DISCOURSE O N PSALMODY. DELIVERED AT NEWBURGE, BEFORE TI4E PRESBYTERY OF HUDSON, SEPTEMBER, i3oi, r \ By JGNATHAr^REEMAN, A. M< V. V. >:, N E W B u ?. c ir ■ PRINTED 3Y "DENNIS COLE?, rScn, ^ ■ ■ l ■.■««■ lit VMUm\im > ** '!« " * J.J < <%l -Pig; A DISCOURSE, &c, Qol. ill. 1 6, 17. Let the word of Chrljl dwell in pa richly in all wifdom; Teaching and admonifhing on: another in Pfalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs, Jinging with grace in you r htarts to the Lord, yfnd whatfoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name 0/ the Lord J ef us, giving thanks to God and thi Father by him. r pHE apoftle in the context, urges the vigorous exercife of. JL the chriftian graces. And in the pafTage under difcuffion, he points to a principal mean by which thefe graces may be rou- fed into activity. It is addreffing to God facred anthems of praife. We are alfo directed to the word of Chrijl as the proper fourcs of our divine fongs. The word of Chrijl is an appropriate appellation of the gofpel. The fcriptures of the old teftament, are, in a remote fenfe, the word of Chrijl, becaufe they were dic- tated by his fpirit, and becaufe he is their ultimate object. Buc- the gofpel is, in a peculiar fenfe, the word of Chrijl. This fhall be made apparent in the fequel. That we may be amply furnilhed with fongs of praife, the word •f Chrijl muft dwell richly in us. It muft be cordially received, af- fiduoufly fearched, and carefully obferved. Our knowledge of the gofpel muft be extenfive, and more than fpeculative. The heart is- the principal place of its abode. Here it muft dwell in all wifdom. To an ample fund of experimental acquaintance with the gofpel, we muft add a fufficient flock ot wifdom, that we may fuitably improve the various occurrences of life. Thus furnilhed, we muft confeien- tioufly engage in the delightful and divine employment of Teach- ing and admonifhing one another in pfalms and hymns and fpiriiual fongs 9 Jinging with grace in our hearts to the Lord. From the rich indwell- ing of the word of Chrijl, we fhall be able to teach and admoniiii each other, to awaken and inflame our pious affections, in celebra- ting the praifes of the SACRED THREE. Nothing will mors awaken the whole foul, and elevate it to God and divine things, than a holy pfalm well compofed and well fung. Much care, how- ever, fhould be taken, that we fing not only with the graces of mufic, but with divine grace in the heart ; with attention and de- votion to the Lord. And all our finging, as well as every other [43 flttty, fhould be performed in the namt of the Lord Jefus t giving thanks to God tnd the Father by him. From thefc general observations on the pafTige of fcripture pro- pofed for difcuffion, I invite your attention to this point ; namely, Singing praifes to God is an important duty obligetory upon chriflians, C7k1 thefuljecls of our fongs of praifc fhould chiefly be derived from the gofpel. The firfl branch of this pofition is univerfally acknowledged in ihechiiftian church It is the laft branch, therefore, which I jfhall now illuftrate and eftablifh. I. The fubje&s of our pfalms, hymns, and fpiritual fongs, fhould chiefly be derived from the gofpel of Chrift. I fay chiefly from the gofpel, becaufe we fhould borrow light and advantage from every part of the lcriptures th;tt will afford them ; and be- caufe I intend to fliew that the pfalms of David fhould not be ufed as the only fyflem of praife in gcfpcl churches: That the fubjecls of our pfalms of praifc fhould chiefly be taLca from the gofpel of Chrift, I would prove i ft. From the firft claufe of my text. Let the word of Chrift dwell in you richly. By the word of Chrift, in this place, we are to underfland the gofpel. Paul ftyles it ' the word of the truth of the gofpel, which is come to you.' fa. J In the twentieth and third verfc, he urges the Coloffian believers ' not to be moved away from the hope of the gofpel which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature under heaven.' Again ; he fays that they * were com- plete in Chrift,' (b.) and warns them not to adulterate the gofpel with mixtures taken fro* the pagan philofophy, nor from the ce- remonial rites of the Mofaic difpenfation, which had received its accomplifhment in Chrift Jefus. Hence it is manifeft that the Coloffians were not directed to the old teftament in queft of the word of Chrift, but to the gofpel. In the epiltle to the Hebrews., we read that * God, who at Aia- ."■hy times, and in diverfe manners fpake unto the fathers bj the prophets, hath, in thefe laft days.fpokcn unto us by his fon.' (c.) But how did God fpeak to the fathers by the prophets, except in the fcriptures of the old teftaruent : How does God fpeak to us by his fon ? I anfwer, in the gofpel. Here you fee that the apof- tle, in writing to the jews, diftinguifhes the gofpel from all the revelations of the divine will in the old teftament. Surely then, in writing to the Gentile Coloffians, he fpraks of the gofpel under the title of tht word of Chrift. Pool, perhaps, our beft commentator on the bible, informs us that Grotius, Davenant, and other eminent divines agree, that {«*') Col. i. 5, 6. (b.) Col. ii. io. (*.) Heb. i, i, 2. [ 5 ] the word of Chtift is the doctrine of the gofpel. The learned and pious bifhop Davenant fays, that the golpel is called the word of Chrift, becaufe it was revealed and preached by Chrift, and ipeaks of Chrift. The learned Doctor Doddridge calls the word «f Chrijl the gofpel. Hence it is evident that by the word of Chrift we mat underftand the gofpel. And it is as evident that the ex- hortation in my text, is tantamount to a command to take the fub- jects of cur praife from the gofpel. For the principal reafon al- leged, why the word of Chrift fhould dwell richly in the Colofliun believers, was, that they might be enabled to teach and admonifh one another, in pfalms, hymns, and fpiricua! fongs. If they were always to fing David's pialms, there could be no neceffity for the word of ■ hrifl to dwell riehly in them, that they might be fur. niflied with pfalms, hymns, and fpiritual fongs. They fhould rather have been urged to become thoroughly acquainted with the pfalms of David, that they might be qualified for the great work of praife. The apofi:le exhorted the Coloffians to Lit the word of Chr'tji dwell in them richly; and then teaches them how they fhould apply it, namely, in teaching and admovijhing one another in pfalms and hymns' and fpiritual fongs. And this affords a 2d, argument to the point before us. To teach and admonifh each other, was the leading defig* why the word tf Chrijl fhould dwell richly in them. Would it not be ftrange to urge the Coloffians, to obtain a thorough acquaint- ance with the gofpel, with a view to praife God, and yet, when they celebrate his praife, they muft not do it in gofpel f*ngs, but in thofe of the old teftament ? Such an interpretation would be wrefting the text with a witnefs. 1 would not venture upon fuch a perverfion of fcripture. Themanifeft fenfe of the apoftle, there- fore, is, that they fhould celebrate the praifes of God in pfalms and hymns and ipii iiual fongs which arc derived from the gofpel of Chrift. In the epiftle to theEphefians we find a parallel to our tzxt.fd.J ' Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excefs ; but be filled with the fpirit.' And how was this fulnefs of the fpirit to be mani- fefted and improved ? By ' fpeaking to one another in pfalms, hymns, and fpiritual fongs.' And here there is enjoined a ftric\ regard to the gofpel, ' Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father, in the name of our Lord Jefus Chrift.' And what are fome of the principal things for which they would give thanks in their anthems of praife ? Would they not blefs God for their election ? — their prcdeftinaiion to the adoption of fons ?-.