DISCOURSES
ON
SCRIPTURE PSALMODY IN PRAISING GOD;
AND AGAINST
INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN PUBLIC WORSHIP.BY
THE REV. HUGH BROWN,
PASTOR OF THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CONGREGATION,
EAST SALEM, WASHINGTON COUNTY, N.Y.
"Sing unto Him, (Jehovah) sing psalms unto Him."1 CHRON. 16:9.
NORTH WHITE CREEK, N.Y.:
R.K. CROCKER, WASHINGTON CO. POST, PRINT.
1859.
PREFACE.The following discourses were, by request, delivered in the congregation of East Salem, not however with the intention of ever being published. But at the earnest solicitations of many who heard them, they are now submitted to the serious, and impartial consideration of an enlightened and christian public. Much has already been written on the subjects of which they treat, and the present object is to bring up the rereward, and if possible place the matter in a plainer and clearer light. Assistance has been obtained from those who have published on the same subjects, and some of their arguments and pithy expressions have been employed.
What others may think of the present work, I know not; but I sincerely hope and pray, that, it shall be owned by the Great Head of Zion, and be blessed of God for the defence of the purity and simplicity of the gospel worship of the New Testament church.
H. BROWN.
East Salem, 1859.
DISCOURSE
SCRIPTURE PSALMODY IN PRAISING GOD.
"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." Col. 3:16.
Singing the praises of God is a moral duty, and enjoined both by the precepts and examples of the Old and New Testaments. All men are dependent on God for life, and health, and all other things, and therefore it becomes them to feel the most lively gratitude to him for all his gracious benefits, and to render thanks unto him in their prayers, and songs of praises. Praise to Jehovah is both comely and pleasant, and persons of all classes, young men and maidens, old men and children, are called upon to unite in this delightful and heavenly exercise. Psalmody in its matter and form, has always claimed a large share of the church’s attention. Every faculty of man should be consecrated to the service of his great Creator. And all the principles of our nature, and intellectual powers should be called into requisition in the promotion of the divine glory. Psalmody, when used in the spirit of its institution, is eminently calculated to engage all the feelings of the soul, and to call into lively exercise the devotions of the heart. The celebration of God’s praise, in scripture songs, is one of his own institutions. It is his appointment, that his people "come before his presence with thanksgiving, and make a joyful noise unto him with psalms." This practice we have given us for an example by Paul and Silas, two illustrious heralds of the cross, when at midnight and confined in the prison at Philippi, they sang the praises of God. This part of christian worship is confessedly important. Its importance is manifested by the care God has taken, to furnish his church with a book of spiritual songs; and songs indited by the Holy Ghost as suited to the condition of the subjects of his grace, in their pilgrimage through this vale of tears. In the psalmody of the church, the matter must be evangelical. Our spiritual songs must be such that God approves, and in this we must hearken attentively to the voice of the Lord. On this subject professing christians entertain different sentiments. One believes he may use in the public worship of God, the effusions of the muse, the songs composed by uninspired men. Another considers he is in conscience bound, to use exclusively, the psalms of the Divine word, which God has given by the inspiration of his spirit; which his church has used and which he believes was intended by the Almighty for the saints, in the public and social worship of the church. The question then at issue in reference to the psalmody of the church is this; are persons under the New Testament dispensation limited to inspired songs in the worship of God, or are they not? Now this question is evidently of vast importance, for if people are not to be limited to the inspired book of psalms, but if uninspired hymns may be made and sung in the worship of God; then the opposers of uninspired hymns are guilty of a great sin, in depriving the church, of a divinely appointed means of edification. But on the other hand, if people are limited to the inspired psalms of the scriptures in the worship of God, then those who use hymns of human composition are acting without divine authority, and may be said to resemble those of old who made use of strange fire in their censers before the Lord. Let us then in humble dependence on divine grace, seek to obtain the mind of the Spirit of God on the subject of psalmody, and for our information and edification we shall endeavor to do so in the following way:In the First place we shall prove, that the inspired songs contained in the book of psalms are to be used exclusively in singing God’s praises in public and social worship.
And Second, We shall reply to the objections usually advanced against the exclusive use of inspired psalmody in the worship of God.
First then, The inspired songs contained in the book of psalms are to be used exclusively in singing God’s praises in public and social worship.
For proof of this we adduce the following arguments:
1st. The book of psalms was divinely inspired and given to the church to be employed in singing God’s praises, neither has it been set aside, or abrogated, by its divine author; but the continued use of it is still enjoined under the New Testament dispensation. Now, "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine," &c., 2 Tim. 3:16. But the book of psalms forms a part of the Holy Scriptures, and so is inspired of God, and hence "profitable for doctrine," &c. And David the inspired penman of most of the psalms says in 2 Samuel 23:2. "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue." Now these spiritual songs, or psalms were intended to be used in singing the praises of God, and they "are profitable for instruction in righteousness," consequently those who exclude them from the psalmody of the church, and substitute in their stead hymns of human composition, are robbing the church of the Lord Jesus of the means which the God of Heaven has provided for her edification and instruction in righteousness. Besides, is it not just and reasonable that we should, serve God with the best that we have and not with the worst; with the whole, the strong, the healthy, and the sound; and not with the polluted, the blind, the lame, and the sick. Hence Jehovah says in Malachi 1:7, 8, "Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil?" &c. Now we know in the language of Isaiah 64:6, that "we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags." Seeing then that "we are all as an unclean thing," must not hymns of human composition be "unclean" also, for in Job 14:4, it is said, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." And therefore to use uninspired hymns in the worship of God is nothing less than "offering polluted bread upon Jehovah’s altar, and offering the blind, the lame and the sick, for sacrifice." But this is not the case by singing exclusively the inspired songs of Zion, The praises which we then offer to the God of the whole earth are such as the Holy Ghost has inspired, and appointed to be employed in singing and making "a joyful noise to, the Rock of our salvation." The book of psalms was given to the church for the purpose of offering up praises to the God of Zion. These psalms were actually employed with the sanction and approbation of the God of Heaven, in the celebration and showing forth his praises. In the times of inspiration, and in the days of the prophets, these sacred songs of Zion were exclusively used in singing the glories of Jehovah. And their very structure, their matter, their name, and their compositions, all evidently intimate that they were designed by the Spirit of God for the use of the church militant on earth, under every dispensation of his grace.
