A REPLY
TO
MORTON ON PSALMODY:
TO WHICH IS ADDED
A CONDENSED ARGUMENT FOR THE EXCLUSIVE
USE OF AN INSPIRED PSALMODY.BY
ROBERT J. DODDS,
MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL
IN THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his
own conceit.—PROV. 26:5.
PITTSBURGH:
KENNEDY & BROTHER, PUBLISHERS, THIRD STREET.
1851.
CONTENTS.
Preface. PART SECOND. PART FIRST. Chapter 1.-His Preface and First Chapter. Chapter 4.-Mr. Morton’s arguments for the use of an uninspired Psalmody. Chapter 1.-The Literary Character of the Work. Chapter 2.-The Author’s Examination of "Rouse’s Psalms." Chapter 5.-Mr. Morton’s remarks on the History of Psalmody. Chapter 2.-The Spirit in which the Author Conducts his Review. Chapter 3.-Mr. Morton’s idea of human composure. Chapter 6.-Mr. Morton’s last chapter. Chapter 3.-Theological Views of the Author. A CONDENSED ARGUMENT FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF AN INSPIRED PSALMODY. THE work to which the following pages are intended as a reply, purports to be a review of Dr. Pressly on Psalmody, by Rev. George Morton, of the Presbyterian Church. Mr. Morton would, so far as I am concerned, have remained forever unnoticed, had he not made a foul attack upon that version of the Psalms which is sung in the church to which I have the honor to belong, and in sundry other Presbyterian Churches of high respectability.
PREFACE.I am far from having so low an opinion of Mr. Morton’s readers as to imagine that any of them are so ignorant or stupid, as to be unable to discover the true character of his statements respecting our metre Psalms, if they would but take the trouble to make the investigation. But there are some who are too charitable to suspect that a man of his standing, would, for the purpose of making out a favorite position, heap together assertions utterly untrue in point of fact; others, who never take the trouble to inquire into the truth of what they read; and others who, wishing above all things to have the Scottish version of the Psalms of David brought into discredit, wisely refrain from examining anything which is said against them, lest the pleasing information should prove untrue: I thought it good, for the accommodation of these three classes of readers, to hold up Mr. Morton in a light so conspicuous, that they cannot fail to see him in his true character.
In my animadversions upon Mr. Morton’s strictures on Dr. Pressly’s excellent work on Psalmody, my design is, not to defend Dr. Pressly,—for he needs no defence in this case,—but to show how much credit is due to Mr. Morton for candor and judgment. The Dr.’s work speaks for itself.
Towards Mr. Morton I cherish no ill-feeling; nor am I conscious that in the following Reply I do him any injustice, If any one is disposed to censure the tone of my strictures, the character of the work which I have under review, is my apology. I would have been very greatly pleased if Mr. Morton had written a book which might, with propriety, have been answered in a different style.
It is my sincere wish and earnest prayer, that if the principles advocated by Mr. Morton should have the ill-success to fall a prey to the flames of that fire which "will try every man’s work of what sort it is,—he himself may be saved;" at least "so as by fire."
REPLY, &c.PART FIRST.
A GLANCE AT THE GENERAL FEATURES
OF THE WORK.
CHAPTER I.
The Literary Character of the Work.
THE work before us, viewed as a mere literary production, possesses something charmingly peculiar. The learned author, disdaining to confine himself to the vocabulary of his predecessors, has, out of Greek materials, manufactured for his own special use, two beautiful tri-syllables—"Neodism" and "Psalmonism," which he defines thus:—"Neodism," from neos and o-dee—pleads for a new Psalmody. Psalmonism, from psalmos and monos—pleads for the exclusive use of the book of Psalms." This piece of service alone to the English language will be appreciated by all those who, like Mr. M. find their mother tongue too meagre to afford them the means of expressing all the thoughts which spring up in their prolific minds:—more especially if they take into consideration the fact, that these words came into our language, not alone; but accompanied by their respective derivatives, "Neodist" and "Neodistic" "Psalmonist" and "Psalmonistic."His whole work abounds with such elegant forms of expression as—"It looks like as though"—"as to the manner in which the Doctor sets aside the argument contained in the passage is this"—"it testimony and law"—"nothing nor nobody," &c. To lay before our readers all those passages in which Mr. M. exhibits a similar elegance of diction, would be an endless task; nothing less, indeed, than to transfer to our pages a very considerable part of his book.
In a controversial writer and especially one who, like Mr. M., deals much in the exposition of scripture, no qualification can be more commendable than perspicuity. Let the following passages serve to exemplify the success enjoyed by our author, in adapting to the capacity of the "plainest people," (p. 3,) the information which he is pleased to communicate—p. 92. Again: though a duty enjoined by participial language, is always subordinate to a principal duty, yet it may be principal to a third duty, which is subordinate to itself." What can be plainer than that? And yet, perhaps it is excelled in perspicuity by the following, p. 191; "Doctor, do you not know, that prophetical language always speaks of something future, no matter what tense the verb may be in, whether it speaks of something that has occurred, is occurring or will occur?"—Surely this is "milk for babes."
The strength and activity of our author’s mind, as well the dignity of his modes of thought, and his skill in argumentation, are sufficiently evinced from the following specimen of extremely close reasoning, p. 150; "And this shows that his (Dr. Pressly’s) notion is utterly without foundation—no more defensible than that "the moon is made of green cheese!" He could offer as much proof for the one as he has done for the other, and it would be a good deal like what he has done, were he to start with this proposition: "The moon is beautiful, and is made of green cheese; and labor through eighteen pages to prove that she is beautiful, and then occupy only four pages in proving that she is nothing but a cheese. In proving what needs no proof his arguments are abundant: but in proving what needs proof his arguments are very scanty. Yet he could offer the same kind, and more abundant proof for the moon being cheese, than he offers for his own notion. His own notion appears to be the correct one; and the moon appears to be a cheese. A cheese is of a circular form, and the moon appears to be circular. A cheese is a kind of whitish color; and the moon appears to be a kind of whitish color. A cheese has a flat face; and the moon appears to have a flat face. And cheeses vary in size and the moon appears to vary in size too. And the proof is conclusive,—yes, more abundant, and more conclusive, than what the Doctor has offered in support of his own favorite notion." It would certainly be very wicked for a man who can reason in a style so masterly, to bury his talent. But Mr. M. (to his praise be it spoken,) shows no disposition to inflict upon the world so great a calamity. If the passage to which our attention has just been directed, is worthy of admiration, the following should not be read without rapture: "Suppose you had obtained a fine horse, and you would take off his head; and then cause him to grow all over with feathers; would he be the same you received? Yes, he would, all but;—all but what? All but the absence of the head, and the presence of the feathers, and the want of life. And these changes make him to be not the one you obtained. That one had a head, but this one has none: that one had no feathers, but this one has: that one was living, but this one is dead. Before you have the same, you must put on the head, take away the feathers, and give him life. And thus it is with Rouse’s paraphrase of the 18th Psalm: he has taken away the head; he has put on the feathers: and he has killed it!" (p. 30.) Any word spoken in commendation of this sublime passage would be worse than lost.
As Mr. M. writes for the "plainest people," he for the most part, curbs his genius, and restrains it from flights too lofty and sublime; but ever and anon it breaks over the bounds assigned to it, and mounts to its proper level. You have an instance of this on p. 80;—"You pass along the [1] pleasant vale beautified with the various flowers that smile forth from besides your path. You see before you on a gentle elevation, the [2] verdant grove in all its inviting and luxuriant loveliness. Delighted you enter; and as you pass up, [3] the ear is charmed with melody and song, poured forth by the feathered songsters of the wood. You reach the [4] opening above; and lo! at your feet there lies [5] a spacious chrystal fountain. The margin, all around, is adorned with the choicest verdure and bloom. The myrtle, palm, and amaranth, the eglantine and rose. And the clear rocky bottom [6] of gems and gold, pours forth a constant pure, pellucid stream, in that sparkling fountain, ever flowing, and for ever full. With pleasing admiration you stand and gaze into the dear sparkling pool; and the sweet voice of the water nymph [7] calls you to drink. You quaff it, and O how refreshing! How exhilarating! how healing!" Our author’s fancy takes such liberty here, as evidently to carry him above the subject of Psalmody altogether; and yet the great mass of his readers are so utterly destitute of feeling and sense, as to consider this transporting passage nothing better than a piece of bombastical rant.
Mr. M. is not one of those morose and sullen spirits, who disdain all jests and flows of humor; and yet, (to his honor be it spoken,) his sallies of wit, are of that solemn, grave and serious kind which best becomes a minister of the gospel, having no tendency whatever to provoke the reader’s mirth, but rather serving to deepen his gravity. It were needless to give specimens of his wit, since they abound on almost every page of his work; and the reader will easily distinguish them by the accompanying notes of admiration.
He is a poet too;—see the following, p. 26.
"He would indite; and forged a wight,
To fit in tight and make it right."and the following, p. 29:
"His human wisdom hard he plies,
Anon came forth the words, that flies;
And then to these he adds, that lies:
And thus his rhyme together ties."It is much to he regretted that a poet so gifted, had not laid the world under obligations to him, by publishing a volume or two of poetry. After all, it is to be hoped that the judicious reader will conclude that the two specimens given above,—flaming as they do with poetic fire,—are almost as valuable as a volume of the same sort. Perhaps Mr. M. will take compassion on the church and furnish her with a book of hymns, of his own composition.
Indeed, to sum up all his virtues in one view, he possesses the true secret of book-making; viz: the art of expanding a few select ideas, into a volume of considerable size. Every reader will see that if our author had not paid some attention to this important rule, but like your impolitic scribblers, had always ceased writing when he had exhausted his ideas, his book instead of containing 248 pages, would not have amounted to one-fifth of that bulk; and, as a matter of course, would not easily have been sold for fifty cents per copy.
CHAPTER II.
The Spirit in which the Author Conducts his Review.
It is delightful to witness in a writer on religious controversy those marks of courtesy, candor and honesty, which evince a desire to arrive at the truth on the point in dispute.How far Mr. M. has succeeded in mitigating the harshness of controversy, by observing the principles of honor and christian courtesy, in his work on Psalmody, a very few extracts from that remarkable book, will serve to show.