- their jultification through the righteoufnefs of Chrift, and their being {V.) Eph. r. 1 8, iy. f » p made fellow-citizens with the faints ? And where will you find thefe precious gofpel privileges in the pfalms of David ? If it was their duty to fing thofe pfalms, why did not Paul direct the Co- lofllans to them ? There is no pfalm of David, in which we are directed to approach God in the duty of praife and thankfgiving, for the peculiar blefiings of the gofpel, in the name of Jefus Chrift. And, therefore, as we are urged to thank God in the name of Chrift for thefe bleflings, and no fuch fongs of praife being found in David, the conclufion mud be evident to every unprejudiced mind, that our hymns of praiie ihould be taken from the gofpel, and not from David. Shall we pray and preach in gofpel language, and when we fing, enter a Jem'ifh fynagegue, and ufc the pfalms of the eld difpen- fation ? If I fhoald preach a fermon,and exclude from it the name of Jefus Chrift, and his righteoufnefs, would you not think it a very defective difcourfe ? If I fhould pray in the language of the old tcftamcnt, that Chrift might come, and obey the law and fuffer and atone for iin, would you call it praying ? And why fhould we fing in this manner ? Shall we take our fermons and prayers from the gofpel, but all our fongs of praife from the old teftament ? What fubftantial reafon can be affigned for this ? For fuch practice no divine authority can be alleged. Had God commanded u» to fing David's pfalms under the gofpel, the con- troverfy on this fubject had never arifen. We fhould be obliged to obey, even if we were unable to difcover the reafon of the com- mandment. Some of David's pfalms are prophecies of the then coming Meffiah. And when we ufe them in finging, do we not place ourfelves in a Jewifh fynagogue, and look for Chrift yet to come? Examine this in every view, and if it is not reducing christians to a ftate of Judaifm, which the gofpel condemns^ I cannot un- tlerftand plain Englifh. When we have been meditating upon the crofs of Chrift, and redemption through hit blood, till our •affections are kindled into a devout flame, mall we exprefs thefe pious affections in Jewifh fongs of praife? — in the types and fha- dows of the Jewifh fyftcm? Shall we confine our attention entire- ly to the prediction, when its accomplishment is prefented to our view ? Shall we light up a candle in the full blaze of the meridian fun? When we behold the promifed Meffiah already come; whea we realize his fufferings, death, refuuection, and afcention int© heaven as our interceflor; fhall we praife God for thefe glorious events in the language of prediction? How ftrange, and unac- countable is fuch conduct in profefling Christians ! Let none prciume to mention the precious name of Chrift in a fermon, or prayer, who will exclude it fr«m his fongs of praife. If it had t 7 1 keen the apoftle's defignto direct us to David's pfalms, vvculd he »ot have given us exprefs information to that purpofe ? There is not the leaft intimation of this in our text, nor any of thofepaf- fages, where we are directed to ?ppioach God in fongs of praife. That we are not directed to David is farther evident from the di- verfity of phiafe which the apoftle ufes ; pfalms, hymns, and fpi- ritual fongs. We have no hint in fcripture that David's pfalms were ever defignated by thefe titles. r i hey are frequently quoted in the new teftament, but always under the title of pfalms, * Da- vid hiinfelf faith in the book of p/alms.' (e.) * It is written in the fecond pfaltn ,thou art my fon — he faith alfo in another pfalm, thou fhalt not fuffer thine Holy One to fee corruption.' {/.) * Again, it is written in the book of pfalms.' (g.) Thus you fee, when new teftament writeri quote the book of pfalms, it is under the exprefs title of pfalms. They are no where called hyT.ns and fpiritual fongs. If, therefore, Paul defigned to (hew that we fhould fmg thofe pfalms exclufivcly, why does he urge us to ufe, befidcs them, hymns and fpiritual fongs ? Since the pfalms of David are never diftinguifhed by the title of hymns and fpiritual fongs, it muft be evident to every perfon not infatu- ated with bigotry, that the apoftle directs us to fongs of praife de- rived from the gofpel; No other conclufion can fairly be drawn. But, above all, does not the apoftle direct us to fubje&s of praife and gratitude different from what arc recorded in the old ttftament ? — to wonders %vhich had no exiftence under theMofaic difpeniatlon ? And iliall the wonders of redeeming love, which the gofpel prefents to view, be dreffed in Jewifh language, when we fmg them ? Shall we celebrate the Redeemer's benefits, the privileges and gloiies of the gofpel, on the Jewifh harp and or- gan ? The apoftle throughout this epiftle tixes our attention on the gofpel which the old teftament faints had not received. And it is from this fourcc that we muft take the materials of our an- thems of praife, by which we are to teach and admonifti each ©ther. This conclufion is as evident as any doctrine taught in the holy fcriptuies. That the matter of our pfalms, hymns, and fpiritual fongs (hould be taken chiefly from the gofpel, receives farther evidence 3dly, from arguments that may be drawn from the old tefta- ment. i. Let us advert to the practice of the faints in tinging praifes to God in the early ages ef the church. When Mofes had conducted the lfraelites through the Red Sea, he compofed a fong to be fung in commemoration of their happy deliverance from Egyptian vaflallage. (-6.) This falvation o.f (e.) Luke xx. 42. If.) A.& w, 33> 35- U-) Act* u 2.9. 1*0 E*°du*£& i * j IAacl may be confidcred as a fhadowof the grcat'falvation which Chrift has procured tor believers. And (hall the Israelites celehrate their temporal deliverance in an anthem of praife ? And fliaU we, in our fpiritual longs, pafs over in filence our great felvatioo from fin and hell, which was accomplifhed under the gofpel dif- penfation? If we fhould hold our peace upon this glorious event* would not the ftones immediately cry out and overwhelm us witlt confufion ? Deborah and Barak, fang another fong adapted to the occafion of their victory over their enemies. (/.) l)id time permit, and neceffity require, I could fhew a number of forgs' which the laints, under the old teitament, fung upon receiving particular favors from God. And fhall we not imicate their prac« tice ? Has not the Lord done greater things for us which de-» mand fuitable anthems of praife i Did not Chrift open the eyes of the blind, caule the deaf to hear, and the lame to wa-k ? Did he not give bread to the hungry ? — living waters to the thirlty ?— . reftore limbs to the maimed and life to the dead ? Has he, by his* vicarious fatisfaclion to divine juftice, delivered us from the guilt of fin ? Has he, by the power of the Holy Ghoft, delivered us in ibme good meafurc from the power of fin, and is he preparing us for a blejfed immortality ? And ihall we have no pfalms to comme- morate thefe mercies ? Such ipiritual fongs mull be derived from the gofprl. They cannot be found in David. Hence we arc not to be confined to David's pfalms. The Jewifh church iticlf v • re not confined to them but fung a great variety of others which you will find cn> examination. Some were compofed by Afaph, fame by Hemarj arid Ethan. Mofcs compofed ihe ninetieth. A id a oonfiderabhsr/ number of pfalms, in ufe among the Jew6, were written by per- fons whole names were not recorded. David wrote but little more than halt the book of pislms. Many of them were compo- fed thrpe hundred years after his death- The 79th p fa I'm laments *he ravages of the Jewilh nation by >he Chaldeans under the reign of Nebuch;.'jnezzer. The 137th deplores the reproaches of their - enemies while they were in a llate of vafTallage in Babylon, The 85th and 126th record the divine gcodnefs difplayed in their e- mancipaiion from that captivity. This took place about four * hundred years after thf death of David. Thus you fee that the Jewifh church were not confined to Da- vid's pfalms, but fung many others, compofed by different pcr- fons, and at long periods of time after David's deceafe. A no if they did net conftantly ufe them, why (kould we not fellow their example ? The Jews praifed God for new and fpecial favors, aud v»-hy mould not this he the practice of chriftian* I (/.) Judges v. C 9 J 2. Let us advert to fome predictions in the old teftament rc- fpecling the gofpel difpenfation. Ifaiah, having fpoken of the 'giving of Chrift for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles' — as it were, addrefled chriftians, ' fing unto the Lord a netvfor.S . ( k.) But where will you find this new fong in the old teftament pfalms ? This pro- phecy was delivered about three hundred years after David's time, as you may learn from the chronology of the kings of Jm* dah ; and this (hews that God did not intend to confine the chrif- tian church to the pfalms of David. There are other prophecies refpedting the days of the gofpel which ferve to eftablifh the point under difcufilon. Ifaiah reprc- fents the ' defert rejoicing and blofibming as the rofe. — It (ball rejoice, even with joy and finging.' (L) * Sing unto the Lord for he hath done excellent things', (m.) In the profpect of a large ingathering of fouls to Chrift: among the Gentiles, the prophet enjoins, ' Sing, O heavens; and be joy- ful O earth ; and break forth into finging, O mountains : for the Lord hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afHicled.' (n.) In that day (tall ye fay, praife the Lord, call up- on his name, declare his doings among the people, make men- tion that his name is exalted. Sing unto the Lord ; for he haf.U done excellent things : this is known in all the earth.' (e.) To thefe occafions, David's pfalms arc not adapted. And In our hymns of praife fliall thefe glorious things be palled over in, filence ? When God commands us exprefsly, by his prophet, to fing unto him a new fong, becaufe he hath done excellent things for us, lhall blinded bigotry refufe compliance ? Shall we reject evangelical fongs which recognife the excellent things the Lord hath wrought for us ? Did the Jews fing praifes to God for every new deliverance? — did the piophets feel themfelves tranfported at every glimpfe of gofpel light ?