proof is positive from an adage which 
 was in common use. When a person wished to com- 
 pare one object with another he would say **it's another 
 of the same, like David and the Psalms;" clearly intima- 
 ting that this phrase, "another of the same," which is 
 found in Rouse's Psalms, was taken to be none other 
 than the words of David. Thus these vague notions 
 prevailed that David w^as the author of Rouse's para- 
 phrase and of the twelve old tunes; and hence the great 
 zeal in contending for their use. On one occasion, the 
 regular "Clerk" being absent from public worship, some 
 upstart rose to lead the music, and to the horror and 
 amazement of not a few he struck up a tune of "human 
 composure," not found in the divinely appointed old 
 "singin' book" at all! and of course it could not be in- 
 spired. But with the aid of some radical new-lights like 
 himself, he succeeded in getting through with his "hu^ 
 man invention." And it was the means of opening the 
 way for some improvement, inasmuch as no fire came 
 forth to devour him, for doing what had "not the 
 sanction of the divine appointment." But what a com- 
 motion arose! In the opinion of some there were dis- 
 mal times coming upon the church! Good old Mr. — ~ 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 239 
 
 said that singing such tunes was as bad as blasphemy. 
 And it was a subject of controversy for some considera- 
 ble time, whether any other tunes might be sung besides 
 the **old twelve." We could muster various arguments 
 to prove that the twelve should be sung exclusively. 
 For there were twelve tribes of Israel; and also twelve 
 Apostles. And besides all that, the New Jerusalem, 
 the city of God, had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve 
 Angels; and it had also twelve foundations, garnished 
 with twelve different kinds of precious stones. And 
 hence every man who was not carried away with the 
 devices of a ''corrupt and carnal age" could easily see 
 that we should sing nothing but the twelve old tunes! 
 All these notions, however, about old tunes and new 
 tunes, have now been abandoned by the Psalmonites. 
 And they are ready to confess that they had their origin 
 in ^practice; and were sustained only by the prejudice of 
 education. And thus too, we can see the cause of the 
 great zeal that is manifested in behalf of the old Psalms^ 
 But again: another nrtion entertained by Psalmonites, 
 and obviously sustained by the prejudice of education, 
 was, that not more than one line of the psalm ought to 
 be read out, for singing, at the seme time. Those who 
 have not seen this notion put into practice, may not un- 
 derstand what is meant; but we may explain. Take, 
 for example, Rouse's 50th Psalm, ^'another of the same^''* 
 3rd verse: the Clerk who leads the music in the public 
 congregation, would read out — 
 
 ''Our God shall come, and shall no more^^ 
 Then he must stop until they sing these words, which, 
 taken by themselves intimate that God shall come once, 
 and only once. When the congregation gets through 
 with the singing of this, the Clerk reads out again — 
 *'be silent but speak out:'' 
 
240 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 And there stops again, until they sing about being silent, 
 while they are speaking out. Then he reads again: — 
 
 "Before him fire shall waste, great storms^^ 
 And stops till they sing about the fire wasting great 
 storms; and then he reads out again: — 
 "shall compass him about/^ — 
 
 Which has no meaning when taken by itself. But 
 Psalmonites have been just as strenuous for this mode 
 of murdering Rouse's bad poetry, as they are for the 
 poetry itself. The reading of two lines at once was vio- 
 lently opposed, on the ground of its being an innovation, 
 a pernicious human invention. For any one could see it 
 was unscriptural; because the Bible says, "line upon 
 line, line upon linej" and hence the reading of two lines 
 is without "the sanction of the divine appointment." 
 And for years this controversy existed, about the pro- 
 priety of reading one line, or two lines of the psalm in 
 conducting the worship of God. But now, at least in 
 this country, it is generally admitted by Psalmonites, 
 that the one line theory has no foundation, except in 
 custom and the prejudice of education. 
 
 Then again, when the New-Lights had finally pre. 
 vailed, and the reading of two lines was generally admit- 
 ted, there soon arose another controversy; some were 
 for dispensing with the reading of lines altogether. But 
 this was violently opposed as another innovation — an- 
 other departure from the truth, "teaching for doctrines 
 the commandments of men." And when the Old-Lights 
 could not quote any Scriptures very pertinent, they 
 would bring forward the authority of the Westminister 
 Assembly as recommending the parcelling out of the 
 psalm before singing. Then, when the New-Lights 
 would reply, that the circumstances had ceased, which 
 called for that appointment; because the people could 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 now read and have books also; the others would reply, 
 that we should not pretend to know more than the West- 
 minster Assembly; that it was not good to make changes, 
 for when we got into the downward road of innovation, it 
 was hard to tell where we might stop; taking it for 
 granted, that the improvement was the *'downward road.'' 
 This prejudice however, has yeilded considerably to the 
 influence of intelligence and common-sense; and some 
 Psalmonistic Churches now venture to sing without hav^- 
 ing the lines read out at all. But the practice was once 
 contended for, with about as much zeal as is now mani- 
 fested in behalf of Psalmonism itself. 
 
