Letters on psalmody...

Front matter

r -

Mnwg of (timptw.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Letter I

Page Introductory remarks — Origin of this work — Extract from a letter of an inquiring friend — Unhappy exaggerations of our views and usages — Drs. Watts and Latta misrepresented — Dr. Pressly formerly on the Presbyterian platform — His views at that time of the " traditions of the elders " — Plan of the discussion pursued in this treatise. - - 33

Letter II

Question at issue: "Is a fair and full version of the whole book of Psalms of Divine appointment," — Rouse's versification not "the pure word of God" — not a version at all, but in many parts "a paraphrase" or mixture of inspired truth with human composition — This proved by extended quotations. -------22

Letter III

Discussion of previous Letter continued — Rouse's versification a patchwork of human and Divine sentiments and phraseology — Not "the word of God" in the same sense in which the prose translation of our Bible is so — Further extracts and extended parallels to prove this. - 31

Letter IV

The book of Psalms never designed to be the only perpetual and unchangeable Psalmody of the Church — Not so regarded by the early church of Scotland, martyrs, reformers and other holy men — The exclusive doctrine a modern discovery — Not practically adopted even by the strictest of our opposing brethren — Omission of Psalm 72 : 20 — Most of the inspired titles excluded from Rouse — These proved to be a part of the inspired text, by Dr. Alexander, Home and others — A glance at the Presbyterian doctrine of Psalmody. 38

(Si)

IV CONTENTS.

LETTER V. Page

Rouse an explanatory ''paraphrase," not a version or translation — Not "as literal as the laws of versification will allow" — A glance at the history of Scottish Psalmody prior to the publication of Rouse — " Sternhold and Hopkins" a loose paraphrase, and haying many "gospel turns," after the manner of Dr. Watts — Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland authorizing Rouse call it a "paraphrase" twenty times, but never a version — The real question: "Shall we sing * Rouse's paraphrase ' or Watts' paraphrase?" — The idea of the Divine and exclusive authority of "a correct and faithful version " purely a modern invention. - - - - 53

Letter VI

Sources whence the church must derive her songs of praise — " All Scripture of use to direct us " in praise as well as "in prayer " — Our brethren hold to the "Psalms exclusively ;" all else they view as "corruption of Divine worship" — Scottish churches almost without exception, use "other songs " — Examples of "the Free and Established churches," " United Presbyterian church," &c. — The exclusive doctrine not countenanced by the examples of the inspired men of the Old and New Testaments, Isaiah, Hezekiah, &c. 68

Letter VII

Question of "the Divine appointment" of the book of Psalms continued — Examination of 2 Chron. 29 : 30 — Contains no such Divine warrant — The common arguments from "the peculiar matter," "titles," and "original use" of the Psalms shown to be fallacious — The title and matter of "Solomon's Song" presumptive proof that it should be used for purposes of praise - - - - - 75

Letter VIII

Discussion of previous Letter continued — "A Divine warrant" for the exclusive use of the Book of Psalms, not found in Paul's "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs," Coloss. 3 : 16— Septuagint use of these titles— The fact that the Psalms were originally given to be sung by the Jews, does not prove them to be intended as an unchangeable, perpetual and exclusive system of praise — Various unsound arguments exposed. -------87

CONTENTS. V

LETTER IX. Page

"A more excellent way " — "Whole word of God of use to direct us " in praise — Act of our General Assembly — Labors of Ralph Erskine — Sentiments of " the North British Review " in commendation of Dr. Watts — He viewed his versification as "a paraphrase;" not always a strict version or translation — Many of his Psalms are as correct versions as those of Rouse ; in some parts mere so — Specimens of Dr. Watts' manner in " Sternhold and Hopkins " — The Psalms need explanation — Testimony of Professor Patterson. -------- 101

Letter X

Attempts to create prejudice against our usages by references to certain expressions of Dr. Watts — Presbyterians not responsible for certain of his reasons in regard to the proper method of using the Psalms — Dr. Watts greatly misrepresented — His high valuation of the book of Psalms — Objections examined : " Watts wrote better than David," " Presbyterian Psalmody not the word of God," "tends to weaken the claims of inspiration," "those who use Rouse certainly sing the truth," "dare not sing 'human composition,' " &c. -_-.-- 119

