Latta's defense of the Synod of New-York and Philadelphia for adopting Watts

Context

In this passage, Latta directly challenges exclusive psalmody advocates who “bear testimony against the Synod of New-York and Philadelphia” for adopting Watts’s hymns. He argues that if the Synod has erred, so have multiple other Reformed denominations. This is a direct response to Rev. John Anderson’s critique of the Synod’s psalmody decisions.

Extract

And it is well known, that that affembly have printed and recommended fundry Poems, partly collected from the pious and ingenious Dr. Watts, as they ftile him, and other writers, and partly furniſhed by the minifters of their own Church. Why then does our Author and his brethren bear teftimony against the Synod of New-York and Philadelphia, as if they alone had entered into determinations that affect the purity of the worſhip of God, and that are contrary to his word? Has not the Church of Scotland, in her pureft times, feen the propriety of enlarging her Pfalmody, and been taking meafures for that purpofe? Has not the Baptift Church been in the conftant and unanimous ufe of Dr. Watts’s imitation almoft ever fince it was firft publifhed? And has not the Epifcopal Church in England, and much more of late in America, declared by her practice, that ſhe did not look upon her members as confined, by Divine inftitution, in their praifes of God, to the words of David and Afaph? And are the minifters of Chrift in all thefe Churches fo ignorant of the word of God, as not to know what it forbids or requires? Or are they fo unfaithful to God, that they would wilfully revolt from his authority, or corrupt his worship?

Significance

This passage reveals the denominational landscape of the psalmody controversy in 1794. Latta positions exclusive psalmody advocates as outliers by pointing to the widespread adoption of Watts across Presbyterian, Baptist, and Episcopal traditions. His rhetorical question - whether ministers in “all these Churches” are “ignorant” or “unfaithful” - highlights the social cost of the exclusive psalmody position: it implicitly condemned the majority of Reformed and evangelical Christianity.

The reference to the Church of Scotland having “seen the propriety of enlarging her Psalmody” in “her purest times” is significant, as it claims historical Reformed precedent for hymn-singing. This counters the exclusive psalmody claim that Watts represents an innovation departing from Reformed tradition.