On p. 20 he is pleased to express his opinion of the following stanza, in our metrical version of the second Psalm:
"Thou shalt as with a weighty rod
Of iron break them all,
And as a potter’s sherd thou shalt
Them dash in pieces small."It will be remembered that the translation of the Psalms from which this passage is taken, is that prepared by Sir Francis Rouse, Esq., M[ember of] P[arliament], a distinguished Hebrew scholar; revised successively by the Westminster Assembly and General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and for the last two centuries used by the best and greatest men in the Church of Christ, in the celebration of God’s praise. And, apart from the sanction of such high authority, the sentiments contained in this verse, and the manner in which they are expressed, must seem to most readers to be at once strong, beautiful and sublime, Mr. M’s. comment on the place, however, is,—"What a sublime idea Rouse presents! The idea of dashing a weighty iron rod against a piece of crockery-ware! What a striking figure! It just took Rouse to do it. And he carries out the idea; for he says ‘them dash in pieces small.’ Of course, when the piece is dashed in pieces, the pieces, will be small! But there is no such small affair in the Psalms of inspiration. It is original with Rouse." The reader will perceive that in the verse of the Psalm alluded to, there is nothing about "dashing a weighty iron rod against a piece of crockery-ware." It contains, indeed, a prediction that Christ’s enemies shall be broken as with a weighty rod of iron, and that like a potsherd they shall be broken to shivers; but the idea of dashing a weighty iron rod against a piece of crockery-ware, whether it be low or "sublime," is altogether original with Rev. G. Morton. His exclamation, "what a striking figure!" would doubtless be an excellent pun, did it not carry on its face a contemptuous sneer, aimed at the word of God: for the reader will perceive by reference to the prose version of Ps. 2:9, and our Saviour’s allusion to the place, Rev. 2:27, that in neither is the figure any less striking, than in the stanza respecting which Mr. M. makes himself so merry. And mark, with how much deference he speaks of Sir Francis Rouse, "It just took Rouse to do it,"—"there is no such small affair in the Psalms of inspiration. It is altogether original with Rouse." Indeed, to speak so contemptuously of so great a scholar as Sir Francis Rouse, and of the Westminster Assembly and General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, who revised and approved his version of the Psalms, would be worthy of the severest censure, were it not for the admitted fact that Mr. M., who does so, is "the man and wisdom shall die with him." Again, p. 35; "And Rouse says. ‘He let out the southern wind to go,’—to go where?—Perhaps to go and inspire Rouse." Indeed this kind of humor is characteristic of his whole work; and especially of his second chapter, in which he attempts to destroy the authority of our metrical version of the book of Psalms: and which, by the way, contains 44 pages. This scurrilous and abusive treatment of Sir Francis Rouse and the Church of Scotland, has very much the appearance, it must be confessed, of causeless, deep and impotent malice against "The Psalms of David in Metre," and those who use them in the celebration of God’s praise. But we ought to be cautious how we impugn any man’s motives; and perhaps those of Mr. M. in this instance are of the holiest description. It may be that the fermentation of certain malignant humors in his heart had filled him with a violent spleen against all "Psalmonism" and "Psalmonists;" and that he wrote his second chapter, merely by way of unburdening his mind of its filthy load in order that he might prosecute the remainder of his work with the purer feelings.—Probably he thought that it would have been presumptuous in a mortal man, to have attempted to imitate the example of Michael the Archangel, who, when he disputed with the Devil, about the body of Moses, did not dare bring a railing accusation against him;—if indeed, he does not consider Sir Francis Rouse worse than the Devil.—Or, perhaps he foresaw that this low, scornful, sneering way of writing, would render his book popular with his "Neodistic" brethren.
Mr. M. like every other prudent controversialist, takes the precaution not to present his argument, till he has done what he can to prepare the mind for its reception. How fair the means are, to which he has recourse for this end, the candid reader will judge, after the perusal of a few extracts. Mark the following, p. 12:—"There seems to be some relation between a fondness for Rouse’s Psalms, and a want of liberality for the cause of Christ. In the compass of my own knowledge. I could refer to the case of several individuals, for the verification of what I say. They are great sticklers for Rouse; but very stingy in their contributions. I know one very partial to the ‘Old Psalms,’ who has several times left the church, during public worship, just because the pastor or perhaps an agent brought before the congregation the cause of Missions, or some other benevolent object." Now this attempt to fasten upon a large class of christians, a failing which has been observed in a few individuals belonging to that class, would, under ordinary circumstances, be esteemed to the last degree illiberal, base and unjust.—There are "in" the compass of Mr. M.’s "knowledge, several individuals" who "are great sticklers for Rouse, but very stingy in their contributions." And he knows "one,"—(yes, no less than ONE,) "very partial to the ‘old Psalms,’ who has several times left the church during public worship; just because the pastor, or perhaps an agent brought before the congregation the subject of missions or some other benevolent object."—And what is the conclusion? one which none but our learned author could draw from such scanty premises:—that "there seems to be some relation between a fondness for Rouse’s Psalms, (that is the Psalms of inspiration,) and a want of liberality for the cause of Christ!!" One would think that it would have been bad enough to conclude that there was "some relation between a fondness for the Bible Psalms, and a want of liberality for the cause of Christ," if upon a careful examination of well authenticated statistics, it had been found that those who confine themselves to an inspired Psalmody, contribute less for the support of the gospel, in proportion to their numbers, than those who use a Psalmody of human manufacture. But far be it from me, that I should try Mr. M. by the same rule which I would apply to others;—perhaps he had reasons known to himself, for drawing from the unimportant and insignificant statement which he has made, an inference so disrespectfully to the Psalms of David. However, after what he has said himself, he will not be offended if I state some things which he knows to be facts; that there are not only "several individuals," but thousands, who belong to those churches in which uninspired hymns are used, who hold slaves,—thousands who play cards,—thousands who travel, visit, read the newspapers and write letters on the Lord’s day.—That not one-tenth of those who are members in his "Neodistic" fraternity ever worship God in their families.—That there are large communities of the users of human Psalmody, who deny the divinity of Christ, and large communities of them, who deny a future state of punishment. Our author well knows "one," not very "partial to the ‘Old Psalms,’ a minister of the Gospel in the Presbyterian Church, who preaches against returning thanks after meals, and practices accordingly; and I can inform him of another who is probably the most abandoned profane swearer in Pennsylvania,—who by his profanity has gained for himself the epithet of swearing ——, or, Devil ——, who is, nevertheless, a member in regular standing, in a "Neodistic" church, and served with acceptance one term in the eldership. The reader, in drawing his inference, may either adopt Mr. M.’s method shown above, or follow a course of his own.
Our author, on p. 11, gives further proof of his candor. He says, "In the former class, ("Neodistic" churches,) there is undoubtedly quite as much vital piety and true godliness, as in the latter, ("Psalmonistic" churches,) and we have abundant evidence that this is the belief, especially of the Associate Reformed Church: because she is very willing to receive accessions from the ranks of the Presbyterians. Even those who are not in good and regular standing in the Presbyterian Church, are very gladly received into her bosom; showing that Presbyterians, of an inferior quality are considered as good material for building up the Associate Reformed Church."—But why, (the reader will naturally inquire.) does Mr. M. single out the Associate Reformed Church from among several others equally Psalmonistic, and aim at her this tenderhanded stab? Is this fair? Oh, yes, reader: I can easily convince you that nothing can be fairer.—You see, Mr. M. is writing against Dr. Pressly; and Dr. Pressly is Prof[essor of] Theol[ogy] in the A[ssociate] R[eformed] Church. As stratagem is allowable in war, so in religious controversy, all policy however cowardly, base, and dishonest, ought to be not only tolerated but applauded; and what more politic in reasoning against Dr. Pressly, than to assert that the A. R. C. in which he teaches divinity, receives into her fellowship disorderly members of the General Assembly Church; and to insinuate that this is her common practice? It is true that he has not proved that this matter is as he represents it; but I think nothing the less of him for that: for how could he prove it, since it is not true. Besides, we should remember that it is no part of his policy to prove things.
After the taste that we have had of our author’s quality, it would certainly be very unreasonable to deny him the right of making Dr. Pressly say what he pleases; more especially, as this is a right on which he seems to set a high value. How he uses this privilege, the reader will perceive by reference to pp. 8, 9, where he will find the following, "and does Dr. Pressly believe, that Dr. Swift, in doing this, (giving out, in his congregation, a hymn from the Assembly collection,) is influenced by such haughty impiety and satanic pride, as is implied in ‘arrogating to himself that glory which Jehovah declares he will not give to another.’ I am fully persuaded were Dr. Pressly publicly to answer this inquiry, he would answer, No: He would say he does not believe Dr. Swift guilty of such daring impiety.—And in saying so, he would admit all that for which we contend. Because he would admit, that Dr. Swift has authority for conducting the worship of God in the manner in which he does. And without advancing far, we come to what might be the end of the controversy, namely, that we have authority to use in the worship of God, songs of praise not found in the Book of Psalms. Dr. Pressly must admit of this, or else hold Dr. Swift guilty of the great wickedness implied in arrogating to himself the glory that belongs to God." But Dr. Pressly holds, that he is not thus guilty; and hence admits that he has authority: and thus proves that his own belief is contrary to his own reasoning!" Now, some niggardly reviewers would content themselves with commenting upon what a man has said,—a thing which we could do ourselves without their aid; but Mr. M. generously leads us into a field of inquiry, which, without his assistance, we could never have entered,—remarking at length upon what Dr. Pressly would say under given circumstances. Some persons may be so captious as to ask, ‘how does Mr. M. know how Dr. Pressly would answer the question which he suggests, if it were publicly asked, or that he would condescend to give any answer to a question proposed in terms so offensive?’ But what matter how he knows it if he knows it at all? And Mr. M. certainly does know what Dr. P. would say; or else he would not, upon such a supposition, dare to assert that Dr. Pressly has admitted "that we have authority to use in the worship of God, songs not contained in the Book of Psalms;" and much less, that the Dr. is so dishonest, as to reason throughout his whole book against his own belief.
If reasoning against a man, from what he would say, is worthy of commendation, as being a more speedy method of ending a controversy, than reasoning from what he does say; a capacity for discriminating between the blunders of a writer, and the error of the press is no less praiseworthy, in its own place; as being well calculated to maintain justice between the author and printer. This latter excellence shines in its highest perfection in Mr. M. Witness the following, p. 134. "Again the Dr. says, ‘the ninety-sixth and parts of some other Psalms, are found in the Second Book of Chronicles.’ But this is not so: something like them is found in the 10th Chap. of the First Book of Chronicles. This is no typographical error, for he gives it in words, not in figures. But it is a sample of his usual want of accuracy; and an evidence that he takes things on rumor, without examining for himself, Nor is it like a typographical error to give the ‘15’ of Second Chronicles instead of the 5th. It looks like as though he had heard somebody say it was in the 15th, and gave it so." So the reference in the Dr.’s book, to Second Chronicles in place of First Chronicles, is not, cannot be a typographical error," because the number is given "in words, not in figures!" And "15 instead of 5th does not look like a typographical error," although the number is given in "figures" not in "words." Why may words not sometimes be printed amiss, as well as "figures," and why by an error of the press 15 may not be substituted for 5th, as well as any one number for another, he does not condescend to tell us; and perhaps if the reason were made known, it would be above our comprehension. But if the mistakes referred to, did not originate with the printer, might they not at least be accidental blunders in Dr. P.’s manuscript? No, indeed; Mr. M. has set that matter to rest. The former "is a sample of the Dr.’s usual want of accuracy, and an evidence that he takes things on rumor without examining for himself;" and the latter "looks like as though he had heard somebody say it was in the 15th, and gave it so." How fervent the charity of our author! Poor Dr. Pressly! It seems that he has never read the Bible himself, and is consequently obliged to make use of Scripture as he can catch it from the lips of his neighbors. Perhaps the Dr. has no Bible:—but would it not have been better for him to borrow one from Mr. M. (who doubtless has two or three of them,) than to quote Scripture at second hand?
A superficial reader of Pressly on Psalmody, if he did not agree with the Dr. on every point, might perhaps give him credit for being honestly mistaken. But our author, who has doubtless searched Dr. Pressly’s heart, (for how else could he tell what he would say, under supposed circumstances?) seems to know whether or not the Dr. thinks what he says, and does not fail to expose him when he finds him lying. On page 9, he says, "what the Dr. next brings forward as an argument, is the case of Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, who ‘offered strange fire before the Lord.’ And on page 10, he (Dr. P.) represents, Neodism as the very identical sin of Nadab and Abihu." And after laboring through four pages to set aside the Dr.’s argument, our author, p. 13, says, with great humility, "Now, Dr. Pressly is perfectly aware, that we have given a true representation; that there is positively no evidence of any kind tending to show, that Neodism is similar to the sin of Nadab and Abihu, and why does he represent them as similar?" How very flattering!—Dr. Pressly "is perfectly aware—that there is positively no evidence of any kind tending to show, that Neodism is similar to the sin of Nadab and Abihu," and yet "he represents them as similar;" that is, in plain English, he makes a representation which he well knows to be false. Surely Mr. M. has seen the Groves of Blarney. He hurls a few more compliments at the Dr. on p. 111:—"Indeed I never saw, and I question if any one ever saw, an equal amount of misrepresentation in the same compass;—but how is it possible to account for such dissimulation.?" This deceitful representation, too, is from the Professor’s chair, which is supposed to be the watchful guardian of morals!" Instances of the same style of argumentation might be multiplied indefinitely, from the work before us; let one or two more suffice. On p. 123, are these remarkable words; "he (i.e., Dr. Pressly) labors through two dozen pages to prove what he does not believe."—That is, he devotes 24 pages to wilful lying. Again, p. 141, "my very dear Doctor; you know very well, that the way you exhibit the matter, is merely a misrepresentation." It is truly matter of rejoicing, that in the person of Mr. M. there exists a man sufficiently endowed with Christian fortitude, to give the lie to any man who may entertain a view opposite to his own; and who is not by any sickly squeamishness, held back from performing this painful duty, to a man twenty years older than himself, even though he were Senior Professor, in a respectable divinity school.