But not only was the book of psalms divinely inspired, and given to the church to be employed exclusively in singing God’s praises; but it has never been set aside, or abrogated, by its divine Author. Since the singing of God’s praises is a part of religious worship, both under the old and new Testament dispensations, and since the book of psalms was divinely appointed to be used by the church as scripture psalmody; it follows, that if the inspired songs of the book of psalms be set aside, or abrogated, we must either have another book, or inspired set of sacred songs for the new Testament church, otherwise a divine warrant for singing hymns of human composition. But we have no inspired book of songs, in the whole canon of Scripture, either as a substitute for, or an addition to the book of psalms. Neither have we any divine warrant for singing hymns of human composition in the worship of God; and therefore it follows, that the inspired songs of Zion are not abrogated, and in the worship of our Maker we must either not sing at all, or else sing the inspired psalmody of the church. It is true, that at the commencement of the new Testament dispensation, whatever belonged to the judicial or ceremonial law was abrogated. But the singing the inspired songs of the book of psalms, belonged neither to the one, nor the other. That it did not belong to the judicial law is evident, for that merely prescribed the civil policy and government of the Jews, but referred not to religious worship. Neither did it belong to the ceremonial law, because that law, apart from what it typified, is said by the Apostle in Heb. 9:10, to consist of "carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." And again, in Acts, 15:10, it is said to be "a yoke, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." As then, we have the authority of Christ Jesus for "searching the Scriptures," John 5:39, so we have a divine warrant for singing the psalms given by inspiration of God; and when the one ceases, so will the other, but not before, and that is, never until the end of time.
Seeing then that the singing the book of psalms by the church not set aside, or abrogated, by divine authority; so the continued of it is enjoined by the Almighty, under the new Testament dispensation. The proof for this is of two kinds; 1st. There are several expressions in the book of psalms which prove that they were designed by the Spirit of God for the new Testament dispensation Thus it is said in Ps. 79:13, "We will shew forth thy praise to all generations." Also in Ps. 89:1, "With my mouth will make known thy faithfulness to all generations." Again, in Ps. 102:18, "This shall be written for the generation to come, and the people which shall be created shall praise the Lord."
But 2nd. The book of psalms is referred to in the new Testament, and commanded to be sung by the Apostles of our Lord and Saviour. Thus in Luke 20:42, the compilation of inspired songs in the old Testament, is called "the book of psalms," "and David himself saith in the book of psalms, The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand." And again, in Acts 1:20, the same collection of spiritual songs is called, "the book of psalms;" Peter says, "For it written in the book of psalms," &c. But these divine songs are not only called "the book of psalms," but by way of emphasis, the psalms. Thus in Luke 24:44, Christ Jesus calls them, "the psalms." He says, "All things must he fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me." And this is intended to teach us, that they are to be acknowledged by the new Testament church, as the psalms, that is, the inspired songs to be sung exclusively by the church in the solemn worship of Jehovah. But farther, we say that they are commanded to be used by the people of God in singing his praises under the present dispensation. Hence it is said in Eph. 5:19, "Speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." And again we have the same thing in Col. 3:16. "Teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." Some have supposed, but without any proof or authority, that by the terms hymns and spiritual songs, in the above passages, we are to understand hymns of human composition. But it has been satisfactorily proved by eminent Hebrew scholars, and the most learned expositors of scripture, both ancient and modern, that the names psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, answer to the three Hebrew terms, viz: MIZMORIM, TEHILLIM, and SHIRIM. And be it observed, that these are the Hebrew names by which the Scripture psalms are entitled and distinguished. The name of the book of psalms in the Hebrew is, SEPHER TEHILLIM, that is, the Book of hymns or Praises, because the praises of God is the chief subject matter. But the Septuagint version styles them, BIBLAOS PSALMON, that is, the Book of Psalms, from psallo to sing, because this book of Hymns was designed to be used by the church in singing God’s praises. And it is for this reason also, that the Apostle calls them spiritual songs, or songs of the Spirit, that is, songs inspired by the Holy Spirit for the church.
It takes then the three terms used by the Apostle to include or comprehend the whole book of psalms, because some are strictly speaking psalms, others are hymns, and others again are songs, Hence there was a necessity for the Apostle to designate the whole book of psalms by the three terms he employs. Suppose the Apostle had used but the one term, psalms, then he would not have meant the complete book of scripture psalms, because some, as for example, the 145th is called in the Hebrew Tehillah, which means not psalm, but hymn or praise. And if he had used but two terms, as psalms and hymns, then he would also have still excluded a part, for some are neither psalms nor hymns, but songs; thus psalm 46th is called in the Hebrew Shir, which means not psalm or hymn, but Song. And farther, the terms used by the Apostle prove so conclusively that he meant the whole book of scripture psalms and nothing less nor more, that often in the Hebrew two of the words are joined together. Thus for example seven of the psalms are called Mismor-Shir, which means, psalm-songs; viz: the 31st, 65th, 67th, 68th, 75th, 77th, and 112th. And on the other hand, some are called Shir-Mismor, or song-psalms; such as the 48th, 66th, 83d, 88th, and 108th.
But since many use nothing but hymns of human composition, and never sing any of the inspired songs of scripture, suppose, for the present, we admit, that hymns and spiritual songs, mean human composition; it is manifest that the word psalms can mean no such thing. It must mean the same spiritual collection of songs given to the old Testament church, and here commanded to be used under the present dispensation in singing the praises of God. And it is also worthy of remark, that the Apostle, in the foregoing passages, is giving directions to the church about psalmody when the ceremonial observances had passed away with the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem. And yet he enjoins on them to sing praises by using the inspired songs of the book of psalms The duty then of exclusively singing Jehovah’s praises, in the language of scripture psalmody, remains obligatory upon the church, till the end of time.
