poetry, &c. he says, "Sage discoveries-very necessary to be communicated to Seceders and Reformed Presbyterians!" This little piece of pitiful party vanity, is scarcely worth notice, and it was once hoped that no such invidious distinctions would have been introduced. But what will become of our non-reformed Presbyterians, when all the learning and sense are monopolized by Seceders and Reformed Presbyterians-Alack! Alack!!

The remainder of these "Animadversions," is just a continuation of his vituperations, with some repetitions of former statements, in the defence of sentiments we have already considered. Neither have I a heart to follow such a writer.

Let us now take a short review of his mode of writing, and see what it ought to prove. A great part of our author's work, if not his forte, consists in the personal abuse of all who are in the way of his dogmas.. This abuse consists in nicknames, and scurrilous invectives-in the most weighty, yet unfounded accusations and the arraying a gainst them a number of the most terrible denunciations in the word of God. Now, indeed, I have no kind of objection to a sober discussion of this question, and I would render my most hearty thanks to the man who should, in a. sober and decorous manner, bring all the force that can be made to bear upon the subject, against the sentiments I have advanced; let them be tried to the utmost; but I never can feel or express gratitude for the manner Mr. M'M. has adopted; and can assure him that this is not the age, when an authoritative manner, enforced by the most offensive personalities, will bully or terrify mankind out of their sentiments. Still, however, it is matter of regret, that the denomination to which our author belongs, and even his reverend brethren, have appeared pleased with this very trait in the character of his work. Of this I will give but two instances, one of each class. This will be sufficient. These two will show, that although it is a very possible case, that the book might be circulated for the sentiments, while the manner was disapproved, the instances before us are particularly respecting the manner. An individual of that communion in the city where this is printed, and one too of respectable rank in society, fre quently entering into debates on this. subject, was found:

to use the expressions, tea-pot and lag behind, more frequently (and successfully no doubt) than any other arguments. Mr. M'M. therefore, has encouragement to write in the same style: it is, of course, probable he will not relinquish it. But what is more encouraging still, is, that in the state of Pennsylvania, and west of the mountains, one of Mr. M'M's brethren invited a clergyman, of a different denomination, to read the last edition of the Apology. The person thus addressed, declined on the ground of his scurrilous manner, and his abuse of the aged and the dead. The proposal was renewedly urged by the consideration, that he would see what a threshing he had giv en the Dr. meaning Dr. Ely. Now I very much fear, that where this threshing spirit is cherished, by both the writer and his readers, the sacredness of truth is in some danger, even where there is no intentional departure from it.

But

ap

I think we have some reason to complain that our author is scarcely consistent with himself in relation to this matter. He lays down the principle, that "a sentiment disavowed, although it belong to the system, should not be imputed to the man"-and respecting his opponents, "that they all have spoken many things in commendation of that divinely inspired book, is matter of fact." It therefore pears to me a little difficult to reconcile the principle laid down-the fact admitted-and the practice adopted. Wereit, however, a fact, that all those opposed to Mr. M'M. were deserving of all the epithets he has bestowed upon them-that some of them lag behind-that others have been drivelling dotards that they all have been bloated with self-complacency-and that Dr. Ely wrote "so much in the style of nonsense, that it should probably be exempted from the charge of wickedness"-were all these correct, what does it prove with respect to the privilege and duty of the church, in the exercise of praise?-Nothing, certainly. Might we then venture to inquire into the design of this method of writing, I would not willingly attribute it altogether to the threshing spirit, or to a settled malignity of temper; and when I look around, I cannot fix my mind upon another motive, but one, viz.. That by alarming the piety of some readers, at the imputed heresy and profanity of those who differ from them; and by personal abuse, exciting the abhorrence of others, against those