After all that has been said it will not be thought strange that our author everywhere treats Dr. Pressly as an outlaw, and withholds from him that courtesy which is commonly extended to a respectable antagonist, in religious controversy. In the dark character with which he invests Dr. Pressly, representing him as a man who ordinarily quotes scripture at second hand—a man who makes no scruple of laboring through two dozen pages to prove what he does not believe,—the charitable reader will find an apology for such bursts of eloquence as the following:—"But all ye connoisseurs of criticism see that you fail not, to secure for yourselves the Dr.’s work on Psalmody; and turn to his ‘critical analysis,’ and summon all your powers of intellect for the enjoyment of something profound, examine it with care—but I exhort ye not to laugh! And then too it is just from the Doctor’s hand—direct from the wonderful philological chair—coming from the very fountain of Biblical science—and set forth by the Chief Rabbi of that notable school! It must be remarkable!—and it is! All who want to have a curiosity in criticism—get it! Happy youth! who resort to that school! When the master is so profound in Biblical criticism, doubtless they will all be much distinguished in this department of sacred learning," (pp. 104, 105.)—"We find the Doctor is a great protector; and no wonder when he ranks himself at the head of the Protestant Church, and acts in her name! But then his Highness ought to be careful not to protest against himself," (p. 77.)—"Away in the backwoods among the boys in the common schools perhaps something like it has been heard. But coming from the learned Doctor; and the Chief Rabbi among his brethren; this is the most astonishing of all!" (p. 116.)—It must be of vast advantage to that branch of the church, to have their chief theological chair replenished with such an embroilment of accurate Biblical knowledge!" (p. 135.)—"Why my dear Doctor! your representation is most exquisite foolery.; and if you were to try your skill again, I do not think you could beat this." (p. 192.) The very evangelical spirit which breathes through the above passages of "Morton on Psalmody," and I may add, through the whole book,—for it is all of the same stamp,—our author, no doubt, imbibed from the "Evangelical Psalmody," which he has so long been using. This is his way of "instructing with meekness those who oppose themselves." It is worthy of observation, that there is nothing of this humor discoverable in Dr. Pressly’s Review of Dr. Ralston’s Inquiry; which shows plainly that Dr. P. is totally ignorant of the fundamental maxims of religious controversy, and utterly destitute of the most important qualification of a Reviewer. And though the art of flavoring one’s arguments with such spice as this, is no invention of our worthy author,—nothing having been more common ever since the time that Sarah detected Ishmael sneering at Isaac, (Gen. 21:9,)—yet he is entitled to great praise, since he practises it on a larger scale than any of his contemporaries.
Far be it from me to attempt to gain for Mr. M. a reputation which he does not deserve. And lest the partiality to him, which I have contracted by reading his book, should mislead my judgment, or misguide my pen, I have made it a point, (as the reader will perceive,) to give large extracts from his work in support of everything which I have alleged.
And now I leave it with the judicious reader to decide whether Mr. M. be not a reviewer of infinite candor, charity and courtesy.
CHAPTER III.
Theological Views of the Author.
The Author’s opinions on the subject which he professes to discuss, will in a suitable place, receive that attention to which they are thought to be entitled. My object in the present chapter is to pass a few remarks on such peculiar doctrines as may be incidentally inculcated in the work under review. And this is the more needful, because many who examine with care and attention an author’s views on the question which forms the main subject of his work, are often less disposed to investigate the truth or falsehood of doctrines inculcated in a more incidental way.Far be it from me, to charge Mr. Morton with denying the divinity of Christ. The following passages in his work on Psalmody, sufficiently vindicate him from any such imputation "God has many sons; yet he has but one only begotten son, which signifies, a son possessing the same divine nature with himself, (p. 19.)—"Now this explains to us very clearly what psalms they were, which Paul (of Samosata, the Arian,) put a stop to—Psalms composed by faithful Christians from the beginning, in honor of Jesus Christ, speaking of him as no other than Christ indeed," (p. 221.)—"But Jews who hate Jesus could not unite in singing the Psalms—commended by the Apostle,—Psalms in which they spoke of Jesus—maintaining that he was a divine person, the Son of God," (p. 98.)—These three passages, which I have discovered by diligent search, I take pleasure in laying before the charitable reader; who will rejoice in being convinced from them, that our illustrious author is not a Socinian. Nor is this defence of his orthodoxy unneeded. All great men are at times unfortunate; and Mr. M’s. misfortune is, so to have expressed himself, as very distinctly to convey the idea that Christ is but a mere man;—and that in more places than one. On p. 165, he says, "Here" (Rev. 5,) "the man Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary, is represented as a Lamb; but there is no such idea in the Book of Psalms." The reader will perceive at once, that to assert that Christ is the son of Joseph and Mary, is unequivocally to assert that he his a mere man. Such a form of speech, is precisely in accordance with the phraseology of the unbelieving Jews of our Saviour’s time; Luke 4:22, "Is not this Joseph’s son?" Jno. 6:42, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?"—And charity would constrain us to pronounce the use of it by our author, a mere accident, were it not that he repeats it again and again.—"The Old Testament Scriptures tell us everywhere and in various ways, that the Messiah shall [8] come. But the New Testament Scriptures tell us, that he is come, and point us to him, saying, This man, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph and Mary, is he of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets did write."—"Peter says, ‘Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.’ The grand object of all this testimony, which is so abundant in the New Testament is to bring the people to believe and confess, that Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph and Mary, is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament Scriptures," (pp. 189, 190.)—"When could we learn from the Psalms, that the son of Joseph and Mary attested his Messiahship by raising Lazarus from the dead," And when, Bro. Morton, could we learn from any book in the Bible that the son of Joseph and Mary attested his Messiahship by raising Lazarus from the dead: or in any other way; that he had a Messiahship to attest; or indeed, that Joseph or Mary ever had a son? In perfect consistency with the passages quoted above, is the following, p. 96; "The Psalms contain a great deal concerning the Messiah; but they do not tell us who the Messiah is; they do not tell us that Jesus who was born of Mary, is that Messiah." Now, it is certain that the Psalms do tell us,—Ps. 2:7—that the Messiah is the Son of God; nor has this, as we have already seen, escaped our author’s notice. And if Christ be a divine person, then informing us that he is the Son of God, is telling us who he is; while informing us that he is the son of Mary, is only telling us one of the things that he has done;—viz: that he has assumed our nature, in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Representing him as the son of Mary, never identifies his person, or tells us who he is; unless, as the Socinians maintain, he is a human person, a mere man. It cannot have escaped the notice of the observant reader, that our author, throughout the paragraph from which the last two quotations are taken, seems to have a special care to keep our Saviour’s manhood before our minds;—as, "when the man Jesus was baptized"—"testified that this man was the Messiah"—"the man who journeyed from place to place through the land of Judea"—"that this very same man is now exalted to the fight! and of God." Now the most captious can find no fault with him for applying the term man to Christ; for man he certainly was. But his apparently studious use of this phraseology, even when it mars rather than helps the force, perspicuity and beauty of his sentence, may draw upon him, from some quarters, suspicion as to his soundness in the faith; especially as he does not in the meantime take any pains to insist on our Saviour’s divinity. And such a suspicion will not be likely to be in any measure removed by the recollection that in four different places he calls the Messiah the Son of Joseph and Mary; and that he represents such a designation of Him as the only method of telling who he is. After all, I must be allowed to assure the reader that Mr. M. cannot be a consistent Socinian; for even in that paragraph which would seem the most objectionable, as expressing, both directly and indirectly, Socinian views, he says, (p. 98,) that the Psalms sung by the Colossians, with the approbation of the apostle, were such as taught that ‘Jesus was a Divine person.’ Perhaps he has some new theory of his own (akin to that of the ancient Nestorians,) according to which he views our Saviour as being a divine, and yet a human person; subsisting in two persons, as well as possessing two natures; being the Son of God by eternal and ineffable generation, and at the same time, by ordinary human generation, the Son of Joseph and Mary. And (by the way,) if such be the Saviour in whom he believes, it is not to be wondered at that he advocates the use of a new and uninspired psalmody; since neither the Book of Psalms nor any other Book in the Bible, knows anything of such a Christ, Probably his mind is so deep, that he himself cannot see to the bottom of it, and of course does not know very well what he does believe; or so capacious, that he is able at the same time to entertain two opposite beliefs. It may be that, as on the subject of Psalmody he makes common cause with all Socinians, he wishes, by inculcating their views of other subjects, to give them the full benefit of his alliance with them. Or, finally, is it not possible that in order the more effectually to avoid being dogmatical, he makes it a matter of conscience to contradict every important statement which he makes? Certainly this last supposition is much favored by the complexion, and I might say complexity of his whole work on Psalmody.
Mr. M.’s twofold view of the person of Christ, will help us to account for his teaching two ways of salvation, which he certainly does, in very plain terms. On pp. 191: 2, he favors us with the following strictures upon a sentiment of Dr. Pressly: ‘And then look at the bottom of p. 95;’ (of Pressly on Psalmody;) ‘you say, ever since the first promise of a Saviour was given to our lost world, Jesus Christ has been the only hope of sinful man. By faith in Him, as exhibited to them upon the infallible testimony of God, believers were saved under the Old Testament.’ Yes, Doctor, but Jesus Christ was never exhibited until he was born at Bethlehem; and how could men have faith in Him before they heard of Him? They had faith in a promised Messiah; but before they could have faith in Jesus, they must learn that Jesus is that Messiah; and this they could never learn until Jesus came. And my dear Doctor !will you allow me respectfully to tell you that noman ever believed in Jesus before he was born. And even none believed in Him until they had sufficient evidence that He was the Messiah, the promised Saviour.’ ‘You see, Doctor, it is not true. That ever since the first promise of it Saviour, Jesus Christ was the only hope of sinful man. Because he was not the hope of any man until he came into the world, and was made known to men as that Redeemer who was promised. And all that is written in the New Testament; and all the miracles wrought by our Saviour and by his apostles; and all the miraculous events connected with his birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension, were designed to convince men that this Jesus was the Redeemer, and to persuade them to put their trust in Him. And if men always trusted in Jesus before he came, what was the use of all this to lead them to do what they were doing already? Why, my dear Doctor! your representation is most exquisite foolery.’
The reader will perceive that I have given Mr. M. ample space to speak for himself. And it will be observed that, like every other good Christian, he believes that men are saved by faith in Christ Jesus, ever since his coming in the flesh. For he says that Jesus Christ ‘was not the hope of any man until He came into the world;’ plainly implying that since that time, He has been the hope of men.’ That this is his view of the present way of salvation, is still made evident from what immediately follows in the same connection: ‘And all that is written in the New Testament, and all the miracles wrought by our ,Saviour and by his apostles,’ &c., ‘were designed to convince men that this Jesus was the Redeemer; and to persuade them to put their trust in Him.’ Now, this opinion of his, that men are now saved by faith in Christ, is unquestionably correct, for it is perfectly Scriptural; but the soundness of his other doctrine, that sinners were saved in some other way under the Old Testament dispensation, might well be called in question, if it had been advanced by any other than the infallible George Morton. That he holds the opinion is certain. His words are, ‘Before they could have faith in Jesus, they must learn that Jesus is the Messiah; anti this they could not learn until Jesus came. And, my dear Doctor! will you allow me respectfully to tell you that no man ever believed in Jesus before he was born.’ And if they did not, could not have faith in Christ Jesus the Mediator, they were not saved by faith in Christ; and if saved at all, they must have been saved in some way altogether different. But it is not merely by just inference that this sentiment is contained in his words; he has expressed it in the plainest form. Speaking of Simeon, he says, ‘He had saving faith, long before he believed in Jesus as the Redeemer; for he never believed in Jesus until Jesus came.’
