Edgar enthusiastically endorses the work as a timely and necessary vindication of inspired psalmody against the degradation of worship by “trashy rhymes” and human compositions. He laments that hymns—drawn from Romish, Unitarian, and other flawed sources—have usurped the Psalms’ proper place and effectively silenced congregational praise. He defends the Scottish version as poetic, spiritual, and sublime, and cherishes its deep associations with Christian faith and experience.
Read More
Houston observes that American churches which abandoned inspired psalmody have suffered doctrinal error, division, and fanatical excitement, while Psalm-singing churches have maintained unity and evangelical faithfulness. He frames exclusive psalmody as a matter of contending for purity of worship, rooted in the Puritan and Covenanter principle that only what Scripture warrants may enter God's worship. He anticipates the book’s circulation will promote reform and prepare for the church's future unity in truth.
Read More
The introduction establishes the scope and purpose of the work: to demonstrate that the Bible Psalms alone constitute the church’s divinely appointed manual of praise, and that uninspired hymns have no warrant in Christian worship. It acknowledges the controversy’s complexity and the need for a thorough, scriptural, and historical treatment, while disclaiming any intention to judge the sincerity of those who differ.
Read More
This chapter argues that the Psalms provide the most comprehensive delineation of God’s perfections, man’s sinful condition, and Christ’s person and work, together with the richest fund of Christian experience. It cites the testimony of eminent saints and teachers across ages who have found the Psalms uniquely sufficient for devotion, concluding that no uninspired composition can rival their depth, spirituality, and adaptability to every circumstance of worship.
Read More
The chapter demonstrates that God expressly appointed the Psalms for the church’s praise under the Old Testament and that this appointment carries over to the New Testament church, which is the same body under both dispensations. Since no other songs carry divine appointment, and since the church has no authority to institute new elements of worship, the Psalms alone possess the warrant necessary for sacred song.
Read More
After examining and refuting common arguments for hymn-singing—including scriptural sanction, long usage, analogy to prayer, and Christian liberty—the chapter presents positive arguments against hymns: they lack divine authority, have displaced the Psalms, foster sectarianism, resist the formation of any permanent and acceptable hymnal, have propagated doctrinal error, and have largely destroyed congregational and family singing wherever they have prevailed.
Read More
The chapter systematically answers nine objections: that the Psalms speak only of a coming Saviour, are encumbered with Old Testament language, are unsuited to revivals, are hard to understand, are unfit for children, do not match every worshipper’s condition, belong to less prosperous churches, contain unchristian sentiments, and require singing the titles with instrumental music. Each objection is shown to be groundless, and the so-called “cursing Psalms” are defended as expressing Christ’s own righteous judgment against impenitent enemies.
Read More
The chapter defends the Scottish metrical version against contemptuous dismissal as “Rouse’s Psalms,” showing it was produced under the scrutiny of the Westminster Assembly and the Church of Scotland’s careful revision process. It argues that the version is remarkably faithful to the Hebrew, far superior to Watts’s “Imitations” (which omit and alter vast portions), and possesses a rugged vigor and lyric quality esteemed by accomplished judges. While acknowledging minor defects, it maintains that fidelity to God’s word outweighs poetic polish.
Read More
Quoting extensively from Fairbairn’s Typology of the Scriptures, this appendix argues that the Psalms serve equally as the devotional handbook of both Old and New Testament believers because both dispensations rest on the same fundamental truths. Though the Psalms arose from Old Testament circumstances, they are perfectly adapted to gospel worship, providing language for the believer’s loftiest conceptions of God and deepest spiritual experiences. The Psalms thus stand as a witness to the essential identity of the two covenants, forming a common ground where disciples of Moses and of Christ unite in praise.
Read More
This appendix counters the claim that not all Psalms were intended for singing, even under the Old Testament. It assembles testimonies from J. W. Alexander, Tholuck, Herder, and Jonathan Edwards affirming that the entire Psalter was given by God for public worship. Edwards is quoted at length to show that God inspired David to provide the church with a book of divine songs for constant use throughout all ages, that these songs were actually employed in Israel’s worship by divine appointment, and that the New Testament commends the same Psalms to the Christian church.