Letter XI

Hymns, or " the other songs of Scripture " — Example of the Scottish churches against the exclusive principle, in the proportion of two thousand eight hundred to thirty — Action of the early fathers of the Associate Reformed church — Dr. M'Master's sentiments in favor of hymns — Present views of Drs. Kerr and Pressly — Glance at the results — A large part of Dr. Watts' hymns are fair paraphrases of portions of the inspired word of God, and no more "human composition" than much of "Rouse's paraphrase" — Defense of the remainder. ------ 133

Letter XII

Use of hymns in the early church — Glance at Ephes. 5 : 19, and Coloss. 3 : 16 — Authority of Ralph Erskine in favor of our views of these passages — Usage of the primitive church — Objections considered: "Book of Psalms perfect," "no command to make songs of praise," "setting aside parts of God's word," "hymns lead to alteration of the inspired records," " encourage error and heresy," "Lead to schisms and discord," &c. - 147

1*

Letter XIII

God has given ns no system of Psalmody for exclusive use — Five further arguments to prove this point — Fruits of the exclusive system : Suspension of ministers, elders and church members — Argument from analogy: Prayer and praise, both of human composition, so mingled in the Psalms and in all direct worship of God as to be inseparable — Strange inconsistencies and jarring opinions about the real nature of "inspired Psalmody" — Views of Dr. Cooper, the "Preacher," &c— Gross errors in Rouse. - 166

Letter XIV

Misrepresentations of Dr. Watts exposed — Further proof of the use of "other than the Psalms" in the primitive church — Admitted by Dr. M'Master; proved by Merle D'Aubigne, and "the North British Review" — Letter of Pliny — Testimony of Eusebius — Hymns condemned by the Council of Laodicea, which also forbid any to sing but the choir — Case of the heretic Paul of Samosata — Truths established by that case. - - - - - -186

Appendix

Review of "The True Psalmody." 206

Preface

Several years ago it was suggested to the author, by one of our most energetic and useful ministers, an honored pastor in the Presbyterian church, to undertake "the preparation of a small popular work on Psalmody.'' This request was enforced by the kindest considerations of a personal nature, and the brother was pleased to add : " we need a popular treatise * * * to meet the public demand on this subject." Many circumstances conspired to forbid compliance with this suggestion until a recent period. The result is now with great diffidence submitted to the Christian public.

The providential circumstances which have seemed to demand some further defense of the cherished usages of the Presbyterian church in relation to the public and private singing of the praises of God, are fully stated in the progress of this discussion, and especially in the Introductory Letter. If our system of Psalmody be such as is described in the quotations made from the writings of the brethren whom we oppose, then the sooner it is abandoned the better ; since it must be, as they are pleased to allege, "a corruption of Divine worship " of a very offensive and dangerous sort. But if, on the other hand, it is clearly demonstrable that these brethren have misapprehended, and therefore, greatly misrepresented the views and usages of our church ; if, moreover, their confident and peculiar claims to the exclusive use of an "inspired Psalmody" can be shown to be altogether without foundation; a superstructure without a basis either in the Holy Scriptures, Church History or fact ; then it becomes an obvious duty to present the evidence which clearly establishes these positions. This has been attempted in the following Letters.

We disclaim at the outset, the slightest intentional disrespect toward the Psalmody in use among these brethren, by the employment in this work of the phraseology, "House's versifica-

(Yii)

Vlll PREFACE.

tion," " Rouse's paraphrase," &c. We are told, indeed, "that to call the Divine songs in this version, * Rouse's Psalms,' is to evidence gross ignorance or something worse."* Yet Neal, the distinguished historian of the Puritans, employs the phrase, " Rouse's Psalms in nietre."f And what is much more to the point, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — 1644- 1649 — in their formal acts authorizing that versification, employ not less than twenty times the phrase " Rouse's paraphrase of the Psalms," and similar terms. In such excellent company, we cannot be justly chargeable with intentional contempt of the Psalmody of these brethren, though we use the expressions referred to. We admit that the Scottish General Assembly revised and amended Rouse's work ; but probably did not alter it to as great an extent as Dr. Watts' "paraphrase" has been changed from the original of Dr. W. Yet this does not prevent these brethren from using the epithet " Watts' Psalms," though in strictness of speech they are not so.