— did they foretell the bleffings c£ gofpel times, and enjoin upon chriftians new fongs of praife in which thofe bleffings are recognifed ? — what mall we fay ? Can we refill the force of fuch practice, and oppofe fuch exhortations and injunctions ? It muft hence appear manifeft that our Ipirituai longs lhould be derived from the gofpel. This truth gains additional ftreiigth, 4thly, from arguments prefented to view in the gofpel. Here we fliall find a number of fongs of praife widely different from thofe of David. An excellent fong of Mary we find recorded in Luke's gofpel. (/.) From an overflowing fpirit, fhe celebrates with adoring (L) Ifaiah xlii (/.) Ifaiah xxxr. (m.) Ifaiah xu. ("■) Ifaiah xlii. (e.) Ifaiah xii. (/.) LuLc 1. 46— < B c .0 ] admiration, the infinite mercy of God towards herfelf, and the fulfilment of his promifes to the Fathers of her ration. Zacharias' lips burft open in another rapturous anthem» in which he • bleffes the Lord God of Ifrael, who had vifited and redeemed his people, and had given light to them that fat in darknefs and in the fha- dow of dc nidc their feet into the way of peace.' (q. ) A multitude of the heavenly hoft announced the birth of Em- manuel in a pathetic anthem : « Glory to God in the higheft, and en earth peace, good will towards men.' ( r.) Shall we not catch the facred pleafing found and re-echo the enraptured fong? The aged Simeon became invigorated by the view of Mcfnah, »nd broke out into devout and tranfporting raptures of praife in the temple. Anna the prophetefs, in a fong, ' gave thanks, and fpaka of him to all that looked for redemption in Jerufalem. fs.J Tims you fee that evangelical fengs were introduced at the dawn of the gofpel. Thefe perfons were jews and fome of them priefts and prophets; but you clearly fee that their attention was diverted from the old teftament pfa!ms,and that they were infpired to fing evangelical anthems upon the advent of the promifed Meffiah. New mercies under the old teftament always induced the church to make new fongs of praife. And thofe who embraced the Sa- vior, continued the fame rational practice in the beginning of the gofpel difpenfation. As focn as the gofpel day began to dawn, the faints began to lay afide the jewifh, and adopt an evangelical, pfalmody. And fhall we not follow their example, and take our fpiritual fongs from the gofpel ? Or fhall we remain with the un- believing jews and retain their ritual ? If we are jews in one part of divine worfhip, why fhall we not be jews in every part ? — Can we in David's pfalms praife God for the birth, life and miracles of Chrift ? Did Mary, Zacharias, the angels, Simeon and Anna, fins; new fongs of thankfgiving upon the birth of theblefled Re- deemer ? And fhall we not recognife this joyful event in our holy anthems ? What reafon can be afiigned for the unaccountable and ftrange conduct of'thofe, who reject evangelical fongs through a partiality fct the jewifh fyftcm I What did the multitude fing when Chrift made his triumphant entry into Jerufalem ? They began to ' rejoice, and praife God, for all the mighty works they had feen : faying, blefled be the king that cometh in the name of the Lord ; peace in heaven, and glory in the higheft.'. ft.) Shall we nqver join in this facred anthem? Did our Lord rebuke the multitude, as the Pharjfeet requefted ? Did he intimate that peculiar mercies fhculd not be the fubjecls of their fpiritual fongs ? No, he rebuked the Pharifeetg (q.) Luke i. (r.) Luke ii. (s.) Luke ii. (*.) Luke x'm. C ti ] and declared that if his difciples mould hold their peace, the ftones would immediately ciy out ? And are thefe things lefs interefting to us becaufe they took place eighteen hundred years ago ? Mult believers under the gofpel fay nothing of the mighty acts of their Savior in their fongs of praife ? Shall we refufe to celebrate in our anthems the triumphs and glory of the bleffed Redeemer, and pre- fer finging the falvationof Ifrael achieved by Mofes, or the vic- tories of Jofhua and David ? Are thefe things to be compared with the victories of Chrift the Lord of Mofes, and of Jofhua and David ? Shall we pafs in eternal filence his acts, his unparalleled conquefts over all the powers of hell when we celebrate his piai- fes ? Be aftoniftied at this, O ye heavens ! Let us examine the writings of the apoftles. Paul breaks out in this glorious anthem, after an affectionate view of redeeming; love ; « bleffed be the God and Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift> Who hath bleffed us with all fpiritual bleffings in heavenly things, in (Thrift ; according as he hath chofen us in him, before the foun* elation of the world, that we mould be holy and without blame before him in love : having predeftinated us to the adoption of children by Jefus Chrift unto himfelf, according to the good plea- fure of his will, to the praife of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved; in whom we have re« demption through his blood, the forgivenefs of fins, according to the riches of his grace.' (u.) Is this the language of the old teftament ? Or is it not purely evangelical ? And fhall we never celebrate in our fongs thefe immenfe bleffings, in which we are fo deeply interefted? Is not Paul, under divine infpiratioa, a fure guide ? He praifed God for redemption through his fon, not in the language of David, but in that of the gofpel. Peter, the apoftle of the circumcifion, leaves on record another fong of praife fimilar to that of Paul, (v.) And the beloved John erects another exalted monument of gratitude to the great .* Prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him, that loved us, and wafhed us from our fins, in his own blood ; and hath made us kings, and priefts unto God and the Father ; to him be glory* and dominion forever and ever. Amen, (to.) And what hymns of praife are fung by the fpirits ©f juft men made perfect ? — * They fang a new fong, faying, thou art worthy to take the book, and open the feals thereof; for thou waft flain, and hath redeem- ed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation ; and hath made us unto our God, kings and priefts.' (x.) « I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and tongues («.) Ephefians i. (•?>,) i. P&ter i. (w.) Revelation i. («.) Revelation v. [ «* ] flood before the throne, and before the lamb, clothed in vrhite robes and palms in their hands ; and cried with a loud voice, fay- ing, faivation to cur God, who fitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb.' (j.) * And I beheld, and I heard the voice of ma- ny angels, faying, worthy is the Lamb, that was {lain, to receive power, and riches, and wifdom, and ftrength, and honor, and blefling. ' (a.) — Permit me to aik where you will find thefe fongs in the old teftament ? Here you fee ihe apoftles of our Lord, the faints and angel? in heaven, celebrating the praifes of God and the Lamb in fpiritual fongs no where to be found in the pfalms of David. And can it be finful to walk in rr.e footfteps of the flock ? — to follow our Lord's apoftles ? — to imitate the ble/Ted above ? The fongs of the angels and faints in heaven are wholly evangelical, as appears from thofe which John records in the Revelation. Our Lord has taught us to pray, ' Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.' But angels and faints in heaven art employ- ed, in celebrating the praifes of the Redeemer, in fongs unknown to the jewifti church. This is the will of God in heaven. We mud pray that this will may be done, and we ourfelves muft do it on earth. But if we do not praife our Redeemer in evangeli- cal fongs, we are not doing his will, in one eftential point, on earth, as it is done in heaven. And thefe fongs are not to be found in the old teftament pfalms. The fong above is « Worthy is the Lamb that was flain, to receive power, and riches, and wifdom, and ftrength, and honor, and glory and blefling.' And /hall this fong never be fung in the gofpel church, becaufe it it evangelical ? I can difecver no other reafon for excluding it from chriftian aflemblies. That the fubjeft matter of our pfalms, hymns, and fpiritual fongs, (hould chiefly be taken from the gofpel, may be confirmed 5'thly, from the practice of the church immediately after the time of the apoftles. I have already (he wed you that a number of the jews and the apoftles fung new fongs at the commencement ©f the new tefta- ment difpenlation. There is not a remote hint that the apoftles vfed, in public wotfhip, the pfalms of David, after our Lord's afcention. The primitive