With regard to the orthodoxy of our author’s views on this subject, I will not hazard an opinion; but content myself with observing that the Prophet Isaiah and the Apostle Peter are plainly at war with him: for Mr. M. says, ‘Jesus Christ was never exhibited until he was born in Bethlehem;’ whereas Isaiah says, (Chap. 42:1,) ‘Behold my servant whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth;’ and Peter says, (Acts 10:38, 43) ‘How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power. To Him give the prophets witness,’ &c. Now when Isaiah calls upon the men of his day to behold the Saviour, he certainly insinuates very strongly that he was then exhibited; (for how else could they behold Him?) and when Peter asserts that to Jesus of Nazareth all the prophets gave witness, it is certainly implied that he was exhibited; for it is not easy to conceive how they could give testimony to one who was not exhibited. Again, our author says, ‘no man ever believed in Jesus before he was born;’ but the Apostle cited above, says (Acts, 2:22, 32,) ‘Ye men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs;—ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. David speaketh concerning him, ‘I foresaw the Lord always before my thee; for he is on my right hand that I should not be moved.’ Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David; being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne; he seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ; that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption; this Jesus hath God raised up, to which we are alt witnesses.’ From this it is evident that Peter thought that at least one of the Old Testament saints believed in Jesus Christ before he was born; and there is certainly some foundation for such an opinion, in David’s own enlightened confession. But it must not be thought strange that Prophets and Apostles do at some points differ from our author, since even the Rev. George Morton, Dr. Pressly’s learned Reviewer, is at open war with him on the same point. This discrepancy between Rev. Morton and Rev. Morton, appears very strikingly in what he says about Simeon, p. 72: ‘The devout Simeon believed in Jesus; but not until it was revealed to him by the Holy Ghost that the child Jesus was that promised Messiah in whom he had been trusting all his life.’ Simeon never believed in Jesus till it was revealed to him that he had been believing in him all his life! He had been believing in him all his life; and yet he never believed in him until ‘Jesus came, and it was divinely revealed to him that he was the Saviour in whom he had trusted’!!
If inspired prophets and apostles oppose the view of Mr. M. on this subject, they do no more than is done by their Divine Lord; who very clearly represents himself to have been both exhibited and believed in, under the Old Testament dispensation. In proof of this, I refer the reader to Jno. 5:35: ‘Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me.’ What Scriptures? Those of the Old Testament, of course; for there were then none else. And of whom do they testify? ‘Of me,’ says Jesus. Again; v. 46; ‘For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.’ Moses then wrote of Jesus Christ; and yet Mr. M. declared that ‘he was not exhibited till he was born in Bethlehem!’ To the same purpose, is Jno. 8:54. ‘Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.’ And how did Abraham see Christ’s day, if it was not by believing on his name?
All must grant that there is a sense in which Christ was never exhibited till the fulness of time; viz: that never till then was he visibly exhibited in our nature. But this is not the sense in which the word ‘exhibited’ is used in this connection, by Dr. Pressly and his Reviewer;—the Dr’s words, on which Mr. M. comments, are ‘By faith in him as exhibited to them upon the infallible testimony of God, &c.’ Now it will be borne in mind that faith, which is ‘the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,’ (Heb. 11:1,) does not require the visible exhibition of its object, before it can be exercised. And it is most likely, that those who wish to rest their opinions upon ‘the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone,’ will not hesitate to believe that ‘the one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,’ was by divine revelation exhibited in various ways, before as well as since his advent in the flesh; and that God’s elect, under the former dispensation, embraced him for salvation, by the like precious faith to that by which we are now saved. And this view of matters, if it be correct, may help to reconcile good men now, to the exclusive use of that collection of Psalms, which so well served the purpose of God’s people under the Old Testament dispensation.—But this by the way.
One feature of our author’s Old Testament way of salvation, I am free to say I do not like. He represents the faith of Old Testament saints, as meriting their justification. His words are, ‘He (i.e., Simeon) had saving faith; he was justified on account of his faith in a promised Redeemer.’ Now all those churches which confine themselves to the use of the Book of Psalms in the celebration of God’s praise, are Calvinistic in their views of the way of salvation; and maintain with the Apostle of the Gentiles, (Rom. 3:21,) that sinners are ‘justified freely by God’s grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and by consequence, that they are not justified on account of their faith, or any other good thing ‘wrought in them or done by them;’ and with the same inspired writer they ‘conclude that a man is justified,’—not on account of faith as a deed of the law, but—‘by faith, without the deeds of the law.’ And indeed, with the Bible in their hands, it is not easy for them to believe that any sinner is justified on account of his faith; especially if it be such a defective faith, as Mr. M. would make out the faith of Old Testament believers to have been,—a faith which had no respect to Jesus Christ the one Mediator; or such a bungling faith, as is professed by some in New Testament times, which sometimes looks upon our Saviour as a divine person, the only begotten Son of God, and anon regards him as a human person, the Son of Joseph and Mary.
There is something in the manner in which our author expresses himself with regard to the two ways of salvation, which would almost lead us to believe that, in his opinion, the difference between the two, is, that the saving faith of Old Testament saints rested upon the Saviour himself; whereas the saving faith of New Testament saints rests upon the name Jesus. Whether he entertains the opinion that the name Jesus is a proper object of religious faith or not, it is certainly, much akin to one which he clearly does hold, and which he maintains at great length; viz: that the name Jesus ought to be worshipped.—Not merely that our Saviour himself ought to be worshipped;—in this all good christians would concur with him;—but that the word Jesus, one of his names, is entitled to religious worship. This doctrine he inculcates at large, pp. 182-188. He delivers himself as follows:—Again; ‘thou shalt call his name JESUS; for he shall save his people from their sins.’ But this sacred name of the Redeemer is not found once in the Book of Psalms. And must the name of Jesus, be excluded from the Psalmody of his own Church? How can the Christian Church engage in the worship of God without using the name of Jesus? It is impossible: and why banish this name from one important part of that worship?—Did the foolish mind of man ever invent a greater absurdity? That the church redeemed by the blood of Jesus, when she lifts up her voice to bless him for salvation, must not dare to name his name? That name so dear in heaven and upon earth: which the eternal Jehovah has proclaimed above every name—‘therefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name, which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and every tongue should confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.’ But Psalmonistic Churches in their songs of praise can never make this confession. When they lift up their voices in a song of praise, they can never glorify God the Father by confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord of all. And why not? Do not the psalms speak of the ‘Son of God,’ of the ‘Redeemer,’ of the King of Glory?’ Are not the 2nd and 110 Psalms, for example, beautifully descriptive of the kingdom and power and glory of our Saviour? True; but all this does not amount to what our author means, when he speaks of using ‘the name of Jesus.’ To be plain; when he uses the phrase, ‘the name of Jesus,’ he means simply the word Jesus. But if we follow him a little further, we will find him to explain himself;—‘They need not point us,’ he adds, ‘to such psalms as the 2nd and 110th, for this exalted name Jesus, is not in the whole book of Psalms.’ This puts it beyond all doubt, that when he says ‘the name of Jesus,’ he means neither more nor less than the name Jesus. Now mark what he says about this name. ‘And they (Psalmonists) will teach us, that this name,’ (the name Jesus,) ‘which God has proclaimed from his throne, as the most exalted and glorious, at which the inhabitants of heaven, and of the earth, and of those under [9] the earth, bow in submission, must never once be named in the church, in any of her songs of praise! A name which is the theme of constant adoration by the church in heaven, and the church on earth; but it must never be heard upon the voice of her songs!’—Observe, it is not Jesus himself, but the word ‘Jesus,’ one of his names, that Mr. M. represents as being the theme of the Church’s adoration. Further on, he says, ‘Yes, indeed, the man who feels that he is redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus will praise his name,’—that is, the name Jesus—‘in a song,’ or, in other words, will worship it. Again; "But when the church shall be visited with the full blaze of that millennial light and [10] purity, and truth, such a doctrine will be heard no more at all in her. There will be no hesitation then to praise the name of Jesus,’—that is, by Mr. M.’s own explanation, the name Jesus,—in a song.’—In the millennium, it would appear, the church will make it a prominent part of her religion, to worship the word Jesus, praising it in a song. Further; ‘Yes then, and now, and till then, ever and always, will the church of Jesus Christ raise the loud songs of glory and gladness, and thanksgiving, to the exalted name of Jesus:’—that is, to the name Jesus. And again; ‘Dr. Pressly might as well think to stem the ocean’s tide, or stay the rolling thunder in its pathway cross the heavens, as that he will prevent those redeemed by the blood of the Lamb from praising, in their songs, the precious name of Jesus,’—that is, recollect, as he himself explains it, the word Jesus which is one of the names of ‘their gloriously exalted Saviour and King.’ But it is not necessary to multiply quotations; in those given above, there is a superabundance of evidence that he deifies the word Jesus, and claims for it divine honors;—nothing less than that, like Christ himself, to whom it belongs as one of his names, it be worshipped with songs of adoration and praise! or rather, he seems to care but little whether Christ be worshipped at all, or not; provided, due homage be paid to the name Jesus. He has not told us why this name is more worthy of worship than the terms, Lord, Christ, Messiah, Saviour, Redeemer, Shiloh, &c.; but perhaps their apotheosis will take place when he is ready to favor the world with a book upon some other subject; and then, if he and his ‘Neodistic’ brethren do not worship enough, it will not be for want of plenty of gods.
That our Rev. author inculcates the worship of a word of two syllables, viz: ‘the name Jesus, it is impossible to deny. Whether in this he is right or wrong, I leave entirely to the judgment of the reflecting reader. But lest any one should be disposed to censure him too harshly, as teaching idolatry, allow me to turn the reader’s attention to the fact, that if he has demanded for one of our Saviour’s names, divine worship, he has on the other hand, effectually counteracted the operation of his teaching, by the contrary influence of his example: for from p. 183, to p. 188, as well as in sundry other places, he has used the name Jesus, (which, like all other divine names, should never be taken in vain,) with a needless frequency, which—were I not a reviewer, and of course bound to be favorable to my author—I would not hesitate to characterize as profane.
PART SECOND.AN EXAMINATION OF MR. MORTON’S PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION.
CHAPTER I.
HIS PREFACE AND FIRST CHAPTER.