Read More
This appendix reveals that popular evangelical hymnals draw heavily from Catholic, Unitarian, Universalist, and Swedenborgian sources, and include hymns by authors of questionable or heretical belief—such as Tom Moore (a Roman Catholic), Harriet Martineau (an atheist), and others. It contends that offering God worship composed by unbelievers is offensive to Christian faith and feeling, however poetic the result. It notes that the German Reformed Church has moved to admit only hymns whose authors are known to be “truly regenerate Christians”—a standard that, consistently applied, would exclude all but the inspired Psalms.
Read More
Addressing whether occasional songs prepared for anniversaries or pastoral welcomes may be sung, this appendix concludes that they should be avoided. While such songs might conceivably be used as secular expressions rather than worship, their close association with devotional practice and their susceptibility to gross abuse—such as singing to a pastor on the Lord’s Day—make it wisest and safest to refrain from them entirely.
Read More
This appendix provides a condensed summary of ten common arguments for hymns and objections to the Psalms, each with a brief answer. The objections addressed include: that uninspired songs are not expressly forbidden, that good men compose hymns, that hymn-users are more numerous, that we compose our own prayers, that the New Testament authorizes human songs, that the Psalms are hard to understand, that they are unsuited to New Testament worship, that they contain unchristian sentiments, that they are insufficiently copious, and that no good metrical translation exists. Each is answered concisely, reaffirming the Psalms' divine appointment, sufficiency, and superiority over all uninspired compositions.
Read More
1660-Zachary Crofton (1626-1672).-This text is a robust theological and legal defense of the Solemn League and Covenant, written during the Restoration era to argue for its continuing and permanent obligation upon the British kingdoms. Addressing critics such as the “Oxford Reasons,” Dr. Featley, Dr. John Gauden, and Mr. Russel, the author systematically vindicates the Covenant’s manner, authority, and form—countering charges of solecism, ambiguity, and illegality by asserting Parliament’s authority to act in national emergencies and Charles II’s subsequent oath as retroactive validation. Central to the work is the argument that the Covenant is a public, national bond rather than a mere private promise, and because it invokes God as witness and avenger, no human power can absolve its obligation; to break it is perjury against God, binding both the present generation and posterity to its duties so long as the nation endures.
Read More
The Epistle to the Reader serves as the author's direct address, establishing the urgent necessity of defending the Solemn League and Covenant against the malicious attacks and scruples of its detractors. The author expresses a deep sense of duty to vindicate the Covenant’s honor, warning readers of the spiritual peril of perjury and the national danger of slighting such a solemn bond, while humbly submitting the work to their serious consideration.
Read More
The Preface sets the historical and theological stage for the defense, recounting the distressed condition of the kingdoms that necessitated the Covenant and outlining the general scope of the arguments to follow. It highlights the sacred nature of oaths and the author’s intention to methodically answer the objections raised by learned adversaries, ensuring that the conscience of the nation is properly informed regarding its obligations.
Read More
This section addresses the first objection regarding the “manner of making” the Covenant, specifically the charge of solecism in the order of words—namely, that the Church of Scotland is placed before the Church of England, and the people's liberty before the King’s prerogative. The author defends this order as logical and just, arguing that preservation naturally precedes reformation and that the people's liberty is the foundation and end of the King’s prerogative, supported by the maxim that liberty strengthens the prerogative.
Read More
The second section vindicates the name “Covenant” against the Oxford scholars’ objection that it implies voluntary consent rather than imposition with a penalty. The author argues that superiors can impose covenants on inferiors, citing the Covenant of Works with Adam and infant baptism, and contends that a national covenant can be imposed on subjects by the collective body for the public good, even if it requires compulsion to overcome private peevishness.
Read More
This section defends the authority that imposed the Covenant, countering the claim that it was unlawful without the King’s consent. The author asserts the sovereign power of Parliament as the collective body of the kingdom, capable of acting for the public safety even against the King’s interdict, and argues that Charles II’s subsequent oath to the Covenant in Scotland provided complete and perfect authority, validating the obligation for all subjects.
Read More
The fourth section vindicates the gesture of lifting the hand during the oath against the ridicule of critics like Dr. Featley, who claimed it was unscriptural and signified rebellion. The author proves the gesture to be a scriptural and appropriate sign of supplication and solemn appeal to God, refuting the charge that the Covenant lacks biblical foundation by asserting that its aims—reformation and the King’s honor—are deeply rooted in Scripture.
Read More