 But again: another developement of the prejudice of 
 education is seen in the opinion entertained as to the 
 kind of tunes which ought to be sung. They believe it 
 is not right to sing any tune in which there is a repeat, 
 or rather they believe it is not right to sing the repeat; 
 the words or strain they will sing but once and omit the 
 repeat altogether. This prejudice obviously had its ori- 
 gin in the use of the old Irish ^'Singin'-book," which con- 
 tained the twelve tunes; for no one of these had a repeat; 
 and having been used so long they became a venerated 
 standard; so that if a repeat was to be sung in any tune it 
 would be considered exactly like the "sin of Nadab and 
 Abihu.'* And of those guilty it v/ould be said, "In vain 
 do they worship me teaching for doctrines the command- 
 ments of men," or; "who hath required this at your 
 hands]" And indeed,! am not certain, that any of the 
 Psalmonistic Churches have yet got over this prejudice, 
 as I know that not long since it still exercised over them 
 its entire influence. And they preferred to mangle the 
 music rather than murder their prejudice. But what is 
 it that has not to yeild to prejudice? 
 
 21 
 
242 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 ^Tis like the stubborn flinty rock, that fixed, 
 Divides the flood; and^s only washed away, 
 By streams of ages in perpetual flowo 
 
 Another evidence of Psalmonism being upheld princi- 
 pally by prejudice appears from this, that Psalmonistic 
 churches are composed cheifly of those who are called 
 the Scotch-Irish population. In those countries, their 
 prejudices grew out of the practice of using the "old 
 psalms,'' and when they come here they are still retained- 
 and unimpaired, if possible, handed down from one gen- 
 eration to another. And it is to be lamented, that many 
 of them manifest far more interest and zeal for these old 
 notions, than they do in behalf of piety and temperance. 
 But the fact, that Psalmonism is fostered only among 
 them, amounts to positive proof, that its main support is 
 derived from the prejudice of education. 
 
 Psalmonism then, being founded in prejudice, explains 
 fully why it is, that arguments have no effect upon a gen- 
 uine Psalmonite. Your reasoning may be as lucid as 
 light — you may demonstrate to him, that his system has 
 no foundation in truth; but he clings to it still; not be- 
 cause he sees it is right, but because he feels it is right. 
 You may set aside his arguments, but you cannot set 
 aside his prejudice. He is still "wiser in his own con- 
 ceit, than seven men that can render a reason.'* He is 
 still partial to his own way, though he cannot tell why — 
 he has been accustomed to it — his feelings incline him 
 to it — the truth, for truth's sake, is not what he wants — 
 he wants what he likes — and you may as well throw 
 your arguments to the winds; for on such a man they 
 can have no power. Nor is it to be expected that men 
 will readily change the opinions which they have long 
 held; or hastily cease to use that, to the use of which 
 they have long been accustomed. Because it is natural 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY, 
 
 243 
 
 to acquire a fondness for whatever we have been in the 
 habit of using for any considerable time. We might 
 even be convinced that a different article could be ad- 
 vantageously used, and yet be unwilling to exchange 
 it for our own old one, with which we are familiar, and 
 for which, by long continued use, there has grown up a 
 very considerable attachment. We might find it hard to 
 convince the old man of seventy that his crooked, rough' 
 headed cane, which he has made his associate for half 
 a century, ought to be exchanged for another — that his 
 old companion ought to be thrown aside even for the 
 sake of one both smooth and straight. And so, upon 
 this principle we may easily account for the fondness 
 with which people cling to the use of Rouse's Psalms. 
 When they have been accustomed to the use of these 
 psalms from childhood, through manhood, and down to 
 old age, it would, indeed, be hard to convince them that 
 any other system of Psalmody is to be preferred. And 
 even when in judgment they are convinced as to the 
 propriety of using a Gospel Psalmody in the worship of 
 God, their own private practice often remains the same, 
 in consequence of the fondness and familiarity existing 
 between them and their old psalms, with wliich they are 
 now so well acquainted by long-continued use. 
 