In the numerous quotations in the following Letters from leading works of these brethren, such as "M'Master's Apology," " Pressly on Psalmody," " Testimony of the United Presbyterian Church," &c. it has been the constant aim of the author to let them speak for themselves ; as it was his earnest wish to meet their arguments in their own chosen forms. In reference, however, to a number of remarkable extracts from " The United Presbyterian," Cincinnati, it is only an act of justice to say that the editors of that paper, viz. the late Dr. Claybaugh, and Rev. James Prestley, now of Pittsburgh, were not personally responsible. The extracts referred to, are chiefly from communications over the signature of " Pastor." How far the editors were prepared to indorse the views of " Pastor," we can only conjecture ; though one or more editions of his articles in pamphlet form were printed for wider circulation.

The zeal of these brethren for their favorite Psalmody does not seem to flag. Since the organization of " the United Presby-

| History of the Puritans, vol. 2, p. 42. Francis Rouse was a lay member of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, in 1643.

PREFACE. IX

terian church," about twelve months ago, they have issued a " Testimony " against the supposed errors of other denominations, not overlooking this subject. . Over 20,000 copies of "the Testimony," if we are rightly informed, have already been put in circulation. In addition, a new work directed more especially against "the corruption" of singing hymns, nas within a few months been published in Philadelphia, and circulated in the West. A venerable Professor, too, has been employing the pulpit at home and abroad, in the same cause, warning the people against the great inconsistency, and, if his theory be the true one, the imminent peril of those who mingle in devotional meetings which employ other than "the inspired Psalmody." To obviate in some measure these varied efforts to perpetuate what the author is constrained to view as mischievous error, and to contribute his mite to remove a needless source of division in the Church of Christ, is the object of this treatise.

Having submitted his manuscript to several honored brethren in the ministry, the author has great pleasure in presenting to the public the appended testimonials :

Rev. W. Annan :

Dear Brother : — The undersigned have perused with great pleasure, the Letters on Psalmody you were pleased to put in their hands, and are happy to express their approbation of them. The principal arguments of those who contend for the exclusive use of " Rouse's version of the Psalms " in the worship of God, are fairly stated and completely refuted; and whilst you discuss your theme with candor and vigor, we are happy to observe it is in an eminently Christian temper.

Although there are already several excellent treatises on this subject, your letters fill a gap in this controversy, as you appear to us to meet the arguments of those from whom we differ at a number of points which others have not touched.

A clear, brief and courteous discussion of this whole subject, such as you have here furnished, is, in our judgment, much needed at this time; and the publication of what you have written, we are persuaded, through the Divine blessing, would do much to correct erroneous opinions, and to increase the attachment of our people to a Psalmody which

X PREFACE.

embraces the New Testament as well as the Old, and speaks of Calvary as well as of Zion.

"We hope you will consent to give these Letters to the public, and trust they may have an extensive circulation, and that their publication may result in the edification of Grod's people and the glory of his name. Yours, fraternally,

W. D. HOWARD, W. M. PAXTON.

Allegheny City, March 11th, 1859.

Rev. W. Annan :

Bear Brother : — Having with much pleasure perused your f Letters on Psalmody," I very cordially concur in the expressions of the foregoing letter from the pastors of the First and Second churches of this city.

Respectfully, yours,

A. 0. PATTERSON.

Pittsburgh, May 13th, 1859.

The writer does not deem it necessary to occupy his pages with further testimonials. He will only add, that having read some of the most important parts of his work to the learned and honored Professor of Theology in the Western Seminary, Dr. Plumer after "examining the plan of the whole discusssion." addressed to the author a very kind note, from which the following is an extract :

" The result is, that I have no doubt your work is such as is called for by the exigency of our times. I therefore cordially commend it to the perusal of 'Zion's friends and mine.' I have great confidence that the Rev. Dr. Howard, Rev. Wm. M. Paxton and Rev. Dr. Patterson, have given a fair and just view of the whole work." It may be proper to add, that Dr. Plumer having at that time only partially recovered from a long and painful illness, and his official duties in the Seminary having greatly accumulated, was unable, though desirous, to peruse the whole discussion.