After what we have seen of the general character of Mr. Morton’s profound work on Psalmody, we will not be expected to dwell at very great length upon all examination of the successive steps by which he pursues his course of argumentation. Indeed, it would savor not a little of presumption, for a man of ordinary size to make ally very lengthy strictures upon the statements, observations and conclusions of so able a writer, so powerful and at the same time so generous a disputant, and so deep a divine, as we have already seen our distinguished author to be. However, lest he should think himself slighted, we will not pass him by without making some reply to his labored arguments on the great question at issue between him and Dr. Pressly.To begin with his Preface:—He there informs us of the momentous occasion which induced him to enter upon the great work which he has in so masterly a manner performed. Nor was this information unneeded; for without it, his readers would undoubted have been much at a loss to know why any sane man would think of placing himself before the public in the extraordinary attitude which it has pleased Mr. M. to assume. He accounts for what he has done in the following words, p. iii: ‘It may not be improper to state the occasion which has led to the appearance of this work before the public. It is simply this: that in the discharge of his ministerial duties, the author was called to labor within the bounds of churches where the subject of Psalmody was much agitated by Psalmonites,—their ministers dwelling much upon it as a theme of public discussion; and with the usual aim of disturbing and making inroads upon the Presbyterian church.’ Yes, reader, incredible as it may appear to you, our author has actually found that in some neighborhoods where he has preached, the ministers of the Covenanter, Associate, and Associate Reformed Churches, had the daring effrontery to maintain from the pulpit that the one hundred and fifty Psalms which God has made, and embodied in the Bible, are superior to any that uninspired men can make; and even to insist at large upon this preposterous tenet! And that their bearers, instead of scouting a doctrine so preposterous, not only fell in with this absurd opinion, but were so fanatical as to defend it zealously in private controversy! After all, Mr. M. could probably have borne with them in this, had he not, upon looking into their hearts, perceived the baseness of their motives. But when he saw that all this was done ‘with the usual aim of disturbing and making inroads upon the Presbyterian church,’ he justly concluded that forbearance was no longer a virtue, and arose in his might to avert the fearful consequences of this unholy agitation. But there is another circumstance which must be taken into the account, (same page.) ‘It was found that Dr. Pressly’s work on Psalmody was in circulation, and constituted the principal armory of Psalmonites, from which they were furnished with weapons to assail the cause of truth, and do injury to the interests of our beloved Zion. In view of these circumstances, the author believed it would subserve the cause of truth to put into the hands of our people a plain and pointed review of the Doctor’s work, which might be used as a shield to protect them against the continual assaults to which they were exposed.’ The ‘Neodists,’ although far outnumbering the ‘Psalmonites,’ were among the latter ‘as lambs among wolves.’ The ‘Psalmonites,’ besides possessing the Bible and common sense, were armed cap a pie from ‘Pressly on Psalmody,’ while the ‘Neodists,’ although they too, as may be presumed, were endowed with common sense, had access to the Bible, and had, or might have had, ‘Baird’s Review of McMaster,’ ‘Ralston’s Inquiry,’ &c., were nevertheless exposed defenceless to the deadly shafts of their ruthless assailants. In this extremity, our author comes to the rescue of his ‘Neodistic’ brethren, and casts over them a shield of triple adamant, in the form of a ‘Review of Pressly on Psalmody.’
A sight of the terrible suffering endured by the Neodists in the dreadful contests through which they had to pass, stirred, as might be expected, the deepest sympathies of Mr. M.’s benevolent heart. ‘In the prosecution, then, of this object,’ says he, ‘I have endeavored to write in a plain style, that the plainest people might understand. And that it might be especially advantageous to them, has been a prevailing desire in the preparation of this work. Because it is well known that they are much plagued and harassed on this subject by the continual interference of Psalmonites.’ Plagued, no doubt, with texts of Scripture, and harassed with unaaswerable arguments thrown in their way by unfeeling ‘Psalmonites,’ who make no scruple to interfere with them by propounding the most perplexing questions.—Cruel, hard-hearted Psalmonites,
‘How can you hope for mercy, rendering none?’
Nor is it rarely that the Neodists are treated in this unworthy manner. The wicked Psalmonites seem to take a peculiar pleasure in tormenting the men that dwell on the earth. "In some sections of the country," says our author, "they seem determined never to let the subject rest, and are watching every opportunity, which they think may be improved in any way for the promotion of their own interests. And hence, Presbyterians are under the necessity of defending their own principles and practice." How obstinate and incorrigible are these same headstrong Psalmonites! Untouched by any feeling for the misery which they cause,—unawed by the opposition of the multitudes, they will persist in asserting and maintaining their principles! And then they are so unreasonable as to study the promotion of their own interests! And then see the pass to which it has come with Presbyterians. Who would have thought that they would ever have been reduced to the direful "necessity of defending their own principles and practice?"
Mr. M. does not seem to have at all designed his first chapter as any part of his argument upon Psalmody; but rather as a preparatory appeal so popular feeling.
On p. 6, he makes the following quotation from Pressly on Psalmody:—"when men, therefore, take this matter into their own hands, and undertake to determine how God shall be praised, or with what he shall be praised, do they not plainly arrogate to themselves that glory which Jehovah declares he will not give to another ?" Upon this passage he remarks as follows: "Now the question may well be asked, does the Doctor believe that Neodists are guilty of such an awful sin as this. The sin of arrogating to themselves the glory that belongs to Jehovah! The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church authorized a book of Psalms and Hymns to be used in the worship of God. And does Dr. Pressly believe that the Ministers and Elders composing that Assembly arrogated to themselves the glory that belongs to Jehovah? Does he believe that there was a single man of them, who wished to have given to himself the glory that belongs to God? I presume he does not. And why then does he intimate that such is the case?" But where, Mr. Morton, ‘does he intimate that such is the case?’ Where has he mentioned the Ministers and Elders of whom you speak? and where does he speak of any one "wishing to have given to himself the glory which belongs to God?" And how can he intimate that certain men are guilty of a certain sin, without mentioning either the men or the sin? Dr. Pressly, indeed, has said that "those who undertake to determine how, or with what, God shall be praised, arrogates to themselves the glory which belongs to Jehovah;" but it is Mr. M. himself who intimates that the Ministers and Elders, composing the General Assembly which authorized the book of Psalms and Hymns, are the persons who undertake to determine how, or with what, God shall be praised. Dr. Pressly describes a character which every good christian is free to hold in utter abhorrence; Mr. M. points us to the Ministers and Elders composing a certain General Assembly, as the persons to whom that character belongs, and on that ground, attempts to hold up the Dr. to public odium and popular indignation. But let us hear what he has to say more: "Does he believe that such men as Dr. Alexander, and Dr. Hodge of Princeton, and Dr. Elliott and Dr. Herron of Pittsburgh, ‘arrogate to themselves that glory which Jehovah declares he will not give to another?’ Surely he does not so believe. Were the public to esteem him as thus believing, they could not for a moment consider him as possessing the spirit of a christian. And if the Doctor does not believe so, why does he represent them as thus guilty?"—(p. 7.) Now the discerning reader will see that all this is very politic; and when a disputant knows that he has not the truth on his side, and is conscious of the weakness of his arguments, nothing can be more in place than artifice, fraud and cunning; "Be ye wise as serpents." Yes, Mr. Morton, it is very politic, in the opening of your discussion to represent Dr. Pressly as inveighing against some men whose praise is in all the churches. But is it true that Dr. P. has represented these men as thus guilty? Has he anywhere in his book so much as named Drs. Alexander, Hodge, Elliott and Herron? It is true he has said that "those who undertake to determine how, or with what, God shall be praised, plainly arrogate to themselves the glory which Jehovah has said he will not give to another;" and even Mr. M. will not be so mad as to deny the truth of this proposition:—but has he represented Drs. Alexander, Hodge, &c. as the persons who are thus guilty? And if not, why does Mr. M. charge him with having done so? And must no man write against any principle or practice which Mr. M. knows to be approved by Drs. Alexander, Hodge, Elliott and Herron? Must nothing be denounced as an error or a sin, if we know it to be countenanced by the practice of the leading men in the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church? This were indeed, a short method of settling controversies in the Church. In order to decide whether any practice is sinful or not, all that you will do, if you follow our author’s advice, will be to inquire whether or not it is followed by Drs. Alexander, Hodge, &c. If it has the sanction of their example, it cannot be wicked: and if not wicked it must be innocent. I am well aware that these men do not claim to be either impeccable or infallible; but no matter—both are claimed for them by Rev. George Morton, and that is enough.
He treats with equal candor, the Dr.’s remarks upon the sin of Nadab and Abihu.—"What the Dr. next brings forward as an argument, is the case of Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, who ‘offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.’"—(p. 9.) It will be seen by reference to Dr. Pressly’s work on Psalmody, that his reference to the history of Nadab and Abihu, is to prove, not that the use of uninspired Psalmody is without divine appointment, but that whatever is without divine appointment in the worship of God, is displeasing to him; and, by consequence, if the use of uninspired Psalmody is without divine appointment, it is displeasing to God. For the subject under discussion, in that chapter in which he refers to the sin of Nadab and Abihu, is simply, "the importance of regarding divine appointment in the worship of God."—(Pressly on Psal[mody] p. 7.)
Mr. M. however, resents this allusion to the sin and punishment of those who offered strange fire before the Lord, as an intolerable wrong done to those, who, like himself, sing human Psalmody; "thus he attempts," says our author, (p. 9,) "to range a large portion of the Christian Church in company with Nadab and Abihu, as partaking of their sin and exposed to their punishment." Not so, brother Morton; if it be true that "a large portion of the Christian Church," use a Psalmody which has not the sanction of divine appointment, they range themselves in company with Nadab and Abihu; if it be not true, then Dr. Pressly’s remarks about the sin of Nadab and Abihu, have no application to them. Yet the Dr.’s mention of the sin and punishment of those ancient corrupters of God’s worship, seems to stir Mr. M.’s indignation from its lowest depths. He says, p. 13, "He (Dr. P.,) knew full well that what is perfectly harmless in itself, may have a violent prejudice awakened against it, by giving it a bad name, and classing it with that which is known to be detestable; and this is that stealthy, creeping kind of argumentation which runs through the whole of his remarks concerning men ‘arrogating to themselves the glory that belongs to Jehovah,’ and ‘Nadab and Abihu offering strange fire:’ and about ‘building alters,’ and ‘offering in sacrifice pigs and kids.’"
Why does our author fly into so great a passion on this occasion? Is it because Dr. Pressly maintains "the importance of regarding divine appointment in divine worship?" There is surely nothing in this to awaken the indignation of any honest Presbyterian. Is it because that, in order to show "the importance of regarding divine appointment in divine worship," the Dr. has made allusion to the history of Nadab and Abihu, to the restrictions about the building of altars, and to the laws relating to sacrifice, &c.? Surely Mr. M. is not opposed to the use of Scripture in religious controversy. Is it because Dr. Pressly assumes, at the outset, that Neodism is like the sin of Nadab and Abihu, like offering pigs instead of kids, &c.? This cannot be; for it is not true that the Dr. has made any such assumption;—this being the very point which, throughout his whole work, he labors, and as some think, labors successfully, to prove. May we not, without any breach of charity, suppose that the true secret of Mr. M.’s rage against Dr. Pressly, for mentioning Nadab and Abihu, lies in the fact that our author is conscious of having offered strange fire to the Lord, ever since, in violation of solemn vows, he abandoned the faith of his fathers, and apostatized from the Reformed Presbyterian Church. We all know that those who apostatize from the truth, are its bitterest enemies. At all events, it is a significant fact that, (whatever be his reasons for it,) he has conceived a peculiar dislike to that part of Dr. Pressly’s work on Psalmody, in which that author argues "the importance of regarding divine appointment in divine worship."
His vindication of the Neodistic Brotherhood from the charge of offering strange fire, is highly amusing. He says, pp. 10, 11, "Where has there ever been an individual, or a congregation, consumed with fire for praising God in a song not taken from the Book of Psalms? And if the Lord has not shown his displeasure, by sending temporal judgments, has he done it by sending spiritual judgments? The church of Rome corrupted the worship of God, and he manifested his sore displeasure by withholding from her the influences of his spirit; ‘by sending strong delusions that they may believe a lie;’ and by leaving her to the control of the Devil, and men of corrupt minds; until she is now become a synagogue of Satan. But the Lord has not dealt so with Neodistic Churches."—By the way, did not our author reflect that the church of Rome is "Neodistic?"—But let us follow him a little farther: "As to the evidences of the divine presence among them, they will very honorably compare with those we call Psalmonistic churches." And farther on, "In the former class, there is undoubtedly as much vital piety and true godliness as in the latter." And again; "They seem to be the special objects of Divine regard, when compared with Psalmonites."
And which are the Neodistic churches? The O[ld] and N[ew] S[chool], Free and Cumberland Presbyterians; Lutheran and German Reformed; Calvinistic, Freewill, Seventh-day, Dunkard and Campbellite Baptists; Methodists North and South, Episcopal and Wesleyan; Congregational and Episcopal Churches: together with Romanists, Unitarians, Swedenborgians, Universalists, and some other denominations of less consequence. In this list, it is true, there are enumerated some societies which are, in reality, Synagogues of Satan, and Churches only in name, but their example is not, on that account, the more worthy of imitation; and they are all Neodistic.—And what churches, on the other hand, are they which our author denominates Psalmonistic? The Reformed, Associate, and Associate Reformed Presbyterian, and the United Presbyterian Church of Ireland, with some smaller Societies.