2d. The great Head of the church has given no other inspired songs in the place of the book of psalms, and therefore if singing the praises of God is to be continued in the church as a part of religious worship, the book of psalms must be exclusively used.
The Lord Jesus Christ had a perfect knowledge of all the wants of his church on earth, for in Him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge; and, consequently, if another book of psalms had been requisite for the new Testament church, he must have known it. Is it possible that the church is "engraven on the palms of the Saviour’s hands, that her walls are continually before him;" that she is set as a seal upon his heart, and yet he has given her no new book of psalms. How then can this be accounted for? Under the old Testament he raised up David to be the "sweet Psalmist of Israel," and surely, if the inspired book of psalms was to cease with the former dispensation, then the present has been overlooked by Christ and the church has not now the complete canon of scripture, the entire word of God. But the book of psalms, as given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was, and still is, absolutely complete and perfect in itself, and therefore the Head of the church in his infinite wisdom, did not see fit to change it, nor to appoint any other, it being intended to be used exclusively till the end of time. In addition to this, it may be observed, that the Lord Jesus Christ, "in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," and who is "the wisdom of God," not only made no new psalms, but comforted himself in his greatest agony on the cross by using the very words of inspiration in the book of psalms. When he cried to his father with a loud voice, it was in the language of Ps. 22:1, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" And again, when sinking into the cold arms of death, he cried out in the language of Ps. 31:5, "Into thy hand I commit my spirit." This then is authority of the very highest nature, and worthy of imitation by every professed follower of the meek and lowly Jesus. But farther, be it observed, that the apostles who were inspired to write the new Testament, and to complete the canon of the word of God, were not "moved by the Holy Ghost," to write any more, nor any other "spiritual songs," in addition to, or in the stead of the book of psalms. Jesus himself has declared, that "heaven and earth shall pass away, but that his words shall not pass" And so the book of psalms must continue to be used exclusively by the church in singing the praises of God till the end of time. But if they are not to be used by the church, and hymns of human composition substituted in their place, then the words of Jesus Christ are not true, for his words have passed away, and the church has been deprived of an important book of divine revelation. No man, nor body of men has any more right or authority, to set aside the book of psalms from being used in singing God’s praises; than they have to set aside the gospel by John, or Paul’s epistle to the Romans from the New Testament Scriptures. And no man, nor body of men has any more right or authority to add a new book of hymns, either as a substitute for, or in addition, to the inspired book of psalms, to be used in the worship of God; than they have to add Esop’s fables, or the tales of the Arabian knights to the holy Bible, and then command them to be read as scripture in the congregation by the Ambassador of Jesus on the Lord’s day. If any is to be changed, or any new thing given, either for the promotion of God’s glory, or the edification of the church, it is God who must institute it and not man. Hence we find that when a change was to take place with regard to circumcision and the passover, as seals of the covenant of grace under the old Testament dispensation, it was the Head of the church who made the change; neither did he leave it to uninspired men to institute others in their places, but he did it himself. And so is it in the psalmody of the church. If a change had been necessary for the present dispensation, the Saviour in his wisdom and goodness would have furnished his church with a book of new scriptural songs. But no such having been given by the pen of inspiration, it is evident that the inspired book of psalms is alone to be used in singing the praises of God in public and social worship. It must ever be borne in mind, that the power of the church, and of church-rulers, is not a legislative, but only a judicial power. Even the high priest under the ceremonial economy had no authority to make any new laws for God’s house, nor ordain any other rites or modes of worship than what God himself had ordained. And if this was so under the old dispensation, it is doubly so under the new, now that we have the complete canon of scripture, the word of God, to which nothing is to be added, and from which nothing is to be taken.
3rd. The inspired songs contained in the book of psalms are suited to the present as well as the former dispensation, but they were exclusively used in the Old, and therefore are to be alone employed under the New Testament.
The book of psalms is "an epitome of the whole scriptures." So spake Athanasius, that famous advocate of the Trinity against the Arians, in the 4th century. Basil also, surnamed the great, who lived in the same age, held similar views. "What I pray," says he, "is it, which you cannot learn from the Psalms." "Here is a perfect theology, or system of divine knowledge; there are treasures of all things brought into and laid up in the book of Psalms," &c. Luther called them "a little Bible," and Melancthon, the most elegant writing in the world. Mastricht, an eminent Dutch divine, says: "The church may not permit anything to be sung publicly, which is not extant in the holy scriptures." Manton, a member of the Westminster Assembly, says, "To question whether we may sing Scripture Psalms, the Psalms of David, to me seemeth to look like the cavil of a profane spirit." The pious and judicious Hooker says, "What is there necessary for man to know, which the Psalms are not able to teach." Bishop Horne speaking of the Psalms, says, "This little volume, like the paradise of Eden, affords us in perfection, everything that groweth elsewhere," "every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food," and above all, what was there lost, is here restored, the tree of life in the midst of the garden." And as Dr. Hammond justly observes, by our Saviour when in agony quoting from it, "no tongue of man or angel can convey an higher idea of any book, and of their felicity who use it aright." We repeat it then, that the inspired songs contained in the book of Psalms, are suited to the present as well as the former dispensation. Would we sing of God, of his nature and attributes; of his perfections as displayed in the works of creation and providence, then see Ps. 19. "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handy-work," &c. Also Ps. 33. "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap; he layeth up the depth in store-houses." &c. And see the illustrious description’s of divine providence in the whole of Psalms 104th and 107th.
Would we sing of the person, states and offices of Jesus Christ, where can we find such language as in the book of Psalms. Do the sufferings of the Saviour, by which he purchased his church, and his triumphs over the powers of darkness, occupy our attention? Where are they sung in strains so melting, or in notes of such elevated sentiment, as in the book of Psalms. See for example Ps. 22. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring. O my God, I cry in the day-time, but thou hearest not; and in the night-season, and am not silent," &c. Then v. 12th, "Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion, &c.