In concluding this Preface, we may be permitted to add a few "words for the prayerful consideration of the brethren who dissent from our views. Agreeing as we do in the great fundamentals of

PREFACE. XI

the Calvinistic faith and of Christian morals, let us inquire seriously and earnestly, whether we are not also substantially one in the ordinance of praise. In theory we differ, but in practice the disagreement ceases to be a matter of principle. Just as every pious Arminian when on his knees, becomes a Calvinist ; so do these brethren habitually forsake the exclusive theory and practice in part on the principle which we adopt. So at least it seems to us. We appeal to the ensuing argument to prove that they worship God to a large extent, in the use of "human composition."

As to the injurious and even fatal consequences flowing from these needless divisions, especially in the sparse settlements of our country, they are only too obvious and deplorable. How often does it occur, that two church edifices must be built in a neighborhood where not one can be half filled with worshipers — two ministers must labor where not one can be half supported, &c. Hence for more than half the year silent Sabbaths — while heresy and delusion of every shade are spreading their souldestroying influences into every nook and corner of the land. Thus in numerous instances are the professed friends of the Lord Jesus found working into the hands of the great adversary of souls.

With these remarks we commend the work to the blessing of " the Father of lights and of wisdom, from whom cometh down every good and perfect gift," with the earnest prayer that it may be made the humble instrument of promoting the union of Christians and the salvation of souls.

Pittsburgh, May, 1859.

Letter I

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS — ORIGIN OF THE WORK — EXTRACT FROM A LETTER FROM AN INQUIRING FRIEND — UNHAPPY EXAGGERATION

OF OUR VIEWS OUR USAGES MISREPRESENTED NOTICE OF DRS.

WATTS AND LATTA DR. PRESSLY FORMERLY ON THE PRESBYTERIAN

PLATFORM HIS VIEWS OF " TRADITIONS OF THE ELDERS" PLAN

OF THE DISCUSSION PURSUED IN THIS TREATISE.

My Dear Sir: — I received in due season your very acceptable communication, and return you my grateful acknowledgments for the many kind expressions it contains. It is true, as you intimate, that under the force of circumstances beyond my control, my attention has been at different times directed to the subject which has occasioned your letter. Nor do I consider myself at liberty to disregard suggestions which have had an origin such as that to which you refer. That the Christian public, before which these Letters will probably appear, may understand these allusions, I take the liberty of making some extracts from your letter, as follows :

" During a recent visit among distant relatives, there was placed in my hands, and earnestly recommended to my perusal, a copy of a work entitled 'An Apology for the Book of Psalms/ In turning over its pages I confess the impressions made upon my mind were anything but pleasant, and I must add, by no means favorable to the Presbyterian church.

" I was born of parents, who, as you are aware, were of the old Scottish stock, and my excellent father was for many years a minister of the Associate Reformed church. I had been accustomed from early youth, to what is called 'the old Psalmody/ both in public and private worship, and have many of its stanzas still familiar to my memory. But when, as I grew up, I experienced 2 (xiii)

those deep religious impressions, which, as I trust, were the evidence of the * effectual call' of God's Spirit, and when I united with a church under the care of the General Assembly, it was certainly without the remotest suspicion that I. thereby renounced, even by implication, any of ' the great and precious' principles of Divine truth, in which I had been so carefully trained by my honored parents.

" Judge then of my painful surprise, when there was handed to me a work whose very title indicates that a most precious portion of God's sacred word had been seriously assailed and its Divine inspiration bitterly impugned by the very branch of the church with which I had cast in my lot. That for this reason, the author referred to had felt it to be incumbent upon him to enter the controversial arena in defense of the book of Psalms — very much as some of the early fathers wrote 'apologies' for Christianity, which were designed to obviate and rebuke the malignant assaults of Jews and Pagans against the rising power and influence of the religion of Christ !