chriftians, who immediately fucceed- ed, muft be fuppofed to have known the practice of the apoftles. And if I can make it appear that the primitive chriftians, did not ufs David's pfalms, but pfalms, hymns, and fpiritual fongs taken from the gofpel, I think the point under difcuffion will be fully eftabliihed. The apoftles had been taught by Chrift himfelf, ' That all mes (;) Revelation vii. (*.) Revelation v. I E >3 3 Iiou'd honor the Son; even as they honor the Father.' (a) We honor Chiift, when we preach him'crucificd. We honor Chrift when we pray to the Father in his name. Thus we honor the Son in two branches of public worfhip. And fhould we not honor Chrift in the other part of worfhip, by finging hymns of praife to him ? I have fhewed that this was the apoftolic practice, and will new fhew that the primitive chriftians followed the ex- ample of the apoftlcs. We have not all that light, on this fubjecr, that we could wife from ecclefiaftical hiftory. Much darknefs hangs over the fir ft ages of the world, and over the firft periods of chriftianity. How- ever, we have coniiderable light to guide our fteps through the beginning of the gofpel difpenfaUon. We havefuGicient to fhew that the primitive chriftians tiled hymns of praife, in honor to Chrift, which were derived fr«m the gofpel. Pliny the younger is acknowledged to be a correct writer. la feis celebrated letter to Trajan the Emperor, written probably ia the year of our Lord 107, he affirms that the chriftians * were wont to affemble on a ftated day,' I fuppofe the Lord's day, ' before it was light, and fing among thcmfelves alternately a hymn to Chrift as God.'* This teftimony has been alleged by Grotius, as a proof of the chriftian religion, and by many others, who have written in defence of Chriftianity. Thus you fee from the teftimony of Pliny that the primitive chriftians were not confined to David's pfalms. A few of them, it appears, were fung. Tertullian obferves that the 133d wa3 fung in his day.f Thole pfalms of David which are not peculiar to him, nor to the jewifti church, in regard to locality and the ceremonial rites, may be ufed in different ages. It is the exclujive vfe of David's pfalms that I oppofe. And I am fupported by fufticient evidence taken from the praflice of primitive chtiftians. I can fee no reafon why Tertullian mould particularize one pfalra of David if they were ail in general ufe. That other f«ngs of praife were in general ufe is evident. Bafnagc, in his celebrated hiftory of the chriftian church, gives us a large account of the devotions of the primitive chriftians from Tertullian. Teitullian was an eminent father of the chrif- tian church in Africa, and flourimed towards the clofe of the fecond century. In his tiraie chriftians were not confined to David's pfalms, but thought themfelves at full liberty, in their religious worfhip, to ufe a variety offpiritual fongs. Hence fays Bafnage, ' that neither the prayers they made to God, nor the hymns which they fung to his honor v/erc reduced to rule ; but every one drew them from the kofy fcr'tpiure, or from his own trt&- (a.) John v. * Set JtfendUt, Ictttr [A.J f Sec Jj>j>endix, Utter [B-j [ n j fort, according to his genius or difpofition. They fang;, for id* fiance, hymns in thofe feafts of chaiity and communion, which christians held together in the evening.'* Origen, another renowned father of the church in the fecond cemmy, • exhorted the people,' fays Bafnage, 'to drive with their hymns, by their pfalms, by their fpiritual longs, crying to God, that they mi^ht obtain the victory through our Lord jefus.'-J- Here, this father feems to have an immediate reference to my text, in which, an cxprefs regard to Chrift, is enjoined upon chris- tians in their longs of devotion. Eufebtus, who is acknowledged to be the father of church hif- tory, introduces an author writing thus, — ■ Who is he that is ig- norant of the books of Irenaeus, Melito, and the reft, which declare Chrift to be God and man ? — The pfalms alfo and hymns of the bre- thren, written at the beginning by the faithful, do fet forth the prai- ses of Chrift the word of God, and attribute divinity to him.';}: Nepos, an Egyptian bifhop, compoled many hymns, with Which many of the brethren were mightily pleafed — he was a man eminent for his Hull in the holy fcriptures, and for the many pfalms and hymns he compoled, which the brethren fung in their public meetings. *$ The argument will receive additional ftrength from another paflage in Euiebius. Paulus Samofata, bifhop of Antioch, revi- ved the herefy of Artemon. Two councils of biihops, pielbyters, and deacons were called upon this account. In the laft council, about the year 270, he was excommunicated. Among the char- ges alleged againft him, one was, that he abolifhed thofe pfalms •which were wont to be fung to the honor of the Lord Jefus Chrift, as novel, and compofed by modern authors. '|| Here we have a whole council agreeing that pfalms had been, and ought ft ill to be, fung, in honor of Chrift, and accufing him who had abolifh- ed them of malicious wickednefs, and as denying his God. And this council wrote a letter to the whole catholic church under heaven, expecting that they would juftify the fentence of excom- munication which had been palfed againft this heretic. But how could this council expect that all the churches of Chrift would join in condemning this man for abolifhing thofe pfalms and hymns, if they had not been in life ? Does not this prove to a de- monftration that pfalms and hymns, in honor of Chrift were fung in all the churches ? Here we have the firft rife of oppofition to evangelical pfalms pnd hymns. It arofe from Arians who oppofed our Lord's di- vinity. * See Appendix^ letter [C] % See Appendix, htter TE.] I See Appendix* Inter [D.] [| See Appendix, letter £F.J *■§ Dr. Lardner, Vol. 3. p- 94. f >5 ] A fourth council was held in Toledo* in Spain, in the year 633, when a number of prefbyters of France, were excommuni- cated for refufing to fing the hymns of Hylary and Ambrofe, which had been in ufe nearly three bundled years. Hence it ap- pears that the fucceffors of the apoftles compofed the hymns, pfalms and fpiritual fongs that were fung by the primitive church. And thefe fongs of praile were ufed in the churches for three hun- dred years after Chrift. About this time the pfa ! ms of David were jirjl introduced. This Moiheim declares to be fact, who ma ft be ranked among our beft ecclefiaftic hiftorians. And Theodoret informs us how they were introduced. They were brousht in by Anans, and not by orthodox chrtfHans. David's pfalms were in- troduced at Antioch in the time of Leontius, who was biftiop or that city, and a ftrong Arian. Flavian and Diodorus two per- fons, who had not attained to any ecclefiaftic dignity, but had great influence among the people, (irft mads the innovation. They divided the choirs of fingers at Antioch into two parts, and gave them David's pfalms to fmg by turns. This cuftom fpread ex- tenfively among the churches. The principal realbn was, be- caufe this century became devoted to Arianifm. Conftantius the emperor, and chief of the influential characters were Arians. Thus the hymns and pfalms, which had, from the beginning, been ufed in the church, were rejected. They continued in ufe, however, in fome parts where Arianifm did not lb much prevail, until feven hundred years after Chrift. At this time the Pope of, Rome began to gain his afcendency, and he prevailed, until Eu- rope yielded to his authority. In fuch a fituation of things, a reformation in fmging could not be effected, even after Arianifm, was in a great meafure removed from the church, and of courfe the pfalms of David continued in ufe. Upon the whole then, it is mar.if.