Would we sing of the blessings of covenant love? These are found in the book of Psalms. Here we have the grace of God in election, Ps. 65:4 "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts," &c,. Here we have the grace of God in redemption, Ps. 130:7, 8. "Let Israel hope in the Lord: for with the Lord there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption. And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities." Here we have the grace of God in pardon, Ps. 32:1, 2. "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile." Also in Ps. 103:, "Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases." Here is the grace of God in communion, Ps, 27:4, "One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to enquire in his temple." And here the saints find assurance of safety in the valley of death, of victory over the grave, and of eternal enjoyment. See Ps. 23:4, 6, "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever." And in Ps. 16:11, "Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for ever more."
Are we in sorrow and distress? Then never were sentiments of deep distress, couched in language, so tender and emphatic as in Ps. 88. "My soul is full of troubles, and my life draweth nigh unto the grave. I am counted with them that go down into the pit: I am as a man that hath no strength. Thou hast laid me in the lowest pit, in darkness, in the deeps. Thy wrath lieth hard upon me, and thou hast afflicted me with all thy waves," &c
Are we in bondage, and strangers in a foreign land? Then sing Ps. 137. "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof," &c.
Would we sing the frailty and sorrows of man? Then see Ps. 90. at v. 10, it is said, "The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow: for it is soon cut off and we fly away." And also the whole of Ps. 103, at verses 15th and 16th, it is said, "As for man, his days are as grass; as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth: for the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more."
Would we sing the awful scenes at the close of time? Then see Ps. 50. at v. 3, it is said, "Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him; and it shall be very temptestuous round about him," &c. Also Ps. 9:17, "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." And in Ps. 11:6, "Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup."
There is then no situation in life in which a believer, or the church at large can be placed in, but something can be found suitable in the book of Psalms.
4th. The Scripture psalms are of such superior excellency, that none others can be of equal importance, or sufficient to answer the same purposes.
There is an authority, a majesty, a spiritual savour, and a richness in the words of the Holy Ghost, which is not and cannot be expected in any other. Claim for uninspired hymns all the respect that is justly due them, still they are but human; it is the work of fallible man, and must be imperfect. The effect cannot be more perfect than its cause. And hence, how contracted the views, how feeble the thoughts, and how childish the sentiments when compared with the word of the living God, in the inspired book of psalms.
No hymns of human composition, have the majesty of the scripture-songs of Zion. In Ps. 29:4, it is said, "The voice of the Lord is full of majesty," and this is true of his voice in the word. This majesty and grandeur, and power of the word arises from the greatness, and sublimity, and eternal importance of the truths exhibited in the name of the God of Jacob, and in words selected by the Holy Spirit to express these things. No uninspired hymns can justly be considered absolutely pure and holy, or absolutely faultless and free from the effects of human depravity, like the inspired songs of Zion. In Prov. 30:5, it is said, "every word of God is pure," and in Ps. 12:6, "The words of the Lord are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Now it is this purity of the songs of Zion which makes the people of God love and prefer them before hymns of human composure. Hence David said with regard to the book of Psalms, in Ps. 119:140. "Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." The child of God then loves the sweet songs of Zion because they are the pure words of the God of heaven.
Again, no other songs can he compared to the inspired book of Psalms in point of efficacy. In Heb. 4:12, it is said, "The word of God is quick and powerful," &c. The word of God the book of psalms seizes on the mind, arrests the understanding, rectifies the judgment, subjugates the will, purifies the conscience, spiritualizes the affections, and elevates and transforms the whole man, into its own pure and holy image. But who dare venture to assert such things of the very best human compositions, or uninspired hymns, in the world. Take any of the hymns now in use in any of the churches who do not sing exclusively the Scripture songs contained in the book of psalms, and see how far short they come when compared with the hymns of the Holy Ghost. Why, they are but as the feeble glimmering of the glow-worm to the full blaze of noon day splendor. How could it be otherwise, think of the author of some of these uninspired hymns, and the occasions on which they were composed. Several of them are the productions of Chapin, Furness, Pierpont, Walter Scott, Robert Burns, Tom Moore: &c. And when we think of the occasions on which some of them were composed, it should be sufficient to sicken any intelligent mind from using such effusions. Fancy a congregation praising God in that hymn composed by Tom Moore on occasion of being deceived by a sly female, and yet it is a favorite one with many, "Come ye disconsolate, where’er ye languish," &c. "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."
5th. The fact that God has given a whole book of inspired songs to the church, called the book of Psalms, or the book of hymns, (Tehillim) is proof sufficient that they only are to be used in singing his praises.
Now the title itself clearly and plainly indicates that this book, or collection, of sacred songs, was designed by the Almighty and given for the express purpose to be used in the solemn service of praising God. But more than this, the idea of exclusion is certainly implied by the emphatic language, "the psalms," or "the book of psalms." But say some, we have prayers in the Bible, and why not confine ourselves to them as well as to the book of Psalms. We answer, there is a vast difference between prayer and praise. Prayer is the making known of our wants and circumstances to God; but praise is the ascribing that glory and honor which is due to him alone. When at the request of the disciples our Saviour taught them to pray, he merely gave them a form of pattern, saying "After this manner pray ye," and even this pattern of prayer differs as any one may see by comparing Matt. 6:9-13. with Luke 11:2-4. But there is not in the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation, one syllable to teach us that the book of psalms was given as a pattern, so that we were to compose other psalms or hymns like them for singing God’s praises. There is not in the sacred oracles a collection of prayers, called the "book of prayers," but there is "the book of psalms." And this collection of sacred songs coming directly from a Holy God must possess complete perfection. Hence the idea of adding to it more or other hymns to make it more complete, or better adapted to answer the purpose of singing God’s praises, is most revolting, and highly derogatory to the character and attributes of a holy, self-existent, unchangeable and eternal God.
6th. To substitute hymns of human composition in the worship of God, instead of the divinely inspired book of Psalms, is productive of fatal consequences.