Now, let any decent Presbyterian look at the average condition of the churches of the former class, and the average condition of those of the latter class, and decide whether or not it is true the Neodistic churches have fully as much evidence of the divine favor, as those which are Psalmonistic; and that "the former, compared with the latter, seem to be the special objects of the divine regard."
Is it an evidence of the divine presence with those churches, and of the divine regard for them, that they entertain the utmost diversity and contrariety of views on every religious subject? If so, then our author is assuredly right; for among that class of churches which he denominates Neodistic, are to be found those who hold Calvinistic, and those who maintain Arminian views, respecting the way of salvation—those who believe that there are three divine Persons, and those who assert there is only one—those who regard Christ as God equal with the Father, and those who say that he is only a mere man—those who practice and defend the worship of images, pictures, saints and angels, and those who denounce all such worship as gross idolatry—those who claim for infants the right to the ordinance of baptism, and those who refuse them that privilege—the advocates of Congregational, Presbyterian, and Episcopal forms of church-government—those who maintain that there is a heaven but no hell, those who hold that there is both a heaven and a hell, and those who assert that there is not only a heaven and a hell, but also a purgatory, for departed souls. It is, doubtless, a strong and incontestible evidence of the divine favor to churches of this class, that they comprise persons believing in every doctrine which has ever been maintained, every doctrine which has ever been doubted, and every doctrine which has ever been denied on earth.
Is it an evidence of God’s favor to Neodistic churches, that family worship [11] is not kept up in one tenth of the households of which those churches are composed,—and that in their fellowship there are thousands of habitual profane swearers, slaveholders, and open Sabbath-breakers? Alas, for the Psalmonistic churches! They have never yet been endowed with such a spirit of liberality, as to open their doors alike to the "precious and the vile."
Is it an evidence of the divine presence with those churches, that a vast majority of those who pretend to be converted at those seasons of excitement which are so frequent in some of them, give no evidence afterwards of being really under the influence of divine grace? If so, then those churches which our author calls Psalmonistic, are behind; for though the spirit moves upon them silently and constantly like "the waters of Shiloah, which go softly," yet they cannot boast of their camp-meetings, protracted meetings, and noisy ‘revivals,’ like some other churches. Yet there are some so old-fashioned, that they think of churches as they do of individuals;—that it is better they should exhibit a habitual and uniform compliance with the requirements of the gospel, than that they should be religious by ‘fits and starts.’
And, to go no farther, is it a mark of the divine favor to Neodistic churches, and a mark of God’s gracious presence with them, that no two of them can agree upon a system of Songs, for the celebration of God’s praise, but that every church must have its own Hymn Book? Go into a Presbyterian family, and you will find on the stand a Presbyterian hymn-book; enter the house of a Methodist, and you will find a Methodist hymn-book; the Baptist carries to church a Baptist hymn-book; the Unitarians have a Unitarian hymn-book; the Universalist has a hymn-book for his own special use, &c. &c. This may be to Mr. M. a very satisfactory evidence of the divine presence enjoyed by Neodistic churches; but to me, I must confess, it seems to be sectarianism in its worst and most inexcusable form. Whether this state of things be desirable or undesirable, there is nothing of the kind in Psalmonistic churches. You would search in vain for a Reformed Presbyterian Hymn-book, an Associate Presbyterian Hymn-book, or an Associate Reformed Hymn-book. These churches all "lift up the voice together;" they offer to God the same songs; they all, with one consent, use in divine worship God’s Hymn-book, embodied in the Volume of Divine Revelation.
CHAPTER II.
The Author’s examination of "Rouse’s Psalms."
‘Rouse’s Psalms!’ methinks I hear the reader exclaim; ‘why, I never heard of such Psalms before.’ But reader, you are in probability not so ignorant as you imagine. It is very likely you have seen the book. Did you never see a little book entitled"THE PSALMS OF DAVID IN METRE, TRANSLATED AND DILIGENTLY COMPARED WITH THE ORIGINAL TEXT, AND FORMER TRANSLATIONS. MORE PLAIN, SMOOTH AND AGREEABLE TO THE TEXT THAN ANY HERETOFORE, ALLOWED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE KIRK OF SCOTLAND, AND APPOINTED TO BE SUNG IN CONGREGATIONS AND FAMILIES."
And sometimes for brevity’s sake, simply
"THE PSALMS OF DAVID IN METRE."
That is the book of which Mr. Morton is speaking when he says, (p. 15,) "It is well known that the Psalms used by Dr. Pressly in the worship of God, are those called the ‘Psalms of Rouse.’"
But who calls them the ‘Psalms of Rouse?’ Is this the name given to them in common parlance, in those places where they are known, and the English language is spoken? Are they commonly called the Psalms of Rouse by the booksellers? Are they called the Psalms of Rouse in the license granted by Her Brittanic Majesty to Scottish publishers? And, (which is still more to the purpose,) are they, in the title prefixed to them, styled the Psalms of Rouse? Did Mr. M. ever see, either an old Psalm book or a new one, from either the British or American press, which bore on its title page "The Psalms of Rouse?" To every one of these questions, Mr. M., if he wishes to tell the truth, must answer ‘no.’ By whom, then, are they called the Psalms of Rouse?
By Rev. George Morton, Dr. Pressly’s most learned Reviewer. He undertakes to prove that they are not the Psalms of inspiration, and very prudently, before he begins, takes for granted the thing which he proposes to prove; and in order to reconcile his readers to his assumption, he intimates that these Psalms are called the Psalms of Rouse. In order that the reader may see honesty of this policy, I will suppose a parallel case. I sit down to write a review of Morton on Psalmody. If about the commencement of such a work, I announce to my readers, that the work on which I intend to make a few strictures is that which is called "An impious attack on the Book of Psalms," am I, in the use of such language, doing justice to Mr. Morton, or am I not? I submit this question to the decision of the candid reader.—By the way, Mr. M., a question just occurs to me; did you ever read of Ananias and Sapphira? There will probably arise no occasion more favorable than the present, for the examination of the argument which Mr. M. draws from the phraseology used with reference to this version, by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1649. He says, p. 62: "But we find from the Record, that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in this case, did not call Rouse’s Psalms a version, as the Doctor represents; but uniformly called them a paraphrase." By the way, it is not true, that Dr. Pressly represents the General Assembly as have called this translation of the Psalms, a version: he calls them a version himself, as Neal, Hetherington and sundry other writers of considerable note have done, and says that the General Assembly ‘adopted them as being more agreeable to the text than any heretofore prepared.’ Nor is the Dr.’s argument at all taken from the phraseology employed by that Assembly, as Mr. M. insinuates. But to proceed with our author; "there are several acts, and in all they are called a paraphrase. One is an act for revising the paraphrase of the psalms brought from England, &c." But do you forget Mr. M., that this same ‘Paraphrase’ was published by the authority, and under the supervision of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, bearing the following title,—‘The psalms of David in Metre, Translated, and diligently compared with the original text, &c.?’ The phraseology used by the General Assembly, taken in connection with the notorious fact to which I have adverted, only proves, that two hundred years ago, the word ‘paraphrase’ was used in a sense different from that in which it is now understood. And this is the less matter of surprise, since many other words have, in the same time, undergone a much greater change in their signification.
But I freely grant that the title-page of a book is no infallible index to its real character. It must be admitted too, that the fact that our Psalm-book was published by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, under the title of ‘the Psalms of David in Metre,’ and that it has borne the title, before the world, with impunity, for the last two hundred years, only proves that its claims as version of the Book of Psalms have been sanctioned by the highest human authority. And hence, Mr. M. has an undoubted right to examine into its pretentions, and decide for himself, whether or not it, be in reality what it purports to be,—‘The Psalms of David in Metre.’ When our author sat in judgment upon our metrical version of the Psalms, he would have done himself a kindness by procuring a correct copy. He would not then have been so unfortunate as to say, (p. 36,) "Rouse says,
‘For that they were but fading flesh,
To mind they did recall.’The Psalm says, ‘It was God who remembered they were but flesh;’ but Rouse says, ‘It was the people who remembered it.’"—A mere typographical error, Mr. Morton; as you will see by examining other editions of the Psalms. The passage is in Ps. 78:39. The reader will find, by comparing different editions, that the true reading is, ‘to mind he did recall,’ and, of course, that the mistake originated not with Rouse, but with the printer. Nor is this the only place where our author founds his charge against Rouse, upon an error of the press. This serves to show the care with which he has examined the Psalms, which he handles so unmercifully, and upon which he pronounces so confidently.
He seems also to have, as every minister ought to have, a most extensive and minute acquaintance with his Bible; as is evident from his judicious observations, upon Psalm 2:1, p. 19. "He," viz: Rouse, "says, ‘why do the people mind vain things?’ But this does not convey the idea contained in the Psalm at all. The Psalm says, ‘why do the people imagine a vain thing?’ One specific thing; and then goes on to explain what that one thing is. And it is the vain design of preventing the establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom. But according to Rouse, it would be, ‘why do the people mind the vain trifles and follies of the world?’ The spirit did not design to have such a thing in the second Psalm; and a Psalm that has it, is not the Psalm of inspiration."—It is a great pity that the apostles and their company did not think of this, when they had occasion to quote this verse, Acts 4:25. But by way of apology for them, it must be observed that they had no opportunity of comparing their Greek translation of the Bible, with our English version, and were consequently obliged to use such Scripture as was accessible to them; if indeed they did not, like Dr. Pressly, quote scripture at second hand. Whether this plea will excuse them or not, it is a matter of fact that they declare that God has said, by his servant David, ‘why do the——people imagine vain things?’ Whereas Mr. M. affirms, that ‘the Spirit did not design to have such a thing in the second Psalm. And a Psalm which has it is not the Psalm of inspiration.’ Perhaps they thought that ‘one specific thing’ might comprehend in it, as details, many things; as for example, that the ‘vain design of preventing the establishment of the Messiah’s Kingdom,’ might include the subordinate designs, of crucifying the Saviour, robbing him of his headship over the church, withholding from him submission in civil affairs, supplanting his psalms by introducing those of men, &c.; and that consequently, either ‘thing’ or ‘things’ might very well express the meaning of the Spirit in the place. But whatever may have been their views in admitting the word ‘things,’ into the first verse of second Psalm, the Christian world will not look with indifference upon the zeal and magnanimity of our author, in confronting them boldly, and rebuking them sharply, for thus corrupting the sacred [12] text. Besides, from what our author has said on this subject, we call see by what a depth of research he is qualified for deciding upon the claims of Rouse’s version of the Psalms.
He makes a rare display of wisdom, learning and justice, in trying the merits of our metrical version of the Psalms, by that which we have in the common English translation of the Bible. This will doubtless strike most people, as exceedingly unfair. But perhaps it is to be attributed to an unwillingness to make any parade of his skill in the Hebrew language, arising from his extreme modesty. Or perhaps it has its true cause in a benevolent desire to leave the minds of his readers under a pleasing impression, that they are all every whit as competent to judge of the correctness of a translation of the Psalms as he is; and indeed, it is my candid opinion that they are. At all events, it is certain that he very rarely appeals for the truth of his criticisms, to the original Hebrew; but almost uniformly to the common prose version; and this version he ordinarily styles, ‘The Psalms,’ in contradistinction to the Scotch Metrical translation.
