the Psalms of David; that in order to prove them inspired, I ignored
an element in them which is plainly uninspired, wrong, and
offensive; namely, the curses which he invokes upon his enemies. I
ignored it, they would say, because it was fatal to my theory!
because it proved David to have the vindictive passions of other
Easterns; to be speaking, not by the inspiration of God, but of his
own private likes and dislikes; to be at least a fanatic who thinks
that his cause must needs be God's cause, and who invokes the
lightnings of heaven on all who dare to differ from him. Others
would say that such words were excusable in David, living under the
Old Law; for it was said by them of old time, 'Thou shalt love thy
neighbour and hate thine enemy:' but that our Lord has formally
abrogated that permission; 'But I say unto you, Love your enemies,
bless them that curse you, and do good to those who despitefully use
you and persecute you.' How unnecessary, and how wrong then, they
would say, it is of the Church of England to retain these cursing
Psalms in her public worship, and put them into the mouths of her
congregations. Either they are merely painful, as well as
unnecessary to Christians; or if they mean anything, they excuse and
foster the habit too common among religious controversialists of
invoking the wrath of heaven on their opponents.

I argue with neither of the objectors. But the question is a
curious and an important one; and I am bound, I think, to examine it
in a sermon which, like the present, treats of David's chivalry.

What David meant by these curses can be best known from his own
actions. What certain persons have meant by them since is patent
enough from their actions. Mediaeval monks considered but too often
the enemies of their creed, of their ecclesiastical organisation,