 And inasmuch as the prejudice by which Psalmonisnj 
 is mainly supported, has been handed down from one 
 generation to another, it requires the influence of various 
 circumstances, to bear upon it for about the same num- 
 ber of generations, before it can be made to disappear. 
 But if a man's prejudices be cherished, by pursuing a 
 certain course in relation to certain subjects, instead of 
 being destroyed they will cling with unabated vigor to 
 him through life. And this is the very course pursued 
 by many Psalmonites. They are so completely under 
 
244 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 the influence of prejudice that they cannot be persuaded 
 to examine any but the one side of the controversy. 
 Indeed I have been astonished to find them pursuing a 
 course in relation to this subject, which I had supposed 
 none w^ould pursue in matters of religion, except Roman 
 Catholics. And how fundly will this prejudice be cher- 
 ished when a man believes that in acting agreeably to it 
 he is in the discharge of his duty ; when he is taught 
 that it is commendable in him to be unyielding, and tena- 
 ciously to hold his own opinions without irquiry, and 
 notwithstanding light and proof may be offered even to 
 demonstration. Dr. Pressly is aware of the influence of 
 such convictions; and hence, he exhorts Psalmonites in 
 the following language: — *'In conclusion, let me say to 
 all who love the truth as in Jesus, and particularly to 
 those who love the songs of Zion above the songs of 
 uninspired men, no matter what may be the piety of 
 their authors, or the evangelical character of their senti- 
 ments, — *My beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmova- 
 ble, always abounding in the work of the Lord, foras- 
 much as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the 
 Lord.' This language, addressed to Psalmonites, is 
 just exhorting them to be as dogged and unyielding as 
 possible; to cling to their own notions, though again and 
 again it may be shown that they ore without any sup- 
 port in the word of God. Thus also the Priest exhorts 
 his people to count their heads, and mutter over their 
 Ave-Marias, because it is useful, and by no means shall 
 their labor be in vain. And as the Doctor says that in 
 contending for Psalmonisra the labor of his belove^l 
 brethren is not in vain, may we not well ask him what 
 they have accomplished or what they are accomplishing? 
 Because he does not specify a single advantage which 
 has resulted from their pertinacious steadfastness in 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 245 
 
 dinging to their peculiar notions. Indeed it is obvious 
 that to show the advantages was not his intention; but he 
 knew well that with many people such an exhortation 
 would have much more weight than even to point out 
 the advantages resulting from their conduct. Though 
 he cannot show them that their labor is not in vain, yet 
 he can tell them that it is not, and this he knows will 
 fully answer his purpose. 
 
 The manner, indeed, in which this controversy is 
 managed by their clergy, has a great influence in fos- 
 tering the prejudices of the people. They endeavor to 
 cherish the opinion among them that they are acting a 
 very worthy part, in contending against the use of a 
 Gospel Psalmody: that they thereby manifest especial 
 friendship for God, and due regard for his authority: 
 that they alone are keeping pure and entire the worship 
 which He hath appointed in his word. And conse- 
 quently, they must be the peculiar favorites of Heaven, 
 since they show so niuch respect for the appointments 
 of Heaven, and are so very conscientious in observing 
 whatever that high Authority has ordained! — While at 
 the same time they are utterly unable to show that 
 Heaven has ordained this for which they contend. And 
 then, too, the people are taught to believe that Rouse's 
 Psalms are inspired, while those of Watts are uninspired 
 — that the one is divine composition, while the other is 
 human composition — that the use of one is commanded, 
 while the use of the other is teaching for doctrines the 
 commandments of men- — that the use of the one is the 
 observance of God's own ordinance, while the use of 
 the other is offering strange fire before the Lord — that 
 the one is orthodoxy, while the other is heresy, etc., etc. 
 Such representations as these, and the very epithets 
 employed, have a great influence on the minds of the 
 
246 
 
 MORTON ON PSALxMODY. 
 
 people. Dr. Pressly being aware of this, and fearing 
 that the old epithets might lose their power, is ever care- 
 ful to invent new ones. He has said, for instance, that 
 be was contending for ''God's Psalm Book.'' And then, 
 could any man have the hardihood to contend against 
 him] Who would dare to fight against the cause of 
 God? But this has always been th^ policy of those 
 conscious, that they are the guides of a people who are 
 led by sound, not by sense. Thus the Popes of Rome, 
 in all their usurpations, always cried out that they were 
 contendinor for th^ cause of reliorion — for God's Church. 
 And so Dr. Pressly cries out that he is contending for 
 ^'God's Psalm Book," knowing that this will be far more 
 persuasive with a certain class of people, than the most 
 conclusive reasoning. 
 