It is on this principle that he says, (p. 34,) "Rouse says:—
‘And by his power he let out,
The Southern wind to go.’But the Psalm says, ‘by his power he brought in the south wind.’ Thus the one flatly contradicts the other." Now, it is easy to see, that if I were sitting in judgment upon the prose version, with the determination to condemn it, I might as well say, ‘King James’ Translators say,’ ‘By his power he brought in the south wind;’ but the Psalm says, ‘And by his power he let out the southern wind to go.’ Thus the one flatly contradicts the other. Indeed it is no more true that the Psalm says, ‘By his power he brought in the south wind,’ than it is that the Psalm says, ‘And by his power he let out the southern wind to go.’ The prose translation of the Psalm says the one, and the metrical translation of the Psalm says the other; but the Psalm, in the form in which it was originally given by the Spirit, says neither the one nor the other; for as our learned author sagely remarks: ‘No inspired man ever wrote in English.’ The Psalm in the original says: vayenaheg beuzzo theman;’ which is rendered into English in one form, by the translators appointed by King James, and in another form by Sir Francis Rouse, with the concurrence of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. I leave it altogether with the intelligent reader, to determine which of these authorities has given us the true meaning of the Hebrew Text, or whether it has been given by either of them; and to decide whether or not there is, in reality, any very great difference between ‘letting out the south wind,’ and ‘bringing in the south wind.’—By the way, I would take it as a special favour, if Mr. Morton, who seems to be a man of learning, would condescend to resolve a question in Meteorology, which for some time has weighed upon my mind. It is this: Does the south wind blow in different directions, according as it is ‘let out,’ or ‘brought in?’ On the same page he says: ‘The Psalm says, Feathered fowls as the sand of the sea;’ but Rouse says, ‘like as the sand which lieth the shore along.’" On p. 37, "the Psalm says, ‘they remembered not his hand;’ but Rouse says, ‘they remembered not his power.’" On p. 25, "Rouse says, ‘Thickest clouds were under his feet.’"—By the way, ‘Rouse’ says, ‘Thickest clouds of darkness were under his feet.’—And on p. 20, "Rouse says, ‘He destroys all liars;’ but the Psalm says, ‘He shall destroy them.’" In all these places, and in numberless others which might be adduced, he quotes, not the Original Hebrew, but the prose translation, in order to set aside the authority of Rouse’s version. Indeed he never quotes from the Hebrew at all.
What would Mr. M. think of any one, who would set up the metrical version of the Psalms, as a criterion by which to try the correctness of the version which we have in prose, in our English Bibles? And vet this is the very thing which he has done himself;—with this difference, that instead of trying the prose version by the Metre one, he tries the metre one by the one in prose. If both these translations had been prepared at the same time, no sane man would have perpetrated the sublime folly of testing the one by the other; and it is impossible to see why a few years of priority in its execution, should give the one an authority not possessed by the other. But all this serves to show how high is the authority on which our author has condemned the Scottish version of the Psalms.
For the most part, however, he disdains to make any reference to either the original Hebrew or the prose version in support of his criticisms; or to bring forward the authority of any translator, critic, or lexicographer, ancient or modern. For example; p. 26: "This is not what the Spirit of inspiration has said; and how then can it be inspired?"—"There is no such thing in the Psalm at all."—"‘Cleanness of my hands appending in his eye;’—this is not what is in the Psalm." And p. 27, "‘But will bring down the countenance of them whose looks are high.’ What authority has he, (Dr. Pressly)for using this? And what authority for the following: ‘The Lord will light my candle so, that it shall shine full bright?’" But his readers will find this method of reasoning copiously exemplified on almost every page from the 15th to the fifty eighth. Throughout his whole second Chapter, his argument against Rouse’s version is, ‘Rouse says so and so, but the Psalm says no such thing.’ Why the man speaks like one pronouncing oracles. The Rev. George Morton
"Doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus! and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs, and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves."And who is this George Morton? The great Don Quixotte of religious Chivalry; the invincible champion of ‘Neodism.’ He is the man who rebukes Sir Francis Rouse for admitting into his translation of the first verse of the second Psalm, the word ‘things,’ which occurs in the same verse as quoted by inspired men; and chastises him for mistakes committed by careless printers. The man who has, for his own use, invented the expedient, (so happy for smatterers,) of comparing one translation of the Psalms with another, in order to test its claims. He it is, who, in his single might attacks that version of the Psalms, prepared by Sir Francis Rouse, Provost of Eton College,—revised by the Westminster Assembly and General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,—and recognized as a translation, by the Christian church, for the last two hundred years; and gives his readers his unsupported word for it, that it is not a translation of the Psalms at all.
When our author makes statements with respect to what is and what is not, in Rouse’s version of the Psalms, his readers would do well to open a psalm-book, and examine for themselves the places to which he refers; for it has been his misfortune to make a very great number of exceedingly gross misrepresentations. And this is much to be regretted, for he is, probably, a man of some veracity. I will present my readers with merely a sample of our author’s misstatements.
Speaking (p. 7,) of Ps. 2;9, he says, "the Psalm says ‘thou shalt break them with a rod of iron;’ but Rouse leaves this out." It is not necessary, in this instance, for the reader to refer to his psalm-book; for Mr. M. immediately adds that Rouse says "thou shalt break them as with a weighty rod of iron." So that, by our author’s own account, Rouse not only has not left out the sentence in question, but has inserted two additional words. On Psalm 78:41, he observes, (pp. 36, 37,) "The Psalm says, ‘They limited the Holy one of Israel;’ this peculiar and important phrase, ‘Holy one of Israel,’ Rouse leaves out, and consequently dues not give the sense." Here too, he corrects his misrepresentation, by contradicting his own statement; for he immediately adds, "He, (i.e., Rouse,) has jumbled it together thus;
‘And limits set upon
Him, who, in midst of Israel, is
the only holy one.’"He has ‘left it out,’ and yet he has ‘jumbled it together!’ Bravo! I hope Mr. M. will enlighten us respecting the possibility of such a thing, when he next ventures before the world in duodecimo. Surely, if, when he was preparing his work on Psalmody, he had kept it steadily before his mind, that he was writing for ‘the plainest people,’ he would have left out much of what he has jumbled together; as they would thereby have been saved a world of perplexity.
But he does not often set himself right by contradicting his misstatements Respecting the 31st verse of Ps. 78, he says, (p. 36,) "The Psalm says, ‘the wrath of God smote down the chosen men of Israel;’ but Rouse says ‘Death overwhelmed them.’" But his readers can see, by looking into their Psalm. books, that Rouse’s version does not say Death overwhelmed them. In comparing our two metrical versions of Psalm 25, alluding to the 5th verse, he observes, "The one says ‘I wait;’ and the other, ‘I wait expecting;’ but it will be seen by reference to the place, that it is not true that either of them says ‘I wait expecting.’—(p. 55.) The following statement, (p. 23,) respecting Rouse’s translation of Ps. 10:8, contains the same amount of truth; "The Psalm says ‘he sitteth in the lurking places;’ but Rouse’s inspiration falls short," (Reader—do you see the sneer on our author’s face?) "and he leaves out lurking places." Whoever takes the trouble to examine, will find that Rouse does not, leave out lurking places, but that he expresses the same idea by the word closely; which, for aught that Mr. M. has shewn to the contrary, may express the meaning of the Hebrew text more accurately than lurking places does. Again, on p. 25, he remarks, "The Psalm, (Ps. 18:6,) says, ‘my cry came before him;’ but Rouse leaves this out also." Now, by reference to the metre version of this Psalm, it will be seen that only the words ‘before him’ are left out; and I am willing to submit it to any competent Hebrew Scholar—provided he be an honest man—whether it be not better to leave them out, than to insert them in the place which they occupy in our common prose translation. There, it is—"my cry came before him, even into his ears." The literal rendering of the Hebrew is, "my cry before him, came into his ears:" The learned reader will perceive the truth of this observation; and the unlearned may as well take my word for it as that of Mr. M.; especially as I am supported in it by the Greek of the LXX, where it is,—"my cry before him, entered into his ears;" and by the French of Martin, who has it,—"the cry which I uttered before him, came into his ears," The leaving out of the words ‘before him,’ I freely grant to be a slight blemish in the Scottish version, in which it is,—"to his ears came my cry;" but this has nothing to do with the truth of our author’s statement. He declares that—"my cry came before him," is left out, while it is all there but two words; he might as well have said that the whole Psalm is left out. On the same unfortunate page he observes, "The Psalm says, ‘the foundation of the hills were shaken;’ this too, is omitted by Rouse." The common prose translation says "the foundations also of the hills were moved, and were shaken;" Rouse’s translation says, "the hill’s foundations moved were;" so that, with the exception of one word, Rouse gives all of what Mr. M. says he has omitted. How Mr. M. could be either so reckless or so careless, as to make statements like this, the falsehood of which, may be detected by every child who has a psalm-book, and is able to read it, is one of the unfathomable mysteries. Such misrepresentations he has scattered with a liberal hand over the whole 44 pages of his second chapter. There is quite a group of them a little farther down the same page, from which the last two passages have been cited. He did fly on a cherub—swift wings—his flight was from on high—thickest clouds of the airy firmament—brightness of light before his eye—his thick clouds passed away—hailstones and coals of fire did fly—the Lord God thundered in his ire—and the highest gave his voice there—he sent abroad his arrows—he shot out his lightnings—vast foundations of the world. The ideas conveyed by this language are all from Rouse." Now, I think this is the boldest assertion that has ever been made, since the time that Cain said he didn’t know where his brother was. Mr. Morton, your Reverence’s pen must have been very bad when you wrote that passage; for it is utterly untrue. Those who can, may consult their Hebrew Bibles, and those who cannot do that, may examine, in their English Bibles, King James’ translation of Psalms 18, v. 10, 14, and determine for themselves, whether or not the ideas contained in the language quoted by our author, ‘are all from Rouse.’ But enough has been said, (and proved,) to shew how much credit is due to our author’s word. It is well for him that he writes for the ‘plainest people;’ for no others would believe his statements about what he is pleased to style ‘Rouse’ Psalms.’
His inventive powers are surpassed only by his talent for discrimination. In the comparison which he institutes, between the short metre, and the common metre version of Psalm 25th, he edifies his readers with a great number of very nice distinctions; I wait to notice but a few. The first two verses in the short metre version are:
"To thee I lift my soul,
O Lord I trust in thee.
My God let me not be ashamed,
Nor foes triumph o’er me."In the common metre they read thus:
"To thee I lift my soul, O Lord.
My God, I trust in thee;
Let me not be ashamed; let not
My foes triumph o’er me."To most readers, these two stanzas would, undoubtedly, both convey precisely the same meaning; But Mr. M., who has probably looked at them through a microscope, asserts that ‘the inspired Psalm cannot be both of these.’ (p. 55.) Again, same page, he remarks, "The one says, ‘Show thy, ways, Lord;’ the other, ‘O Lord show me thy ways.’ The one, ‘Teach me;’ the other, ‘O teach thou me.’ It is very plain that these cannot both be the Psalm given by inspiration." Let the reader put these fragments together, and weigh the difference. In the one it is,
"Show me thy ways, O Lord.
Thy paths O teach thou me;"in the other:
"Thy ways, Lord show;
Teach me thy paths."Why may not both of these have been translated from the same Hebrew text? The one says, ‘teach me;’ and the other, ‘O teach thou me.’ It is VERY PLAIN (!!!) that these cannot both be versions of the Psalm given by inspiration." Well done, Mr. Morton. You can certainly split a hair into more pieces, than any other man of the age.—It is no wonder that a man whose glance is so penetrating as to enable him to see a wide difference between one thing and the same thing, should discover a vast discrepancy between ‘Rouse’ and ‘the Psalms.’ It is unnecessary to multiply examples of the closeness with which our author marks distinctions; those given above, will suffice to show how important, in general, are those points in which he professes to have found a difference between Rouse’ version, and the ‘Psalms of inspiration.’
It would surely he instructive, to hear our discriminating author compare Hebrews 1:10-12, with Psalm 102:25, 27; From the Septuagint version of which passage, the apostle’s words are quoted. If he were to compare them in the same style in which he has compared the short and common metre versions of the 26th Psalm, he would proceed as follows:—"The one says, ‘Of old thou hast laid;’ the other, ‘Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid.’ The one, ‘the work of thy hands;’ the other, ‘the works of thy hands.’ The one, ‘thou shalt endure;’ the other, ‘thou remainest.’ The one, ‘like a garment:’ the other, ‘as doth a garment.’ The one, ‘as a vesture thou shalt change them;’ the other, ‘as a vesture, thou shalt fold them up.’ It is very plain that these cannot both be the Psalm of inspiration. Why, Paul does not quote scripture at all."—Far be it from me to represent Mr. M. as having said this; but I think the reader will agree with me, that he might as well have said this, as what he has said.
