four Beasts mentioned in the fifth chapter of the Revelations, were angels; after offering some arguments in support of his dissent, says, "There is another consideration, however, which puts the question at rest. They are made to sing, chap. v. 9, a song, which in the mouth of any but redeemed men, would be a falsehood. Thou wast stain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and nation, and hast made us unto God kings and priests; and we shall reign on the earth.” p. 56. Why does the Dr. say, that if the holy angels sing the song of the redeemed, they would sing a falsehood? precisely for the same reason, why cheerful songs do not suit a heavy heart-why the songs of Zion did not suit the captives at Babylon-and why the songs of the Jews, which contain ceremonial peculiarities, do not suit the exercises of a christian. But why is not Dr. M'Leod hunted down by his brethren, and particularly by Mr. M'Master, as a semiinfidel-as a virulent enemy of the songs of the Redeemer

and his language as profane and blasphemous? Nay, why does he not only exclaim, "Absit blasphemia," but exhibit charges against him, for the impiety, before his presbytery? Surely, if such language be as reprehensible as our author has attempted to represent it, no friendship, no brotherhood, should protect the man who will employ it— But the facts are far otherwise.

Mr. M'M. has shown his ingenuity by forming several questions for the "friends of human psalmody" to answer. I do not wish to employ contemptuous epithets, but, I really see nothing great in those questions. Some of them, however, are on this subject, and now rather fall in the way, viz. "Why must scripture songs, when sung, be assumed as expressing our sentiments and experience, and when read not be so assumed? Why does a particular circumstance, giving occasion to an inspired song, unfit it for social, public singing, any more than for social public reading? Why is that which is true when read, a lie, when sung?" Apol. p. 190. After remarking, as before, that there is an obvious and striking difference between reading for instruction, and offering up praise to God: and adding, that they in fact know little, concerning either of those exercises, who cannot and do not realize that difference; I will refer Mr. M'M. to the sacred

writers, and Dr. M'Leod, already quoted, for a more full and satisfactory answer. When he shall have learned, why the captives could, at any time, refuse to sing a song of the Lord-why the angels could not sing the song of the Redeemed-why the apostle could say that any one could change the truth of God into a lie? we shall be fully prepared to answer all those little questions.

The matter now comes to this point, the word of God teaches us in two ways; by precept, and by example. With respect to precept, I know nothing that is at all calculated to discourage us, from the practice we defend. Praise is enjoined upon all; "young men, and maidens, old men, and children:" but nothing, in the Bible, to confine us to express words. And the frequent calls, to sing new songs, and promises that they shall be sung, indicate something very different from a confinement to old ones. As to the opinion, that new songs, do not mean new songs, but old ones newly sung, it is a constraint upon language, that has nothing to justify it; but some names, and but few of them. Hence the Psalmist, on several different occasions, called for new songs, and actually sung them, and hence he is followed by some of the prophets with new songs, and the promise of them-and hence, the New Testament saints, from Matthew to the Apocalypse, expatiate in them.

Horne, who is a favourite witness for Mr. M'M. says, on Psalm xxxiii. 3, " Sing unto him a new song, play skilfully with a loud noise"-"Old things are passed away;" and the ideas of a christian are to be transferred from the old world, and the old dispensation, to the "new;" since, under the gospel, "all things are become new," all men ought to become so, Rev. xxi. 1, 5. Abilities of every kind are never so well employed, as in the service of him who giveth them." See also on Psalm xcvi. 1. On Psalın xcviii. 1, he says, "New mercies demand new songs. And what mercies, what wonders, can be compared with those wrought by the holy Jesus?" &c. On cxliv. 9, he says, "In the mean time, as the Israelitish church praised Jehovah for the mercies already vouchsafed to the son of Jesse, so do we daily magnify, with voices and instruments of music, that salvation which God hath effected for us, by the deliverance of his son, our Lord, from death and the grave."

6

Patrick says, on xxxiii. 3, "Let not ancient songs suffice you; but endite a new hymn, to testify your singular love and gratitude." Scott, another witness for our author, on cxlix. 1, says, "New mercies demand continually new songs of praise, to be sung in the congregation of the saints on earth, and in heaven. And the children of Zion have not only to bless the God who made them, but to rejoice in him as having created them in Christ Jesus unto good works, and forming them saints as well as men: they should, therefore, express their gratitude in every way of which they are capable, and not only rejoice in his pardoning mercy, but likewise in his benign and equitable government." See also on all the places, where the phrase, "new song," occurs. Every judicious commentator, gives a similar view of the use we ought to make of the term in question.