Many of the advocates of hymns of human composition profess that they have a great esteem and veneration for the book of psalms, and that all that they plead for is, the liberty of using other hymns in conjunction with them. But it is manifest that the use of such human compositions, when once introduced into the worship of God, very soon excludes the inspired book of songs altogether. The Syrian church at an early period, about the end of the 2nd century, admitted hymns of human composition, but she soon fell a victim to error. A certain Bardesanes of the Gnostic school adopted the plan of making hymns to propagate his erroneous opinions. These hymns, we are told, became very fashionable "by the charms of novelty and embellishments of oriental style." After him, Harmonious, his son engaged in the same work; and one Ephraim of orthodox faith, in order to counteract the evil tendency of the Gnostic hymns, set about composing hymns for himself and the church. Thus the way was opened and others soon followed in the same course, vainly attempting to fight the enemy with his own carnal weapons, and not with scripture psalmody, "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." I once attended worship in a place where human hymns were used, and after the services were ended, a gentleman enquired of me how I liked the singing. My reply was, "I did not like it, for the tunes seemed too much like play-house, or theatrical comic song-tunes." But said he, "that’s the reason why we sing them, for it is not right that the devil should have all the nice tunes, and the church none." And so is it in psalmody, many fancy that they see something nice in hymns of human composition that cannot be obtained by strict adherence to scripture psalmody. But the errors introduced by such hymns into the Syrian, and other churches should be as beacons to avoid the quicksands. And every church that has followed the example of singing such hymns, has to a greater or less degree, departed from the truth as it is in Christ. Consequently we find that in the 5th century measures were adopted to prevent the use of uninspired hymns in the worship of God And in the unanimous council of Ephesus, which condemned the Nestorian heresy, the use of hymns of human composition was prohibited "on account," it is said, "of the errors and heresies which had been so extensively propagated in the churches by these attractive instruments."
Give then liberty for using in conjunction with the book of psalms, other hymns, and you at once open the flood-gates of error idolatry, and superstition. Thus the worshipping of saints, having been once introduced into the church of Rome, very soon supplanted in a great measure the worship due to Jesus Christ. And now I suppose that for every prayer offered up to the Son of God, there are from forty to a hundred offered up to departed saints and angels Now exactly so is it by introducing uninspired hymns into the worship of God; very soon the word of God in the book of psalms is laid aside, and look at those churches that use human hymns and you will see that this is the case. In some instances these uninspired hymn books have put the Bible nearly out of the church altogether. Yes, in many churches you will find almost no Bibles because hymn of human composition have supplanted them.
7th. The inspired book of psalms should be exclusively used by the church, because the arguments employed against it, are not only unsatisfactory; but frequently blasphemous; and take the same hostile attitude that Popery does against the reading of the scriptures.
It was about the rise of Popery, that the scripture Psalms were shorn of their beauty and vigor; and during the long night of gross darkness that succeeded, like its divine author when forced by Herod to flee into Egypt; it was banished into exile by the authority of the Romish hierarchy. It retired into solitude, and amid the Alpine hills, comforted and refreshed with its heavenly notes, that little band of God’s chosen remnant, the persecuted Waldenses, who were prophesying in sackcloth and followed the Lamb whithersoever he went.
But we would here remark, that scripture psalmody has been used in every period of the church from the days of Christ and his; Apostles down to the present time. The most learned and orthodox commentators agree that the hymn sung by our Saviour and his Apostles at the institution of the Lord’s supper was the Hallel which, consisted of six inspired Psalms, from the 113th to the 118th inclusive. And that the book of Psalms was used exclusively in the apostolic period, we have indubitable evidence, but if hymns of human composition were then used by the church of Christ, we demand any to produce such, or give proof for it. After the death of the Apostles, and in the 2d century, the church departed m several respects from its former purity. Still we find that scripture psalmody was used; Tertullian positively asserts, that in the 2d century, the 133rd Psalm was regularly sung at the administration of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Respecting the 3d century, history says little on the subject of psalmody; but as Irenaeas, Tertullian, and others of the 2d century, flourished in the beginning of the 3d, we have every reason to believe that the practice of the preceding was the same.
But that the book of Psalms was used by the church in the 4th century, we have incontrovertible evidence. Jerome of Palestine tells us that the 31st and 45th Psalms were sung at the celebration of the Lord’s supper; and Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the same age, affirms the same thing. Jerome likewise says, "You could not go into the fields but you might hear the ploughman at his hallelujahs, and the vine-dresser chanting the Psalms of David." Augustine also testifies to the using the book of Psalms in the church, and in Serm. 10, he mentions singing the 65th Psalm. We also find him defending the use of the book of Psalms in worship from the aspersions of its enemies. He says, as we see in Calv. Inst. book 3, chap. 20. "One Hilary took every opportunity of loading with censures the practice, that hymns from the book of Psalms, should be sung at the altar. But in obedience to the command of my brethren I answered him." And again, we are told in Epist. 119. Tom. 2, that "the Donatists reproached the orthodox, because they sung with sobriety the divine songs of the prophets, while they (the Donatists) influenced their minds with the poetic effusions of human genius." Augustine also informs us, that Athanasius of Alexandria employed the Psalms of David in his church, and the same is affirmed of Ambrose. In the "Apostolic Constitution," which appeared in the 4th century, it is said in Lib. 2. c. 57, that "the women, the children and humblest mechanics, could repeat all the Psalms of David; they chanted them at home and abroad." Again we find Chrysostom, the orthodox patriarch of Constantinople, in Hom. 6, saying; "All christians employ themselves in David’s Psalms more frequently than in any other part of the Old or New Testament. And collecting the servants of God into angelic troops, turns earth into heaven, and of men makes angels, chanting David’s Psalms." Again, in the 5th century we find Cassian in Lib. iii. chap. 6, saying, "The elders have not changed the ancient custom of singing psalms. For the hymns which it has been the custom to sing at the end of the night-vigils, were the same hymns which they sing at this day, viz: the 148th, and following Psalms, the 50th, 62nd, and 89th." This then is conclusive testimony, and from it we see three things; 1st. That Scripture Psalms were sung in worship in the 5th century; 2nd. That these Psalms were also used in the foregoing centuries, for it is called an "ancient custom," and 3rd. The term hymns in the writings of the Fathers mean the Psalms of David, or Scripture Psalmody. But farther, Suidas in his Lexicon on the word, chorus, tells us, that "The choirs of churches were, between the years 337 and 404, divided into parts, who, in the time of Flavian of Antioch, sung the Psalms of David alternately." Also, the council of Laodicea in the year 364, decreed, that no unauthorized Psalms should be used in the church; and in the second at Braga, in Spain, in the beginning of the 7th century forbid the use of all hymns except those of divine inspiration.