-ft, that no practice of the chriftian church, appears more primitive and apoftolical than that of fmging pfalms, hymns and fpiritual fongs, which are ta- ken from the gofpel. They were in general ufe for three hundred years after our Lord, during which time David's pfalms were never fung, except a few of them occafionaiiy. In my text, Paul begins and ends with Chrift. He leads us to the word of Chrift as the copious fountain from which our holy anthems are to be derived. The primitive christians underftood! the text in this fenfe, and compofed and fung hymns and pfalms in honor of Chrift. This practice continued in the church until three hundred years after Chrift, when it was oppofed by the A— rians, who denied our. Lord's divinity. And in thofe churches which were not fo much under the influence of Arianifm. evan- gelical fongs were fung for feven centuries. After this the ignorance, bigotry, fupaftiuon and afiti chtiUianifm of popery C «« 3 prevailed, and like a mighty deluge, fwept away every thing that was truly apoftolical and primitive, for a number of centuries. But as ioon as the church emerged from this awful deluge, fhe began to reform, not only in doctrine, but in her worlhip, and pf.ilmody. The ancient evangelical fongs of praife were revived, and they have been greatly improved in almoft all the protetlant churches. The exceptions are exceeding few in number. II. I now proceed to fhew what fyftem of pfalmody is bed adapted to the g ofpel diipenfation. Some of David's pfalms may be fung with propriety. But as a fyftem, it appears, they were not defigned by the head of the church, to be ufed under the gofpel diipenfation. We fhould borrow light and advantage from David, and from the prophets, from the evangclifls and ifom the apoftles. Our fyftem of pfalm- ody fhould be taken generally from the fcriptures of the eld and new teftament, but fpecially and chiefly from the new teftament. The types of the old teftament, give place to the antitype, and the fhddows to the fubftance, under the gofpel. In the gof- pel, the prophecies which relate to the Median, are accomplished. And theiefore every branch of divine worlhip fhould be evangeli- cal. Not only the doctrines we preach, and prayers we make, but alfo the pfalms we fing, fhould be replete with the gofpel. We preach Chi ift crucified, we pray in his name, and Chrift (hould be the theme of our fpiritual fongs. I cannot conceive any ground on which to eftablifh the doctiine of dividing Chrift, or of our being partly chriftians and partly jews in our worfhip- ping affembles. Our fyftem of pfalmody, fhc 'ace the effential doctrines of our holy religion. That there is an infinite ar) Pfalm li. (d.) Pfalm Ixvi. (9 J di«5Hons. The fongs of praife under the old teftament difpenfa- tion embraced the peculiarities of that (late of things. And it muft be evident to every unprejudiced mind, that in the chriftian church, the fongs of praife fliould embrace the peculiarities of the golpel There is but one paflage of fcripture, that I have fecn alleged, that contains in it the leaft ftudow of divine authority to fing; David's pfolms. This paflage is produced by Dr. Clark, and others of the fame opinion. Upon invetligation it will be found not to give the fhadow of countenance to their fentiments. The paflage is recorded in the fecond book of Chionicles, and the; twenty-ninth chapter, and the thirtieth verfe. ' Moreover, He- zekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to fing praife unto the Lord with the words of David, and of Afaph the feer : and they fang praifes with gladnefs, and they bowed their heads and worshipped.' But will any man of common fenfe, and common acquaintance with fcripture, ferioufly affirm that this paflage contains an injunction on chriftians to fing the pfalms of David ? Let us examine the text and context. We learn from the firft part of the chapter, that the temple of God had been de- filed — the doors fhut — the lamps put out — the incenfe and offer- ings had not been made for a long time, on which account the "wrath of God had fallen heavy upon his people. The fathers had been flain with the fword, their fons and daughters, and their wives made captives. Such was the deplciable ftate of the temple, and jewiih nation when Hezekiah came to the throne. In the third verfe we are informed, that in the firft year of his reign, he opened the door of the Lord's houfe, and fet it in order for the performance of divine fervice. — They prepared the offer- ings which God required to be made in his houfe. Inftructions were then given to the Levites. « And he fet the Levites in the houfe of the Lord with cymbals, with pfalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment, of David, and of Gad the king's feer, and Nathan the prophet : for fo was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets.' ' When the burnt offerings began, the fong of the Lord alfo began with the trumpets, and with the inftrument ordained by David king of Ifrael.' Now, what does all this prove ? It (hews clearly that on this particular occafion they fang the words of David and Afaph. But were they not as explicitly commanded to fmg with cymbals, pfalteries, harps, and trumpets ? And if the commandment obliges us to fmg the plalms of David and Afaph, does it not as ftrongly oblige us to fing with cymbals, pfalteries, harps, and trumpets ? Has God any where declared that we muft fing the words and not ufe the in~ ftrumcnts? It is evident to every unprejudiced mind, that ' the commandment of the Lord by the prophets/ extend;} equally to f «o ] the fongs, and to the inftruments : — I Imagine that the advocates for ihe old teftament pfalmody would oppofe the introduction of thefe inftruments more ftrenuoufly than any other denomination of chriftians. And herein they are inconfiftent ; and they fepa- rate what God has connected in his commandment. T have now proved that we have no authority, divine nor hu- man, for ringing David's plalms ; and I have offered various ar- guments to fhew, that they mould not be ufed as a fyftem of pfalmody under the gofpel. On the contrary I have proved that our pfalms, hymns, and fpiritual fongs mould be founded chiefly on the gofpel. Thofe on the oppofite fide, would exclude all the word of God from their pfalmody except the pfalms of David. But I would exclude no part, that would afford us light and advantage in our fongs ef praife. I would take fome from David and the pro- phets ; but I would take chiefly from the gofpel, becaufe here ' life and immortality are brought to light.' I have alio fhewed what fyftem of pfalmody would be the bed adapted to the gof- pel worlhip : — that it fhculd in an eminent degree embrace the peculiarities of the gofpel. I fhall here take notice of the different verfions which are ufed in the churches. There arc feveral verfions in ufe in the Low Dutch church in America. The Epifcopal church has another, and different from the reft. The German church has a number of verfions, if my information is correct. Theie is another, com- pofed by Sternhold and Hopkins, that was in ufe a confiderable time in fome churches. The church of Scotland has made ufe of feveral verfions. The one in prefent ufe was compofed by Mr. Roufe. Doctor Watts' verfion is ufed in the moft of the prefby- terian churches in America, in the independent churches of Eng- land, in the congregational churches in New-England, and in the ana-baptift churches. A collection of hymns is ufed in the Me- thodift churches. Thus you fee there is a variety of pfalms and hymns in ufe in the church of Chrift. And they are all human compofitions. I mention this, becaufe the advocates for David's pfalms roundly affirm that human compofures ought not to be ufed in divine worfhip. But are not our fermons and prayers human compofitions ? And why fliould our fongs of praife be dif- ferent ? Is it a more fokrr.n act of worfnip to fing than pray ? Sermons, prayers and pfalms fhculd be founded on fcripture. But they are neverthelefs human compofitions. Thee are fome perfons who fuppoi'e that the pfalms common- ly called David's, were compofed and put into their prefent me- tre by David. And this, however untrue, has been taught by minillers of the gofpel. This fyftem of pfalms was formerly in vfc in our churches, and is ftill retained in fome of tkem. It is, [ 21 ] iowever, a mere verfion of David, and was compofed by Mr. Roufe an Englifh baron. This verfion was not introduced into the church till the middle of the feventeenth century. So that it did not make its appearance till fixtccn hundred and fifty years after Chrift. And if this is the only vetfion that fhould he lung, how came it to pafs that it was not ufed by the apoftles, nor any church for fo long a fpace as fixteen hundred and fifty years ? Can you fuppofe that the apoftles, and all their fuccelfors, were in an error until an hundred and fifty years ago ? And can you fuppofe that the Epifconal church, the Dutch reformed, the Congregational, German, Anabaptift, and Prefbylerian churches, are all in an error with refpeft to pfalmody ? Take the world through, and you will find only an exceeding fmall number of churches that make ufe of Route's verfion of pfalms. And is this fmall number the only orthwdox and pure churches under hea- ven ? Are all the reft corrupt and erroneous, in which there are as learned and pious divines and private chriftians, as in the pther churches ? The verfion of pfalms by Roufe then is of late date, and is as much a human cornpofition, as that oi Watts. It was altered and amended by the General Alfetnbly ot' the church of Scotland before it was introduced into the churches. Stewart of Pardovan informs us that the afiembly, in 1648, pafTed an aft for examining the labors of Mr. Zachary Boyd up- on other fcripture fongs. In 1706, the affembly pa/redan act in which they recommend the fcripture fongs of Patrick Simpfon, minifter at Renfrew, to the ufe of private families : and in order to prepare them for the ftt&lic ufe of the church, this act was renew- ed in 1707. And