 The Doctor, indeed, not only thus fosters this blind 
 prejudice, but avowedly advocates it as something com- 
 mendable. On p. 33, respecting Dr. Ralston, he says, 
 "*! am sorry to hear my venerable Father using language 
 of this character. There is prevailing in this nineteenth 
 •century a disposition, at least, sufficiently strong to 'rise 
 above the prejudice of education;' and I do not like to 
 hear the wisdom and experience of hoary hairs employ- 
 ing language so soothing to this proud spirit." * * * 
 *'Have we not seen men who, being taught by their good 
 mothers the wholesome doctrines of the Shorter Cate- 
 chism, have, even before their beards were grown, con- 
 ceived the idea of rising above 'the prejudice of educa- 
 tion;' and in the indulgence of this spirit have rejected 
 some of the great doctrines of Christianity as the relics 
 of a barbarous age?" Now, does not the Doctor pay a 
 fine compliment here to the intelligence of Christians'? 
 when he represents them as holding "the great doctrines 
 of Christianity," not by an enlightened conviction of 
 
MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 247 
 
 their truth and excellence; but just by the prejudice of 
 education] Young men, he says, before their beards 
 are grown, rise above the prejudice of education, and 
 therefore reject some of the great doctrines of Christi- 
 anity; hence it is only those who do not thus rise, that re- 
 tain those doctrines! Now I am certain that every intelli- 
 gent Christian cannot but feel indignant at such a slander 
 upon himself and his en lightening religion! Andm order 
 to foster prejudice, by giving an erroneous idea of what 
 it is, see how the Doctor artfully confounds pious pa- 
 rental instruction with the prejudice of education. When 
 men disregard the wholesome instruction of their good 
 mothers, he represents them as only rising above the 
 prejudice of education! And accordingly, when chil- 
 dren are trained up **iri the nurture and admonition of 
 the Lord," they are only prejudiced in favor of religion! 
 It would really seem that the Doctor can scarcely touch 
 any thing connected with the subject of Psalmody^ 
 without perverting it into falsehood. Perhaps it may 
 satisfy Psalmonites to have their children prejudiced 
 in favor of their religion; but every well informed 
 and intelligent Christian, will endeavor to have his 
 children instructed in the knowledge of the trulh, in 
 order that they may be able, "to give a reason of the 
 hope that is in them with meekness and fear/' 
 If the prejudice of education, is a good thing, in matters 
 of religion, as the Doctor teaches, it must be a good 
 thing among Pagans and Papists, as well as among Psal- 
 monites. But this pleading for prejudice, on the part of 
 the Doctor, evinces clearly, that he is conscious of it be- 
 ing the main support of his darling cause. For just let 
 this sightless prejudice be once destroyed, and the cause 
 of Psalmonism falls into hopeless ruin. And the Doctor 
 knows this, hence he becomes the advocate of blind 
 
248 
 
 MORTON ON PSALMODY. 
 
 prejudice, rather than suffer to fall, a cause, which he 
 knows to be indefensible, on principles of righteousness 
 and truth. 
 
 But the propriety of using a Gospel Psalmody in the 
 worship of God will yet be admitted by all His people; 
 because the truth must eventually prevail. For a time 
 of joy and concord is promised to the children of God; 
 when Zion's watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the 
 voice together shall they sing; and psalms and hymns 
 and spiritual songs make vocal all the congregations of 
 the saints. In relation to this delightful part of divine 
 worship there will then be no diversity of sentiment 
 among the people of the Lord, And if there is division 
 among them now, it is culpable ; but "on those who for- 
 sake, and not on those who hold fast the law and the 
 testimony, must the fault of division lie." Yet all who 
 love Zion and her sacred songs, are unanimous in offer- 
 ing their supplications, that these divisions may speedily 
 be bealed; and the joyful day arrive to bless the Church, 
 when her watchmen, and all her children, can together 
 lift up the voice and sing: — 
 
 * 'Glory be to God the Father, 
 
 Glory to the eternal Son ; 
 Sound aloud the Spirit^s praises ; 
 Join the elders round the throne ; 
 Hallelujah, 
 Hail the glorious Three in One 1'^