With these historical facts before us we might rest satisfied that Scripture psalmody was used from the days of the Apostles in the Eastern churches, though not so general in the West, during the first five centuries. Before however concluding this part of our discourse, we would notice very briefly the practice of the church in the middle ages, and at the Reformation. The Waldenses long before the days of the Reformation, in the valleys of Piedmont, and amid the Alpine hills sung Scripture Psalms, and history, informs us that, The Albigenses, in 1210, were metre psalm-singers. In Smith’s Prim. Psalms. p. 270, we are told, that in the 14th century, Wickliffe, who is styled, "the morning star of the Reformation," sung the book of Psalms in metre; and the same is said of John Huss in the 15th century. :Next look at the glorious era of the Reformation, and we find that the Reformers celebrated the praises their God and Saviour in Scripture psalms. Luther, as early 1525, published a metrical version of the book of psalms; and another individual, in the same year, published at Augsburgh a verse translation of the same. In the year 1543, we find fifty of the psalms translated by Marmot into metre, and published at Geneva under the auspices of John Calvin. But Marmot dying before the whole was completed, Beza versified the remainder. In England, the reformers were the advocates of the book of Psalms, and the year 1562 supplied the church with versions by Sternhold, Hopkins, and others But especially in Scotland, from the first, the reformers used Scripture psalmody. At first, it is said, they sung the book of Psalms in prose. But in 1556, metrical versions of the psalms were sung in the congregations; and in McCrie’s life of Knox, we are informed that the whole book of psalms was not put into metre before 1559, but before that a version first published at Geneva was used. The version of the book of psalms in use in the churches of Scotland and Ireland, and in the American churches where Scripture psalmody is exclusively used, is known by the name of the Scottish or Rouse’s version. The ground work of this version was laid by Francis Rous, or Rouse, and was intended both for the churches of England and Scotland. A committee of the church of Scotland having diligently compared it with the original Hebrew, sent it to the Presbyteries, and these with their observations to the original committee. This committee then sent it, with their observations on the remarks of the Presbyteries, to the commission of the General Assembly for public affairs. The whole having been carefully revised by the commission, was sent to the Provincial Synods, and through them again transmitted to the Presbyteries; and after being diligently considered, was at length sent up to the General Assembly. The version thus prepared was in the year 1649 received by the authority of the General Assembly, the highest ecclesiastical court in Scotland, and appointed by them to be sung in the public and social worship of God. See acts of Assembly, pp. 353, 428, 479, and Aiton’s life of Alex. Henderson. We would then conclude this historical sketch of psalms, by a quotation from Romaine’s works, vol. 8, p. 339. Speaking of Sternhold and Hopkins’ version, he says, "it is the word of God, and this version comes nearer the original than any I have seen, except the Scotch. Here is everything great, and noble, and divine, although not in Dr. Watts’ way or style. It is not, as good old Mr. Hall used to call it, Watts’ jingle." And again, the same celebrated divine says, "I want [i.e., lack] a name for that man, who should pretend that he could make better hymns than the Holy Ghost. It is just the same as if he was to write a new Bible, not only better than the old, but so much better, that the old may be thrown aside."
From all this then we would conclude, that the inspired songs contained in the book of psalms, are to be used exclusively in singing God’s praises in public and social worship.
In the Second place we shall reply to the objections usually advanced against the exclusive use of Scripture psalmody in the worship of God.
1st Objection. That the Scripture Psalms are typical, or speak of the typical services of the Old Testament dispensation, and were intended only for the worship of the temple.
Now surely no reader of the Bible will attempt to say, that the Psalms themselves were types; for neither the book of psalms, nor any other book of the Old Testament was a type of things to come although they frequently treat of typical things. If the book of Psalms was itself a type, then we say it would not be lawful to use it.
This objection is founded upon an erroneous supposition, viz: that what we sing in worship must be literally applied to ourselves personally. Now if this were true, then very few could have sung the psalms in Old Testament times, and yet all were required to sing them. Besides it this were true, the objection is equally again hymns of human composition; because none of these would start precisely the experiences of believers, or a whole congregation exactly one and the same time.
The objection however, may mean, that the Psalms speak of the typical services of the Old Testament dispensation, and not that the Psalms themselves are types. But the objector to be consistent, should not for the same reason, sing hymns founded upon the New Testament, because it frequently refers to the same types as the Old such for instance as when Christ is called our Passover; a Lamb slain, &c. Also, it speaks of the hidden manna, the Ark of the Testament, &c. And farther, this objection, if it has any weight in it against singing the Psalms of the Holy Spirit, may also be brought against the Redeemed in heaven, for they are represented as "singing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb"; Rev 15:3. It may however be said, that the book of psalms was only intended for the worship of the temple. But this we deny, and we challenge the objector to prove it. None has ever proved this, and a good reason is, because it cannot be done. The Psalms not only ascribe to God what was, but also what is, and what will be his praise through all eternity. If the Psalms were only intended for the worship of the temple, why did they not perish with the temple; and why did not the apostles in writing to the Gentiles warn us against using the psalms of the Old Testament, as well as against circumcising our children, and against observing the rites and ceremonies of the law? Why the reason is obvious, that designed the book of psalms for the New as well as for the Old Testament church, and to be used in singing his praises till the end of time.