by an aft of aifembly in 1708, their comrniT- fion was inftrufted and appointed' to confider the printed verfion of the fcripture fongs with the remarks of pjrefbyte 1 ies thereupon ; and after examination thereof, they were authorifed and empow- ered to conclude and emit the fame, for the public ufe of the chur\ch. The prefent verfion of the pfalms being ordered in the fame man- lier in the year 1649. The aifembly alfo publifhed and recommended a number of poems from Watts.whom they ftile the pious and ehgetiuous Dor- tor Watts. Thus you fee that the General Aifembly of the church of Scotland introduced Roufe's verfion of the pfalms, and re- commended various fongs of praifc to the ufe of their churches. And they were fo far from thinking that the verfion of Roule was given by infpiration, that they deemed it a very incomplete fyftem of pfalmody, and pa/fed feveral acts, to have it enlarged and rendered more perfect. As to the merits of the vcrfions that have enme under my no- tic?, I (hall make but a few remarks. Tim of Roufe, which fouie C •• 3 ignorantly call David's pfalms, was in general ufe in the prefby- terian churches in America.. Ii is, at prefent ufed in fome of them, and in all the feceding churches. A»d I helitate not to a.Tu m, that it is very uufui table for the gofpel day. It will fujt ajewilh fynagogue, but not a chriftian aifembly. The metre is extremely barbarous. We are often obliged to fing two fylla- bles to one note which makes an unpardonable jar in themufic. Such as ever, never, remember, J/jirit. Another defect is apparent, every line does not contain the fenfc in hfelf. We arc almoft al- ways obliged to fing two or three lines before we can learn the fenfe. This will be the cafe fometimes in all poetry. But it more frequently occurs in this vcrfion, than in any other with which I arn acquainted. Another and principal defect is, it introduees the ceremonial rites which have been abolifhed. Thus in the 66th pfalm we fing, ' Burnt facrifices of fat rama With incenfe I will bring ; Of bullocks and of goats I will Prefent an offering.' When we fing this pfalm we make it our own, and pofitively declare that we will offer the fat of rams,bullocks,and goats in fa- crifice. This was proper when thefe offerings were obligatory upon the jtwifh church. But the offerings being annulled, it is im- proper to declare, in our acts of worfliip, that we will make them. * Praife him with trumpets found ; his praife With pfakery advance With timbrel, harp, firing'd infbuments And organs in the dance.' (i.) We cannot fing this pfalm unlefs we ufe the inftruments which it mentions. If therefore we fing thefe pfalms widi confiftency, we muft introduce the trumpet, harp, pfakery, organ and the dance into the worfliip of God. Thefe examples may fuffice to fliew that Roufe has revived the ceremonial rites, in his verfion, which are abolifhed. And hence it is not fuited 1 or divine wor- fhip in gofpel churches. Another reafon againfl the ufe of this verfion of pfalms, is be- caufe it does Dot embrace the peculiar doctrines, and precious piomifes of the gofpel. We often hear the advocates tor David's pfalms, condemn fermons becaufe they are not fufheiently replete ■with the doctrine of the righteoufnefs of Chrift, and the promifes of the gofpel. They frequently cenfure our minifters becaufe they do not make fuch a free and full offer of falvation to finners as they think ought to be done. But why do they not perceive their own inconfiitency ? Where will they find the name of Jefus (/.) Pfalm el. C *3 3 in their pfalms? Where will they find us dirc&cd to the throne of grace in the name of Chrift ? Where are we directed to plead his righreoufnefs, and the precious promifes of the gofpel in Rome's verfion of the pfalms which they ufc ? And are thefe things to occupy no place in our facred fongs ? At this be aftonifhed O ye heavens ! Thefe are arguments againft the exclusive ufe of this verfion, which never have, and never can be, refuted. Nay it is virtually" condemed by the pra&ice of the Seceding church it- felf. In this church the minifter gives a long lecture upon the pfalm that is to be fung, in which he explains it in the language of the gofpel. He fnews how the types, predictions, and cere- monial rites are accomplifhed in Jefus of Nazareth. When his hearers fing, they muft ufe the words of David and Afapb, but their minds muft be imprefled with ideas and fentiments of the gofpel. Thus they tacitly condemn the fyftem they ufe. They cannot fing the pfalms till they are explained upon the plan of the golpel.And why not ufe pfalms which carry the explanation in themfelves ? This explication is given, in the verfion of Doctor Watts as evangelically as it is in any of their lectures. It is much eafierfor the worfhippers,when they fing, to have the ferttiments of thegofpel clothed in the language cf the gofpel. I forbear remarking 0:1 the pfalms which are ufed in other churches. With thofe churches we have no controverfy. Had not the verfion of Roufe been ufed in fome of our churches, and had wo not been fo long and fo feverely condemned for introducing the verfion of Watts, I had never entered on this difagreeable fubject. I fhall now anfwer the priucipal objections againft the verfion of Doctor Watts, and then fliew how well it is adapted to divine worfhip under the gofpel difpenfetion. i. It is objected .that Doctor Watts has diminifhed from the holy lciiptures in his verfion, and therefore it fhould not be ufed. This is a molt unreafonabie, and unfounded objection. Doctor Watts deemed it improper to verfify, for the ufe of the church, a number of David's pfalms. And what then ? Is this diminifh- ing from them ? Far from it. He informs you in his preface why he did not verfify them. Does he not declare in the fame preface that he highly efteems all David's pfalms, which every chriftian rnuft do. But fome of them he believed the gofpel' church could not adopt as her own in divine worfhip. And there- fore he did not verfify them. His reafons, I confefs never fatis- ed me, but he had a right to judge for himfelf and act accord- ingly. And no man of common fenfe and candor, can imagine, that, becaufe he left fome cf David's pfalms unverfified, he di- minifhed from fcripture. li Doctor Watts had judged it proper to verfify only twenty pfalms, he had not diiuinilhed fiom. the [ u 1 Jtoly oracles. This objection feems to be an inviduous one, ad- rireffed to the prejudices of men, not fo much for the fake of truth, as profelyting. And as it is often heard among us, I would obforve that a peifon diminifties from fcripture when he condemns any part of it as uniufpired, and takes it out of his bi- ble. Nothing lhort of this will amount to diminifliing from the word of God. And can the mod deep rooted bigotry and ma- levolence charge this on Doctor Watts ? 2. It is objecled that the verfion of Watts is not orthodox. In pfalm 5 ill, fays the Doctor, * Should'ft thou condemn my foul to hell And crulh my flelh to duft, Heav'n would approve thy vengeance wellj And earth muft own it juft.' This is faid to be erroneous becaufe God condemns none t© hell after converfion to Jefus. But do not chriftians daily com- mit fins ? And does not every fin deferve punifhment ? Mr. Ro- bert Annan, in his animadvevfions on univerfal falvation, at pag« fifteenth, affirms that God would not do an ' act of perfonal in- juilice to true believers, were he to caft them into utter darknefs, and punifh them foi their fins eternally in hell, his atonement and their faith in it notwithstanding.' And will not this entirely re- move the charge which Doctor Clark alleges againft Watts' in- orthodoxy ? Do not chriftians daily juftify this plalm in their prayers? They are fenfible of guilt and unworthinefs. They confefs thefe things before God, and acknowledge that he would be juft in punifhing them. Sin is a tranfgreffion of the law, and is in every ciicumftance a damnable evil. 3. Another error is charged on the 5 ift pfalm, * A humble groan, a broken hear!, Is our befi facrifice* It is here afked whether (Thrift's facrifice is not the bed ? If fo, Watts is erroneous. Doctor Watts lays down the facrifice of Chrift as the only ground of our falvation. He declares, as ltrongly as our language is capable, that we muft be accepted through the facrifice and mediation of Chrifi ot/'y. * No blood of goats nor heifer flain For fin could e'er atone : The death of Chrifl (hall ftill remain Sufficient and alone.