" On looking through the volume, I found the General Assembly of our church charged with ' the entire rejection of the inspired book of Psalms from the church's Psalmody, and the substitution of others of human device in their place ' — and several authors belonging to the Presbyterian body are professedly quoted as employing ( arguments most popular and frequently used ' * * ' representing those Divine compositions (the Psalms of David) as Ohristless/ and of course, 'almost, if not altogether contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, ' pp. 51, 67, 69. Again, the author charges l that most numerous and influential body of professors (the Presbyterian church) with abandoning the songs of inspiration and practically declaring them unfit for Christian lips,' p. 85. And he solemnly testifies ' against those who have entered into these views.'

" Such, Rev. Sir, are a few specimens of the spirit and substance of the book — imposing, as the author inti-

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 15

mates, a necessity upon him to step forward to shield a most precious part of revealed truth from the < bitter libels ' and the l unhallowed suggestions uttered against it.' And in endeavoring to trace these evils to their source, he without hesitation ascribes them ' to the principles of Infidelity which had extended to every department both of Church and State/*

" Having only recently commenced my preparatory studies for the ministry, and never been placed in circumstances where it became necessary to examine with much care the Psalmody question, you, Rev. Sir, can readily conceive with what impressions I perused such paragraphs as the foregoing. Could it be possible there was the slightest foundation for allegations such as these ? Certainly from some considerable acquaintance with the ministry and membership of the Presbyterian church, I had never conceived the smallest suspicion of such a state of feeling toward the productions of 'the sweet Psalmist of Israel f but on the contrary had always met with expressions of the most profound veneration and esteem for that delightful manual of devotion, especially as a component part of the 'holy oracles/ And in regard to my own experience, from the earliest dawn of religion in my soul, I had been in the habit of resorting to that precious book, the Psalms, as a most abundant fountain of light, consolation and refreshment for all classes of pilgrims to the heavenly land. Moreover, this I knew to be a common experience in the Presbyterian church. Still, as these grave charges were made by men venerable for years and respected for their talents, the only alternative left me was to express my conviction of an utter mistake as to matter of fact, or to remain entirely silent in regard to statements which I was not prepared to refute."

These paragraphs sufficiently define the circumstances which produced the letter of my correspondent. His experience is by no means singular. In the same letter * The latest edition was published in 1852.

lie mentions the case of a Presbyterian lady, who had never made herself acquainted with the merits of the Psalmody question — who, having placed in her hands a copy of the same work ("Apology, &c") was so impressed with its confident assertions, that she declared to her pastor her full determination never again to employ the Psalmody of the Presbyterian church.*

In like manner those whose circumstances have brought them in contact for any considerable length of time with the books, periodicals, &c. of these brethren, must have often been grieved and indignant at the tone of rash, unbrotherly assertion which frequently appears in connection with this subject. Charges of " Infidel flouts" — " impious rejection of the Psalms which God has given" — " infamous conduct in setting aside the God-made hymn book and adopting man-made hymn books" — " disregard of Divine authority, want of reverence for the Scriptures, and low views in relation to their inspiration" — u speaking reproachfully of the book of Psalms" — " daring presumption" — " daring profanity" — " sentiments derogatory to the Spirit of inspiration" — " crime verging on the sin against the Holy Ghost." These are copied from the most respectable sources, from the writings of men of years and standing in their own denominations ; and several of them from the official " Testimony" recently issued by the Associate and Associate Reformed, now known as " the United Presbyterian body!"