2nd Objection. That the Psalms do not mention Christ Jesus. If the objection means, that the psalms do not mention the second person of the Trinity, then we say that he greatly errs, not knowing the Scriptures. Christ Jesus often quoted the psalms and applied them to himself, thus in Luke 24:44, he says, "All things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me." And also the writers of the New Testament apply them to him, thus in Acts. 2:25-28. Peter quotes Ps. 16:8-11, and refers it to Christ; he says, "For David speaketh concerning him, (Christ) I foresaw the Lord always before my face," &c.
But if the objection means, that the names Christ and Jesus, are not mentioned in the Hebrew of the psalms, we admit it, because these names are not Hebrew but Greek, Thus Jesus is, Jehovah saves, or Jehovah the Saviour, and this is the very thing that is predicated of Christ Jesus the Messiah. Also, the name Christ is in the corresponding Hebrew name given to the Lord Jesus in the 2d Psalm, and is actually translated "Christ," by Peter and John in Acts 4:26. "The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ." Consequently we have both Jesus and Christ in the Psalms. The book of psalms is full of Christ, and in the New Testament the inspired writers quote and apply it to Christ. Take a few examples, from Ps. 8:4-6. Paul in Heb. 2:6-9, proves his universal dominion; from Ps. 40:6-8, in Heb. 10:5-7, he proves the insufficiency of the legal sacrifices, and the perfection of Jesus: from Ps. 45:6, 7, in Heb. 1:10-12, he proves the Deity of Christ: and from Ps. 110:1, 4, in Heb. 1:13, and 5:6, he proves the kingly and priestly offices of the Redeemer, and so it is through the word of God, for no book of the Old Testament is quoted so often in the New as the book of psalms.
3rd Objection. That the psalms contain imprecations or curses against our enemies, and this is contrary to the spirit of the gospel.
Those who bring this objection will admit that the psalms are inspired, and therefore to bring it as an objection is to make it appear that one part of Scripture contradicts another. Is the objector prepared for this? and this is the same objection brought by Deists against the inspiration of the Scriptures in general.
But if the imprecations against enemies contained in the book of psalms be proof that they are at variance with the New Testament, then for the same reason the New Testament is at variance with itself. The Lord Jesus himself, who came to bless men in turning them groin their iniquity, and into whose lips, David in Ps. 45:2, says, "grace is poured," pronounced woes on his enemies, saying, "Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites," &c., and "Wo to thee Chorazin, wo to thee, Bethsaida," &c. Besides this, the most awful imprecation we have in the whole Bible is in the new Testament, where Paul says in 1 Cor. 16:22, respecting the enemies of Christ; "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." Now Maranatha is a Syriac phrase and signifies, "the Lord cometh." That is, let him be delivered up to final, irrevocable, and inexorable vengeance, when the Lord cometh. Also the Spirit of the just are represented in Rev. 6:10, as calling for the judgments of God to descend on the enemies of Christ and the church: they say, "how long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?"
Respecting however imprecations in the book of psalms, it may be remarked, that in the Hebrew language, as it wants the third person in the imperative mood, they may literally be translated as predictions.
But farther, the imprecations in the book of psalms are not the curses of David, as a private individual, against his private foes. They are those curses dictated by the Holy Spirit against the public enemies of God and his Anointed. Who does not pray to God for the downfall of Popery and Mahometan delusion? And yet when these systems of iniquity shall be overthrown should we not rejoice and praise God. Why the very redeemed in heaven are represented as singing God’s praises with gladness at the downfall of mystical Babylon: they are represented in Rev. 19:1-6, "Allelulia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God," &c.
4th Objection. That the Psalms of Scripture are obscure and can, not be easily understood.
This is the same objection that Deists and Papists bring against the Scriptures, and for which reason the laity should not read them. The grand argument used by the church of Rome against reading the scriptures, even the New Testament, is the very one that is here used by some against singing the inspired songs of God. Even admitting, that there are some things obscure, or difficult to be understood in the book of psalms, let us see if such is a sufficient reason why they should not be used in praising God. Nay, my friends, but this is one reason why the psalms should be more frequently used. By reading, studying, and singing them, we would soon brought to understand them better, and see more clearly and plainly, that they are the only psalmody, which has the authority of be used in his worship. The church of Rome quotes 2 Peter 3:16, for proof that the laity should not read the Scriptures, because says that in Paul’s epistles, there are some things "hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction." Now who we ask are they, who are here said to wrest the Scriptures? Why, they are those, Peter says, who are "unlearned," that is unlearned in the Scriptures; and hence this objection against singing the psalms, is one strong reason tot singing them more frequently.
Besides this. we ask what book there is in the New Testament that every christian clearly and fully comprehends? We venture to affirm, not one. But where is the individual so foolish as to argue that for this reason the books of the New Testament should be thrown aside, and others substituted in their place. Why this is a strong reason, why they should be more frequently read, and meditated upon, and prayed over. All admit, that there are difficulties and obscure things in the book of Revelation; but is it therefore to be erased from the canon of Scripture, and something of human composition substituted in its stead? No verily, but to be more read and meditated upon. Hence our Saviour says respecting it in Rev. 1:3, "Blessed is he that readeth," &c. So also, instead of the objection having any weight against the use of the scripture psalms in singing the praises of God, it is an argument for the exclusive use of them.
But we deny the truth of the objection, viz: that the scripture Psalms are obscure, and not easily understood. The book of Psalms is one of the plainest in the Old Testament, and the Spirit of God speaking in the psalms affirms this. Thus in Ps. 19:7-11; it is said, "The law of the Lord is perfect: converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple," &c. Also in Ps, 119:105, "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path," and v. 130, "The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple." The Scriptures themselves teach us, that they are perspicuous, and the scriptures of the New Testament tell us that this is one excellency of the Old Testament, and especially the hook of psalms. Now for proof of this read in Rom. 15:3, "For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me." But where is this written? Why in Ps. 69:9, "And the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me." Then see what the Spirit of God says about this in Rom. 15:4, whether it be obscure or not; "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning; that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope." Whether then are we to believe God or man; judge ye. Man says, the scripture psalms are obscure, and therefore not fit to be used in singing the praises of God. But no, replies the Holy Ghost, they "were written aforetime for our learning; that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope." And again the same thing is taught us in 2 Peter 1:19. "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts." Who then will dare to affirm, that the book of Psalms is obscure, and therefore should not be used in singing the praises of God, since the Almighty himself declares, that they were given expressly "for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures (the Scripture Psalms) might have hope." That is, the psalms were given us that we might know, what to hope for from God, even life everlasting; also, upon what grounds to hope, even the merits of Jesus Christ: and in what way, even by faith in his blood.