* Here you fee that our falvation is bottomed on the death of Chrift, which is confidered as the only and all-iufficient atone- ment for our fins. And on this foundation, fays the Doctor, we tnuft offer up cur facrifices. And is it erroneous to aiTert that we have facrifices to offer, and that one excels another ? Let the l'ciiptures fpeak in anfvver. *Trefent your bodies a living facri- [ *5 J fee.' (/-•) 'By him let us offer the facti/ice of praife.' To do good and communicate forget not, for with fuch facrifices God is well pleafed.' (/.) Thus you fee that we have facrifices to offer to God. And fays Doclor Watts, * A humble groan, a broken heart Is our Left Jacrifice.' When we come before God to offer the facrifice of prayer, praife, and lhankfgiving, if we come with hearts broken and con- trite, and are unable to fpeak a word, but pray with groanings which cannot be uttered, as the apoftle fpeaks, this is our bell fa- crifice, fays Dodor Watts. And does not God declare thefam« thing in fubftance ? * But to this man will I look, even to him that is poor, and of a contrite fpirit, and trembleth at my word.' (m.) Hence the objection vanifhes, and the plalm appears orthodox, and agreeable to fcripture. 4. Another error is found in the fourth pfalm. « When our obedient hands have done A thoufand works of righteousnefs* It is hereaiked what works ot lighteoufnefs can we perform J I anfwer, ten thoufand. Praying, finging, preaching, believing, hoping, vifiting the fick, relieving the poor, are all works of right- eoufnefs. ' He that believeth on him thatjuftifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteoufnefs-' (« ) He that vuorfoth right- eousnefs fhall never be moved.' (0.) And the; work ofrighteousnefs fhall be peace, {p.) In the face of thefe fcriptures how can any man charge the Doclor with an error when he fpeaks of our doing a thoufand -works of righteousnefs ? Mr. Roufe is guilty of the fam# error in his verfion, in the fifteenth pfalm. ' The man that walketh uprightly, And tuorketh righteousnefs.* What is the difference between working righteoufnefs, and do- ing works of righteoufne's ? And if we can perform one work of righteoufnefs, we can do a thoufand. The Doclor does not depend on his works for falvation.— He has learned Chrift to better purpofe. Read "the whole verfe, to which the objection is made. When our obedient hands have done A thoufand works of righteoufnefs We put our truft in God alone, And glory in his pard'ning grace. (k.) Romans xii. 1. (/.) Hebrews xiii. 15, i& (w.) Ifaiah lxvi. 2. («.) Romans iv. 5. («.) Pfalms xy. 2— (p.) Ifaiah xxxii. 17. D r 26 3 I think the obje&ion can find no entrance into any unprejudi- ced head, that is capable of underftanding plain Englifli. Every objection, that I hare feen alleged againft the inortho- doxy of Doctor Watt's verfion of the pfalms, can be as eafily re- futed as thofe which I have noticed, and therefore I difroifs this point. h thofe who condemn the Doctor would fpend that time in teaming him with candor, which they fpend in raifing unfounded cl'mor againft him, they would not find fo many objections againft the uie of his verfion of «he pfalms. They would find them to be orthodox, to be highly evangelical, and well adapted to divine woifhip under the go/pel. The more his pfalms are read, the better they are efteemed by his inveterate opponents. And in general they are condemned by thofe who have never read them, and who are totally ignorant of their contents and merits. A few remarks on the propriety of ourfnighig the verfion of Doctor Watts, fhall clofe this general head. We have no autho- rity to meddle with any church out of our own bounds. They have a right to adopt any verfion they judge expedient. And if every denomination of chriftians would purfue this line of con- duct, there would not be fo many difpvitcs, and divifions among the profefled difciples of Chrift. I have already obferved that the fyftem of pfalmody under the gefpel, fhould embrace the peculiar doctrines, promifes, and or- dinances of the gofpel. The fyftem under the old difpenfation was adapted to that difpenfation. It embraced the ceremonial rites, and all the peculiarities of that ftate of things. So, our fyftem of pfalms, fhould embrace the peculiarities of the new dif- penfation. And thefe things are eminently contained in the ver- fion of Doflor Watts. The doctrine of the adorable Trinity ; the divinity and glory of the Lord Jefus Chrift, and of the Holy Spirit, are clearly aflerted in this verfion. « To God the Father's throne Perpetual honor raife ; Glory to God the Son, To God the Spirit praife : With all our powers, Eternal King, Thy name we fi ng While faith adores.' The birth, fufferings, death, refurreftion, afcention, and inter- eeffion of Chnft, and his fecond coming to judgment, are fully ftffertedin rmny of thefe pfalms. Here we may celebrate, in triumphant (trains, our juftirication through the merits of our Redeemer — our election and adoption into the family of heaven ; [ * ] •ur fanflification by the grace of the Holy Spirit ; our perfeve- ranee in a courfe of obedience to the divine will, and eternal life through the mediation of Jefus Chrift, are abundantly fet forth in thefe evangelical pfalms. And thefe things are the lift and fpirit of ourfacred fongs. "Wert they deftitute of thefe precious doctrines of grace fo peculiar to the gofpel, our ringing would be no better ' than founding brafs, or a tinkling cymbal.' Hence I think it abundantly evident, that the verfion of Watts is infinitely better fuited to divine worfhip in the chriftian church than that of Roufe. And if at any future period, a better fyftero of pfalms than that of Watts, fhould make its appearance, the church •would be under obligations to introduce it into divine worfhip. And this is no innovation nor herefy, but agreeable to fcripture,' to the practice of the church in all ages, to re-ifon and common fenfe. Why then ihould there be fuch loud and conftant clamor againft the introduction of Watts' verfion into our churches ? Why- are we reprefented as innovators, as impure, erroneous in doc- trine, and las in difcipline? The impartial world will judge, and Cod will judge of fuch unreasonable clamor and cenfure. III. And laftly, I (hall make fome general obfeivations on fudging, or mufic. A few remarks on this head (hall relieve your patience. The principles of mufic and poetry are as old as creations Kence fays, the celebrated Dr. Blair of Edinburgh, * man is both a poet and mufician by nature.'* They have been cultivated in all ages, and among all nations. Poetry and mufic were early introduced into the church of God. They have continued to our day, and, no doubt, will exift to the end of the world, and through an eternal duration. Hence mufic fhould be cultivated by eve- ry chriftian. Some churches, to afUft vocal, have introduced inftrumental, mufic. Whether organs may be lawfully ufed in a church, I think, does not admit of difpute. Any church, that is able to purchafe an organ, and employ an organift, has an indifputed right to do fo. But upon the whole, I would, for feveral reafons ur.neceiTary to be detailed, prefer vocal mufic. But it fhouli be Improved, fo that the church may fing gracefully and regularly, without producing jar and confufion. Some churches are fo cul- pably ignorant of mufic, that almoft every one has a tune by himfelf. One will fing upon a high, another upon a low pitch. Some will be too faff, others too flow, fo that jars and confufions pervade the whole afTembly. No one fhould fing audibly , unlefs he can fing in unifon with the clerk. * Lecture on Rhetoric, &c. Vol. 2, Pa. 239. [ 28 J Other churches confine themfelves forever to two or three tunes. They fing with one voice indeed without jar, but their tunes are as deflitute of mufic as a founding brafs, or an inftrument with half the firings broken. Nothing fo much elevates the devout foul to God, as mufic Well performed, and hence it merits afliduous cultivation. ' We are very fenfible,' fays doctor Samuel Blair, 'of the communica- tion of external found through the organs of hearing. And not only of its different tones, as the high and low, the clear, the foft, the fhrill, and the harfh : but likewife of certain more inward ef- fects, which we ufually defignate by the'epithets, fweet, or footh- ing, melting, or elevating, jarring, or difgufting. Of thefe effefls wc are ftill more fenfible, where the found proceedeth from Am- ple melody to harmony. — We are not only fo constituted as to receive thefe impreffions of harmony; but it hath alfo pleafed our Maker to cftablifh an intimate connection between founds, thus impreffed, and the fentiments of the heart. Upon an accu- rate examination of our feelings we may difcern an admirable funilarity between thofe effects of mere found, and thofe of which we are fenfible on occafion of emotions of heart, originating in the conception 01 contemplation of affecting objects. The fenfa- tions produced by the tender, plaintive, and melting drains, feem as mere feelings, to be of the fame kind with thofe which we perceive in the affections of fympathy, forrow, and what we call pleafing melancholy. Thofe produced by the more lively and elevating airs, appear to be of a like fpecies with thofe effected by the fentiments of joy, hope, or