We have seen what we are taught, by the practice of the former church, on the subject. On every important occasion, they made, or altered, songs to suit it, and would not use them when they did not; and were authorities of any use we might add greatly to those which have been given, to confirm these sentiments. One other, however, I will offer, as Mr. M'M. appears to place some weight on his opinion. It is Dr. Ridgley, who, in his body of Divinity, says, "But, inasmuch as the occasions of praise are very large and extensive, and therefore it may be thought expedient, to adore the divine perfections, in our own words in singing, in like manner as we do in prayer, considering the one to be a moral duty as well as the other, I will not pretend to maintain the unlawfulness of singing hymns of human composure, though some of much superior learning and judgment have done it."

Again, after disapproving of some kinds of hymns, he proceeds. "But if we have ground to conclude the composure, as to the matter thereof, and mode of expression, unexceptionable, and adapted to raise the affections, as well as excite suitable acts of faith in extolling the praises of God, it gives me no more disgust, though it be not in scripture words, than praying or preaching do when the matter is agreeable thereunto."

We have now considered the history of Psalmody, during the Mosaic economy, and it affords evidence, amply

sufficient, to satisfy every candid and unbiassed inquirer, that there were many songs in use, during that period, which were not considered as inspired; and that they were very particular in adapting their songs to the occasions of their praise. With this view, we will leave the Old Testament worshippers, in anticipation of the new songs, expected by the church when the "Redeemer should come out of Zion, to turn away ungodliness from Jacob."

Let the reader then review the evidence, from the history of Psalmody, both before, and under the Law, and see whether the demand of our author be not answeredwhether it is not satisfactorily proved, that, under both the patriarchal and legal dispensations, hymns and songs, not in scripture, were employed-and whether, besides this, several of the objections and accusations, which have fallen in the way, have not been fully refuted. With all this, however, our main support is yet before us, viz. the practice and precepts of Christ and his apostles. In the next chapter, we shall have an opportunity of inquiring, what is the duty which they enjoin, or the principle to which they invite? By these, we are willing to stand or fall. In the example which they have given us, we desire to follow their steps.

CHAPTER III.

History of Psalmody during the age of the
Apostles.

"Is it too much to demand of our friends who reason thus, some proof of the existence and public use, in the age of the apostles, of such hymns as they contend for? Of this, which should first be settled, it seems they never think." Apology, p. 38. "I request the objector, for once, not to quibble; and, again, I demand evidence of the existence, in the apostolic age, of any other Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual songs, than those contained in the Scripture." Apology, p. 82.

It is very possible, we have not thought as profoundly, on this subject, as our author: such as our thoughts have been, however, we shall lay them before the readers,

and let them judge. Our author inquires, "is it too much to demand of our friends," &c. I say, no. Whatever evidence Mr. M'M. is willing to give, he has a right to demand as good; but he has no right to demand the highest and yet offer the lowest. So far, therefore, as I am concerned in this controversy, I pledge myself to yield the ground, to give up the question, whenever stronger evidence is offered against my sentiments, than I can produce in support of them. Supposing, therefore, that our author is as willing to offer good evidence, as to demand it, we will state what his demand is. He says, speaking of the book of Psalms, "Those who contend for its banishment, and the adoption of its rivals, can be justified only by passages of scripture which contain direct precept, plain, undoubted example; or at least some established principle, from which their conclusion necessarily flows.We cannot be contented with gratuitous assumptions, or ingenious analogies, which have nothing to support them but human authority. We must have a warrant, decided and clear; a warrant which would be indubitable, and satisfactory, if all books, excepting the Bible, were banished from the church"-Miller in the Apology, p. 120. Such are the terms our author says he adopts, and will demand. With this demand I willingly and readily close. As to the expression, "those who contend for its banishment," it is only one of our author's bitter and slanderous expressions, and may pass until we come to that part of our work: but, the evidence we will now consider, and leave, with the reader, the opportunity of judging who best meets the terms laid down by Mr. M'Master.

According to the above terms, and the character of the evidence our author requires, I demand evidence, decided and clear, that ever either Christ or his apostles sung a Psalm of David. That they often referred to them, in their arguments, preaching and epistles, is not the point; but the proof, that they ever sung a single one, is now demanOn this point we shall examine our author's statements-not his evidence, for he offers none.

ded.

When speaking of the first proselytes to christianity, he says, "These converts were peculiarly attached to their ancient forms, and to the sacred books which were so familiar to their minds. Had it been proposed to exclude