In regard to the practical working of our Psalmody, the following extraordinary statement was published in two of their leading magazines,f issued in Philadelphia, viz :

" The Puritan churches in Old and New England, and also the two General Assemblies (Old and New School) in the States, are beacons too alarming to be disregarded. In these churches they have renounced the Bible Psalms,

* She soon after joined the Seceders.

f Christian Instructor and Evangelical Repository, for June, 1854; edited by Drs. Dales and Cooper.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 17

and adopted Watts' and other collections. The expe^ rience of these churches is, that when human hymns were introduced they were not generally sung by the congregation : that was left with the leader and a few others. Then a choir was needed to keep up the volume of sound considered respectable. This, ere long, got stale, and became uninteresting. They then introduced organs and all sorts of ' dead instruments giving sound ;' this more and more killed congregational singing. Then they multiplied hymn books without end : (a gentleman in New York lately carried four hymn books to church, and only one out of the four hymns sung was in the four books.) The result is, that nobody out of the choir now sings, and the churches are literally without praise — the most interesting and celestial exercise of the church on earth, perhaps in heaven. "

It is not necessary to extend these quotations. Sufficient has been given to indicate the tone and spirit with which this controversy is conducted by the more sober and mature minds among these brethren. Neither do we propose at present to say a word to expose these singular allegations. Most of them will come in review as we proceed in the discussion. Charity demands that we presume their authors thought u they ivere speaking the * truth in love t" Even good men, as all experience testifies, when they become heated by controversy, may be deceived, and unintentionally deceive others. David himself admits that he spoke " in haste," when he uttered a certain sweeping condemnation.

To revert for a moment to the particular icork referred to by our correspondent — the extracts professedly given from the treatises of the late Dr. James Latta and two or three others, we have not the means of testing by a reference to the books themselves. They are out of print. Nor have we ever seen Dr. Latta's work, except a single copy some years since, in the private library of Rev. Dr. M'Gill, who had been a Seceder clergyman ! That Dr. L. never designed to utter most of the senti- 2* ments attributed to him, is plain to my mind from several considerations : they are in direct contradiction to the whole tenor of his honored and useful life. So that it is much easier to believe that the author of the " Apology" in the heat of contest has mistaken his meaning, than to conceive that Dr. L. ever meant to express some of the sentiments ascribed to him ; and the same thing is true of the others. If, however, any opinions on Psalmody have been uttered by any member or minister of the Presbyterian body, such as some of those imputed to Dr. L. and others, let them be condemned ! Every sound Presbyterian will add his amen to the sentence. Let the volumes be produced and the quotations verified — then we will join these brethren in their earnest repudiation of them.

As to the professed quotations from Dr. Watts, his case will receive, as it deserves, a more particular notice. He was the honored instrument, in the hand of Providence, in arranging and versifying the Psalms and Hymns as they are generally used in our churches ; and he has met with no ordinary share of abuse and misrepresentation. Suffice it to say for the present, that as our Psalmody has been repeatedly revised with great care, by large and respectable committees of the General Assembly, the system now bears the official sanction of that body. The views of Psalmody uttered by Dr. W. in his " Essay" and " Prefaces," have never been indorsed by our Assembly. They may be true or false — they are not ours. So also with the reasons Dr. W. assigns for certain changes introduced into parts of the Psalms. The General Assembly have sanctioned and adopted many of those alterations, with their own amendments — but not one of the published reasons of Dr. Watts.* We wish this to be particularly noted. Admitting for argument, that to a certain extent Dr. W. has expressed himself unhappily, injudiciously and unwisely, in regard to parts of the Psalms — our church is no more responsible for * Eor a defense of Dr. W. see Letter XIV.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 19

those forms of utterance which she has never sanctioned, than she is responsible for the blunders of Rouse, in making David say the true Christian in his experience of this life, " hath perfect blessedness" — which, of course, is the fruit only of perfect holiness, and leads directly to the error of " sinless perfection." So Rouse may have had his reasons for exhibiting the Lord Jesus Christ inPs. 69 : 4, as saying of the satisfaction he made to the Divine law — " to render forced was I '" which, of course, utterly subverts the doctrine of Atonement, by representing the blessed Saviour as a forced victim to Divine justice ! Still, we have too much charity for these brethren, to imagine that they hold these gross errors, or that they have ever sanctioned Rouse's reasons for so misrepresenting the inspired Psalmist. Let them exercise the same blessed charity toward their brethren of other denominations. We use the poetical labors of Dr. Watts where we approve of them, just as we use those of any other man — but so far and no farther are we responsible for his sentiments. The bitter denunciations he has met with are no concern of ours, except to see that there is no misrepresentation and slandering of the venerable dead. But of this more hereafter.