other exhilarating paffions. And thofe which proceed from the folemn and grave, indicate a nature fimilar to the impreffions of veneration and awe. Now, in this fimilarity it is, that the foundation is laid in our nature for the moral operation of external harmony.' This is the language of nature and common fenfe. It is the language of thofe native and neceiTary feelings and perceptions which arife from the veiy confiituticn of our frame. Hence it is natural for us to celebrate the perfections of God and redeeming love in fongs of praife. — With refpect to tunes I would obfeive that they fhould be adapted to the fubject. When the heart is furcharged with for- row and grief, it will vent itfclf in language which requires a tune of pl.tintive or mournful airs. When the fubject is joy and hope, the tune fhould be lively and quick. When the fubject is grand and fublime. the tune fhould be flow and grave. Hence the neceffity of varieus tunes. It would be abiiird to fing a mournful tune, which would make us feel melancholy, when we fing of the joys and blefTeditefs of the upper world. So on the •iher hand, it would be prepoilerous to fing a lively tune, vvheH I *9 ] the mifery of the damned is the fubject. If therefore you would anfwer the defign of mufic, it muft be cultivated, and your tunes mull be adapted to the fubjects. It is a great reflection on chris- tians that this branch of divine worihip is fo frequently perform- ed, in fuch an ungraceful, and I may add, irreligious manner. Many of them are diifatisfied if they do not hear good fermons and good prayers. But alas when they addrefs the Great God in fongs of praife, they appear wholly indifferent how this part; of divine worfhip is performed. If they can make a noife it is fufficient, though it is as far from mufic, as the heavens are dis- tant from the earth. I would therefore ferioufly urge you to cul- tivate the art of mufic, fo as to be able to praife God in a be- coming manner. In regard to reading the pfalm line by line prior to the ring- ing of it, I would obferve ; that this practice arofe in time of ig- norance. It was by no means approved of by the Weftminfter AiTembly. They adapted it as a convenience for fome of their churches which contained many perfons who could not read. The practice of reading the line is a difgrace to any American church. It implies that the people are too ignorant to read for themfelves. And will they, in the prefent age of knowledge, when education is fo eafily obtained, lie under the imputation. Let the practice be univerfally difmiiTed from the American churches, and let them all be well furnifhed with books. Let the ignorant learn to read. I haften to clofe with a few inferences from what precedes. I. The power of prejudice is great. * Can any good thing come out of Nazareth,' was a queftion cf prejudice. The language and conduct of many in the prefent day, demand, can there be any good thing either in doctrine, or worfhip, or discipline, except among ourfelves ? I do not know any fubject, concerning which there appears ftronger prejudice and bigotry, than that of gofpel pfalmody. The apoftles fang evangelical fongs. Such were the fongs of fucceeding chriftianx in many churches, till the middle of the fourth, and in fome till the eighth centuiy. How David's pfalms were introduced I have already obfeived. And when they come from the pen of a Watts, in the language of the new teitameat, they are well adapted to divine worfhip in gofpel churches. But in this drefs they are ftrenuonfly oppofed. In jewifh gar- ment? they are advocated. c\% the foundation I can perceive nothing but prejudice David's pfalms ar sot fang by hofe who advocate them, nei- ther in their native loxm, nor in their proper tranfiation. Roufe'i ,) i & i Terfion of them Is ufed, which has, infiduoufly impofed Upon it, the title of David's pfalms. And when thefe friends to David fpeak again ft Doctor Watts, they fet David's pfalms in oppofi- tion to the Doctor's verfion of them. This is fophiftry, if not prevarication. By this mean many ignorant people are induced to believe, that the verfion of Roufe, in its pr:fent form, was the production of David under divine infpiration. To ftate the cafe fairly, they fhould draw a contraff' between the verfion of Doctor Watts, and that of Mr. Roufe, and fhew which is the beft adapted to the gofpel difpenfation. This 1 have attempted, in the prefent difconrfe. 2. We may learn the neceflity of a careful examination of any fubject that comes into view. The fubject of pfalmody has been much difguifed- And it has, in all its fictitious drefs, been xeceived by many without any pro- per reflection. I dclirc no perfon to be led, by the inchanted chord of implicit faith, to embrace what I have advanced upon this fubject. If it will not bear a candid inveftigation, and appear amply fupporteu, let it be rejected. Make the trial, and you will come to the knowledge of the truth. Examine the fubject tho- roughly with an unprejudiced mind, and you will difcover what fyftem of pfalmody is the beft calculated for the woiihip of God in chriitian churches. I have fully given my opinion. If other chriftians differ, in judgment fiom me, I have no objection. Let every one act agreeably to fcripture, and the dictates of an en- lightened, unprejudiced, and good conference. Tn this difcourfe I aim chiefly at a vindication of the fyftem of pfalmody which dtlr church has adopted, from the afperfions which are unjuftly cafe upon it.' Had not fome of our brethren, in the Seceding church, been fo loud in their clamors againft Doctor Watts' ver- fion of pfalms, and fo high in commendation ct that of Mr. Roufe, i fhould not have entered on the difcuffion of this fubject. And I have not examined the fubject, fo much with a view to refute what has been alledged againft Watts; as to illuftrate the doc- tiine of pfalmody generally, and to confirm our own people in the ufe of the fyftem which they have chofen. And I fhould not have faid a word againft the verfion of Roufe, had it not been generally ufed in our churches in times paft, and ftill retained in ufe by fotne of them. I now commit this difcourfe to the difpofal of the gieat head of the church. To promote his glory and fpi- ritual kingdom it was compofed. For thefe ends it is with humi- lity fubmiittd co public examination. t V J rerfion of them is ufed, which has, infiduoufly impofed upon it, the title of David's pfalms. And when thefe friends to David fpeak againft. Doctor Watts, they fet David's pfalms in oppofi- tion to the Doctor's verfion of them. This is fophiftry, if not prevarication. By this mean many ignorant people are induced to believe, that the verfion of Roufe, in its pr^fent form, was the production of David under divine infpiration. To (late the cafe fairly, they fhould draw a contrail between the verfion of Doctor Watts, and that of Mr. Roufe, and fhew which is the beft adapted to the gofpel difpenfation. This 1 have attempted, in the prefent difcourfe. 2. We may learn the neceflity of a careful examination of any jubject that comes into view. The fubjeet of pfalmody has been much difguifed- And it has, in all its fictitious drefs, been received by many without any pro- per reflection. I defire no perfon to be led, by the inchanted chord of implicit faith, to embrace what I have advanced upon this fubjeet. If it will not bear a candid inveftigation, and appear amply fupporteu, let it be rejected. Make the trial, and you will come to the knowledge of the truth. Examine the fubjeet tho- roughly with an unprejudiced mind, and you will difcover what fyftem of pfalmody is the beft calculated for the woifhip of God in chrittian churches. I have fully given my opinion. If other chriilians differ, in judgment fiom me, I have no objection. Let every one act agreeably to fcripture, and the dictates of an en- lightened, unprejudiced, and good conference. Tn this difcourfe I aim chiefly at a vindication of the fyftem of pfalmody which our church has adopted, from the afperfions which are unjuftly cafe upon it.' Had not fome of our brethren, in the Seceding church, been fo loud in their clamors againft Doctor Watts' ver- fion of pfalms, and fo high in' commendation of that of Mr. Roufe, 1 fhould not have entered on the difcuffion of this fubjeet. And I have not examined the fubjeet, fo much with a view to refute what has been alledged againft Watts; as to illuftrate the doc- tiine of pfalmody generally, and to confirm our own people in the ufe of the fyftem which they have chofen. And I fhould not have faid a word againft the verfion of Roufe, had it not been generally ufed in our churches in times paft, and ftill retained in ufe by ioioc of rhem. I now commit this difcourfe to the difpofal of the gieat head of the church. To promote his glory and fpi- ritual kingdom it was compofed. For thefe ends it is with humi- lity fubmiited co public examination.