writers, they may prevent their people from reading their books, or hearing their arguments; Mr. M'M. has, on this subject, proved very correct in his calculations, if they were of this character. Besides the cases we have noticed, it has often been urged as proof positive, of any charge he has seen fit to exhibit, and a triumphant refutation of any argument produced againt them, that Mr. M'Master said it." This mode of writing, therefore, which our author has adopted, will probably sustain his cause, better and longer than any other for which he can possibly exchange it. There is another advantage attending this mode of writing; it has a tendency to prevent a reply. Few are able to repel such language, without a degree of conformity to it; and many would rather let the cause take its course, than engage in a battle of bilingsgate. Neither is the point of difference any thing nearer an adjustment, by proving or disproving the heresy of Dr. Watts or others: minds of a certain cast, may be, indeed led from the main question by it; but the fact itself proves nothing. Were the errors of his psalms and hymns established, it would evince the necessity of either correcting or rejecting them; but it could never affect the right, the privilege or the duty of the church, in this part of worship. And would it not be considered as too presumptuous on our part, to suggest a hint to a writer of Mr. M'M's eminence, it might be intimated that one argument, such as he demands of us, decided and clear, to establish our confinement to the Old Testament Psalms, would do more to convince us, if he should think such a result desirable, than all the outcry he can ever raise about adding to or taking from the book of God; or all the judgments he can level at our heads. We may be allowed to hope that we have read those scriptures with as much attention -with as much zeal--with as much deference--and with as great a desire to be conformed to them, as the author of the Apology; and we are not to be menanced into a relinquishment of our understandings, by a rash, rude, and irreverent misapplication of those scriptures, by Mr. M'M. It would indeed appear, that our author could preach psalmody as well from Uzza, as Mr. Wallace could from Shibboleth, but we are not in the least apprehensive, that the doom of either the Ephraimites, or the others, wilk

with the

befal us for offering up our praises in the very name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; if it is done spirit and with the understanding."

Let the reader carefully and deliberately examine the arguments of the Apology, and see what they prove. The foundation of his argument is laid in the bare supposition that our Saviour sung the Hillel-that his disciples were not likely to depart from the example-that Paul and Silas sung David's Psalms-that these and these only were recommended by Paul and James. All this, however, is gratuitous without the shadow of proof. Neither is thereany evidence offered, during the first and second centuries, of singing a Psalm of David; and but one in the third.. In this discussion our author gives scope to his hard words, and appears at no loss for epithets. While, however, I say, as I have repeatedly said, that both our arguments and conclusions have been shamefully misrepresented, I do not say it in the spirit of retaliation, but as an unqualified fact, for which I pledge my veracity, and stand ready to produce the evidence, from Church History, Mr. M'M's book, and our own writings. I feel that the evidence has been produced, but if any one should doubt whether it were produced fairly, I am ready to give the necessary satisfaction, or prove my own incompetency to any who may think it necessary to put me to the trial.

Besides this, it may be observed, that the propriety of the employment of David's Psalms, is not the grand point of disputation, nor any dispute except as to ceremonial peculiarities. Our author, however, employs his time, and pen and paper in defending these psalms without an antagonist. He gives a mutilated, and partial history of the ancient church; and one equally so of the modern, in relation to this matter. After he has triumphantly proved, that the old psalms may or ought to be used, he brings forward Horne, Scott, Davidson and Horsley, to show that some very handsome things have been said of them. Had he applied to us, we could have furnished him with ten times the number; but what does that prove? It just attempts to prove, what has not been denied, and is not in question; but it very successfully, in many cases, leads his readers from the subject to a useless discussion. But whenever he approaches the real question, respecting

hymns of human composition, in his sixth reason, he discovers that he is run out. He says, "I am forbidden by my prescribed limits, to expand the subject much farther;" and then declaims a little in his accustomed style. I should have supposed that so great a logician as our author, would not have exhausted himself on irrelevant matter, so as to prevent his attention to the main question. One reason is assigned, however, that the admission of hymns, tends to corrupt religion. It might have been expected, that few would have brought forward such an argument, in the present day. The argument, from the use, to the abuse, has long been exploded. Many by preaching, disseminate errors; therefore, let no one preach the gospeland as our author says, every denomination inculcates their own opinions, from the pulpit, let us inculcate none. Our author does not act, according to this principle, either as to press or pulpit. We have satisfactory evidence, that in the early ages of the church, hymns were not only extensively used, but were a depository, and defence, of orthodox sentiments; and if the enemies of truth, sometimes took that mode to express or disseminate their errors, it did not prevent the others, but quickened their zeal in their employment of hymns, expressive of the purity of their sentiments-and the vigour of their faith.

The evidences too, which our author has brought forward, at the different periods of history, have generally, I think I might say universally, proved all we could wish on our side. Tertullian, Flavian, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine, with many others, establish the fact of modern hymns having been freely used, in the purest partsof the church, during the early ages; and Huss, Luther, and others, establish the same fact in their time, and by their own practice..

The modern witnesses leave our author in the same situation; for while they say those fine things, that he has quoted, they never think it inconsistent with due respect for the psalms, to employ a gospel song. Such are Horne, Scott, Ridgley and others; some of whom enjoin it as a duty inculcated in the New Testament; and Ridgley, who seems to hesitate more than any of the others, says that it gives him no offence to employ such hymns.

There is, however, another principle that is brought for