The Lancaster ledger. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1852-1905, 1893-12-20
For the LedC er.
The Article Of Brother w. ".
RatchiOrd entitled No. 3 is
really n Surprising one.

1t is surprising, first Of all, to finh
a presbyterian preacher, boiling to
the doctrine that what ia not sanction
Ell by God In His worship is frr}1d'en,
belonging TO Church that used the
psalms of the Bible exclusively until
about century ago, and now
preachisg to nereg .tion that has
nsver sung anything but the psalms .
OF inspirations, it is tru!Y surprising
to tind him using his peu aud irfn,
ence to dlscredjt these aocent songs
OF God. II is surprising IN the next
place to find a controversy cf this kind
in secular paper. Questions Of this
character are generally discussed in
religious papers. Why is this psal.
modY question lugged into a county
secular paper ? l would not impugn
motives, but copfsfs to a suspicion
that there IL back Of it someihiny more
than appears on the surface.
Before taking up the main poiut Of
the article. one or two minor points
upoa which Brother R4tchford touch.
ed may be referred to.
He states that 'ws are not lpli hv
David or any other inspired writer
that the psalms were coll cted f,r ex,
elusive use 10 the praise service of The
church." or course we arc not told s p,
by David because they wore not ,oI.
lected as they now stand until after
his day. But whal were ihey written
for ? Why did David write hose
ascrlbed to him I? Were they not
written to be sung in praise 70 Gni d?
Will Brother Il ,tchford deny tha. Z?
Were any used tha. were 50 laslireA {?
Bring on your proof Bother r.
| We'll if they were wrIllen to be sulg
and they only; - far AS W. ka3w, islt
not most reasonable that G0d had them
collecte and putin the form we now
haye them for this same purpose?
The man who collected them called
them by the title "B)ok of Praiscs." ="
de evidently thought they were in>
tended to be sung N praise. The o 7
Church and the N T Church accepted
the title and so received them as s1ngs
TO be sung in praise to God. AMI
| after all tho e years it is now left for
| Brother RstcbfJrd to uncoyer that
perhap, those psalms wete not COL
lected to be used in praisiug the l. rd
Again he asks. Was r ,use rmaug
the Inspired Prophet. or the clm.
mlttee Of the U p Church in The year
1870 which revised the version Of
psalms nov in use in the A X Z
Church? Thus he would convey the
impression that modern hymCs are as
much inspired as the v,rsion Of
Psalma we sing. Nobody claims thai,
L Use or the u p Committee YVES IT,
spired. They did not make the ;s4lms
we sing They wer simply transls-
tore, seeking to give liberal render.
ing of the psalms into me,rical versIor.
If you reject the inspiration of !be
me!rlcal rendering o: Palms n this
ground, you must ais, reject the ir-
L
spirstion of the authorized version cf
scriptures on ground that the irar-!s,
tore of 1911 were not inspired.
But the main pint of the article
is that that the N T name Jesus ia not
found in the book of psalms and there
fore you can not give that hoDnr
which is due Hin ss the son of God
N Staging those psalms.
This is the merest balderdash AID
sopbistry. The fact is Christ is honor
ed by every name by which H is
known and revealed in The scriptures
Christ is not onlY De cribed by several
VI ~NiS """'S III INC psalms oGI ran
recall without search at least twelve
or thirteen that speak Of HIM, of Hi,
character, His sufferipes, Ills mock
logs, His resurrection and the glory
of His kingdom. Is Christ 10 prais
ed by singing those The argument
that In order to render due praise to
the son of God, we muct sing cf Him
by the name Jesus is pure clop lrsp
meant to beguiIe the unthiokiog. II
| know what prsise is--lbefe are
mapy moderu hymns which cont ,in
the name Jesus bat do not prai:e Him.
We praise the l. nd Jesus Chri.t
when we cele brat, ia sjng the gl,ries
of His DIVINE aud holy cbarac er, the
greatness Of His achievements and
the final victory and establishment of
His kin gdom. All this is done In the
Book Of PsaIms.