After all that we have seen, of the research, Biblical learning, judgment, honesty, modesty and wisdom of this most accomplished critic, it will not be difficult to form a correct estimate of the weight which is to be attached to the following pithy paragraph, p. 31. "I have compared Rouse’s 22d Psalm with that of inspiration, and I have noted in it more than thirty variations from the original. (?) And hence, it and the inspired Psalm are two things very different from each other. Any man, by comparing them, can easily see, that Rouse’s paraphrase of the22d, is no more inspired, than his paraphrase of the 18th. Indeed, I have examined (?!) a great many and I cannot find one of Rouse’s, which agrees with the Psalm of inspiration. Even the shortest Psalm, the 117th, has in it a discrepancy for every line it contains."
I have no disposition to call in question Mr. Morton’s right to dissent from the unanimous vote of the Westminster Assembly, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and the scholars and divines of the last two hundred years; or from any human authority however great. But when he contradicts so great a ‘cloud of witnesses,’ as have given their testimony to the excellence of Rouse’s version of the Psalms of David, and expects others to accompany him in the stand which he has taken, would it be too much to desire him to assign some reason for assuming the position he is pleased to occupy? Could he not, for example, have pointed out to us, "the more than thirty variations from the original," which he thinks he has descried in the Scotch version of the 22d Psalm? Informing us, at the same time, what Hebrew words have been translated amiss, upon what authority he can assure us that they are incorrectly translated, whether the error in the translation is trivial or important, and whether or not there are any critics, translators, or lexicographers, who at all countenance the rendering given by Rouse. What Hebrew words, if any, have been omitted by the translator; what words, phrases, or sentences, if any, not contained in the original, either expressly or implicitly, have been introduced into the translation; and how far, words so introduced, change the meaning of the text, &c. But perhaps this would have been too great a compromission of our author’s dignity.
Even if Mr. M., in the most candid, thorough and skillful examination of the book entitled the Psalms of David in metre, had discovered in it many variations from the exact import of the Hebrew original of the book of Psalms, this would not prove that it is not a translation of that book; but only that it is not a perfect translation; and he might prove the same thing respecting every translation of the Psalms or of the Bible. There never has been a perfect translation of the Bible, or of any part of it, into English or any other language; nor will there ever be, until it is produced by an inspired translator; for, 1. Many expressions in the Greek and Hebrew originals of the holy scriptures, are elliptical; while in many instances we can neither be infallibly certain how the ellipsis ought to be supplied, nor make sense in the translation without supplying it in some way. 2. There are many words and forms of speech in every language, the exact and full import of which cannot be expressed by any words or forms of speech, existing in any other language. 3. The originals of the old and New Testaments were not, in the days of inspiration, divided into sentences by periods, colons, &c., nor marked with parentheses, notes of interrogation and the like. 4. There are some Hebrew, and perhaps some Greek words, the precise meaning of which it is not certain that any man "knoweth till this day." 5. There are, in the Hebrew Bible and Greek Testament, many words respecting the meaning of which there is a difference of opinion among those most deeply versed in sacred literature. And, 6. There are, in originals of the Old and New testaments, many words winch have more meanings than one; and without inspiration, the most learned will often fail, infallibly to determine in which sense they are used, in this or that particular place.
Hence, no translation of the Psalms, or of any other part of the Bible, can be perfect. Different translations may express the meaning of the original with more or less accuracy, and yet all be translations. Two translations may, in many instances, differ much from one another, and both from the original, and both still be translations. Let the reader look at Psalm 40, vv. 6-8, and compare it with the same passage as quoted from the Septuagint version by the Apostle Paul, (Heb. 10, vv. 5-7,) and he will see how far two versions of the Psalms may vary from one another, and still both be versions of the Psalms of inspiration.
It is easy, then, to see to what extent there is truth in that maxim of our author, which lies at the foundation of all his criticisms upon Rouse’s versions of the Psalms. It is as follows (p. 16). "The Psalms of inspiration have in them just what the Spirit of God designed should be in them; no more, and no less." This, as a matter of course, is true of the Psalms in the original Hebrew; but as we have already seen, it is not true of any translation of them, ancient or modern, in prose or in verse, in English or in any other language. Hence, all such arguments as the following involve all the essential elements of nonsense. "Now, we know from the first Psalm that the Spirit did not design to have any thing in it about perfect blessedness: but Rouse’s Psalm has, and this is contrary to the design of the Spirit; and therefore it cannot be inspired. The Spirit of God designed that the Psalm should be one way, and Rouse has it another way. Rouse’s way is contrary to what the Spirit intended it should be; and can it, then, be any thing less than impious folly to say that this psalm of Rouse’s is the psalm of inspiration?"—(p. 18.) It would be easy to prove, if it were in place to do so, that Rouse’s rendering of this verse is more faithful to the Hebrew than that of King James’ translators is;[13] but be it so, that Rouse has inserted the word ‘perfect’ without any authority from the original: it by no means follows that what Rouse has given us is not a translation of the Psalm of inspiration. One gratuitous word in a translation of a psalm, does not so vitiate it that it ceases to be a translation. And if it were true, according to Mr. M’s. representation, that there is nothing in the Hebrew corresponding to the word astray in the first verse of the metre version of this Psalm,—to the phrase that grows, to the word well in the third verse,—or to the word appear in the fifth verse; and that For why? in the sixth verse does not express the meaning of the original; it by no means follows from all this, that that which has all these blemishes in it, cannot be a version of the first psalm of inspiration. Nay, it might have more deviations from the exact sense of the original, than Mr. M. represents it to have—and greater ones too, and still, be not only a version, but an excellent version of the first inspired Psalm.
We might well be excused from entering into any more particular examination of any part of Mr. M.’s critical review of Rouse’s Psalms, but lest he should be offended at the brevity of the notice taken of him, let us look into the force, justice and truth of his observations on one of them;—for example, the second, on which he makes himself as merry as on any of the rest. He treats upon this Psalm, pp. 18-20.
He begins with the first verse; "He" (viz. Rouse) "says, ‘why do the people mind vain things.’ The Psalm says, ‘why do the people imagine a vain thing.’ One specific thing," &c. Observe here, he tries the metre by the prose. His chief objection to Rouse’s translation of this verse, is, that in it the word things is used in the plural number.
We have already seen that the apostles and their companions, (Acts 4:25) commit the same mistake; not, indeed, in the way of translating—for they merely quote from the Septuagint version—but by way of recognizing as a translation that which in place of the word ‘thing,’ psalm 2:1, has the word ‘things,’ and consequently "does not convey the meaning of the psalm at all," and therefore is not the word of God. Although he says nothing against the word mind, in the same verse, he shows, by printing it in italics, that it does not meet his approbation. The word used in the same place in the prose "imagine." The word in the original Hebrew is yehgu; and the Greek word answering to it, where the passage is quoted, Acts 4:2, is emeletesan. It will be seen, by reference to Hebrew and Greek lexicons, that the meaning of these words is not expressed by either mind or imagine according to modern usage. According to modern usage, I say; for the time may have been when either mind or imagine conveyed the same idea in English, that yehgu does in Hebrew, or emeletesan in Greek. But the Hebrew word in the original of the psalm, and the Greek word in the original of Acts, 4:25, means to meditate, or study.—See Prov. 24:22, Isa. 33:18, Mark 13:11, and the lexicons of Parkhurst, Gesenius, Schrevelius, &c.
Yet I am far from being disposed to deny either the prose or metre to be a version of the inspired Psalm; for, at a former, period of our language, both imagine and mind may have conveyed to an English reader the meaning and force of the original; imagine comes near to it yet, and mind still nearer; and the context renders it utterly impossible for any child, who is able to read, to misunderstand either the one or the other.
But we have dwelt too long on this silly cavil of our author; let us proceed to his second objection to Rouse’s version of this psalm. It is as follows; "Rouse says, ‘princes are combined to plot against the Lord;’ but the psalm does not say so. It says, ‘they take counsel together’ against the Lord." Here, too, the authority upon which he condemns Rouse, is that of the prose version. The prose says "princes take counsel together against the Lord;" the metre says "princes are combined to plot against the Lord." And it may be added, the Septuagint, as quoted, Acts 4:25, says, "rulers were gathered together against the Lord." By Mr. M.’s logic, the first of these is the Psalm; and neither of the others can be so much as a version of the psalm. It would require the man who has discovered that ‘teach me,’ and, ‘O teach thou me,’ cannot both be translations of the same Hebrew sentence, to discover very much difference between ‘taking counsel together,’ and ‘being combined to plot,’ against the Lord.
However, the slight difference which does exist between them, is altogether in favor of the metre version. The Hebrew word rendered into English by these different forms of expression, is nosedu; which in its primary signification means to found or lay a foundation; and perhaps the most literal rendering of the passage in question would be, "counsellors are founded against the Lord;" that is, firmly settled, in their opposition to him. Parkhurst, (Heb. Lexicon,) in explanation of the Hebrew word under consideration, says, "To be founded, firmly fixed, or resolved; occ. Ps. 2:2, 31; 14."
The prose translation only gives the idea of consultation, which is not contained in the Hebrew at all, only as it is implied in the word rozenim, which is differently translated, counsellors, princes, rulers; and leaves out the idea of combination, or settled compact, which, according to the best authorities—and among the rest Acts 4:25—is the chief thing pointed at in the Hebrew text. The metre gives the idea both of consultation and of combination; and must, therefore, I think, by every good scholar, be allowed to be, in this instance, incomparably better than the prose.
After having annihilated v. 2, he proceeds to demolish v. 4, of the metre version of this Psalm. "Rouse says, ‘the Lord shall scorn them all;’ but this is not in the inspired psalm." Here he gives his readers only his own authority for the soundness of his criticism.
Could you not afford to be a little more explicit, Mr. Morton? Do you mean that the line which you have quoted is all an addition to the psalm, or that only one word of it is such? By the "inspired psalm" do you mean the original Hebrew, or the prose translation? Our author will not dare deny that "the Lord shall scorn them" is in the Hebrew psalm; and he cannot prove that lemo is not an emphatic form of the Hebrew pronoun, and that it does not carry nearly the force of "them all." And if the word all, in the translation, were not either in whole or in part warranted by the original, still, the alteration which it makes on the sense is so slight, that Rouse’s version of this psalm might have three or four such blemishes, and still be a most excellent translation.
On verse 6, he has the following: "Rouse says,
‘Yet, notwithstanding, I have him
to be my king appointed;
And o’er Zion my holy hill,
I have him king anointed.’Just compare this with what the Psalm says: ‘Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion;’ the psalm speaks about a king, but Rouse speaks about a him. This pronoun him has no antecedent—it does not stand for any noun—it represents nothing nor nobody! nor does it at all convey the meaning of the psalm. God, the Father, is represented as speaking; and he says, Notwithstanding the opposition of the wicked, I have set, or anointed my king, upon my holy hill of Zion. But Rouse says, ‘I have appointed him.’ Who? And I have anointed him! Why, this verse of Rouse’s is hardly like the psalm at all; it is not even a good imitation." It will be seen from this that Mr. M. can not only tell us what the Psalm says, but give us an infallible explanation of its meaning. Let us, at his suggestion, compare Rouse’s translation with what the Psalm says; not with the prose translation merely, as he does, but with the original Hebrew. The words are veani nasachti malchi al Tzion har-kodshi. Our author decides upon the meaning of this sentence as promptly, positively and authoritatively, as if it had not been differently explained by the ablest Hebraists. In the Septuagint and Vulgate, it is rendered "I am appointed king by him," &c. In the common English translation, "I have set (margin, anointed) my king," &c. And in the German of Luther, "I have set or appointed," &c. Parkhurst, in his lexicon, translates it, "I am anointed for king," &c. It appears, then, that some authorit