5th Objection. That the Psalms are full of expressions only suited to the temple worship; such as organs, harps, sacrifices; &c.. Passing over the instruments named in the book of psalms as that will come in order in our next discourse, we observe, that this objection against the singing of Scripture Psalms, will be upon the very same ground, and for the same reason an objection against using the New Testament in divine worship. Although the shadows are now departed, and the substance come, still such expressions are retained in the new Testament. Thus for example in. Rom. 12:1, Paul beseeches us to "present our bodies a living sacrifice, &c. Also it is said in Heb. 13:10, "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle." And in Heb. 11:19, it is said, "And the temple of God was opened in Heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament," &c. Now this last quoted passage refers to the new testament church, but what church of professed christians on earth, has in it literally "the ark of the Testimony." If then the book of psalms is to be set aside because there are in it expressions which were used in reference to the temple worship, so for the same reason the new Testament must be laid aside, and another of human invention substituted in its place.
But farther we observe, that such terms in the book of psalms as have a spiritual signification. Thus, Christ is our new Testament passover—the temple is the church of God—and the altar is the Lord Jesus Christ, and he is both the altar and the sacrifice, he sanctifies the gift. Hence, by the "temple of God opened in heaven,"' we mean, that as during the power of Antichrist, the church of God was shut up, but now that "the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ," it was again opened. And at its opening was seen "the ark of God’s testament." Now this of old was in the holy of holies, and in this ark were kept the tables of the law. Before however Josiah’s time, the law of God had been lost, but was then found; so in the reign of Antichrist, God’s law was set aside by their decrees and traditions, and the scriptures locked up from the people; but now that Messiah "has taken his great power, and reigned," they are again opened, and the command is "Search the Scriptures." This was heaven’s unspeakable privilege, and like the ark of the testament, was a token of the presence of the God of Jacob returning to his Israel, and of less peculiar favor for them through Jesus Christ the true propitiation. Now exactly on the same principle is it that we are to understand the expressions objected against in the book of psalms. Thus for example, when the Apostle in Eph. 5:19, enjoins upon us to sing psalms, he says, we are to sing them "making melody in our heart to the Lord." The meaning then of this simply is, that when the renewed heart is touched by the Holy Spirit its affections and desires are at once tuned for singing God’s praises, and the modulations of the voice giving utterance to the feelings of the soul, will produce "melody" as sweet to the ear of Jehovah, as that of old by either harp, organ, or stringed instruments. Instead then of the psalms not being suited for singing God’s praises because of such expressions, it is one of their spiritual beauties, and conveys most powerfully to the mind of the devout worshipper, that all the faculties and powers with which God has endowed us should be employed in worshipping him in spirit and in truth.
6th Objection. We pray in our own words, and why not praise God in the same.
We might content ourselves in replying to this objection by simply remarking, that the mind of God as revealed in the Scripture of truth gives us no warrant to sing Jehovah’s praises in hymns of, human composition. There is not in the whole volume of divine inspiration, a single command to make new psalms, nor a solitary instance where the Spirit of God is promised to aid us either in making psalms, or altering those already composed. But this is not the case with regard to prayer, or the preaching of the word. We have the promise of God that he will enable us to pray; thus in Zech. 12:10. "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication," &c. And again in Rom. 8:26. "We know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the spirit itself maketh intercession for us," &c. The same also is the case respecting the preaching of the word, God promises us in it divine aid; thus in Matt. 28:19 20. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, . . . . . . . and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." But there is no such promise given us to make hymns and sing them in public worship.
Besides this, the objection is based on a misunderstanding, it assumes that there is no difference between praying and praising. Now here is where the error lies; prayer belongs to man, and is the offering up of our desires to God, with confession of our sins; but praise belongs to God, and consists in ascribing to him every perfection and excellency Which essentially belongs to him alone. To praise a man is to ascribe to him something which he really and truly possesses, and so to praise God is to extol, and glorify him for what he is in himself. Now God is unchangeable, infinite, and eternal, "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning," and therefore the church needs not to change her songs of praise to suit the different dispensations, or changes of the times, but that once given her by the Holy Spirit is to be used in singing the Redeemer’s praises till the end of time.
7th Objection. If the book of Psalms is only to be used in praising God, why did some others, as Mary and Zacharias praise God in a new and different song.
We answer that they are not called psalms, nor hymns, nor spiritual songs; and of Zacharias it is said in Luke 1:67, that he "was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied." Hence it this is a divine warrant for making psalms or hymns, the person composing them must be able to prove that he was under the extraordinary influence of the Holy Spirit. But even suppose he did convince others that he was moved by the Holy Ghost, still that would not be sufficient authority for the church to use such hymns in praising God, because Mary and Zacharias only used them themselves, neither did both use the same expressions as we see from Luke 1:4-55, 68,-79. There was no command for the church to use them in public worship, nor any others to sing them in praising God.
It is also to be observed, that neither Mary nor Zacharias composed any new matter of praise, but the promise of God by the prophets being now fulfilled, they praised Jehovah for his truth and faithfulness in the promises. Besides, the expressions employed by them could not be intended as an addition to the book of psalms, or substitute for them, because the like had never before happened to them, and never will to any other till the end of time.
8th Objection. We have what is sufficient for salvation in the New Testament, but if the book of psalms is to be exclusively used in praising to God, then we should observe the ceremonial and judicial laws. This objection consists of two parts; 1st. That the new Testament is alone sufficient for salvation. Now if the expression "sufficient for salvation," means a sufficient rule of faith and practice, which God has given us, and which we are bound to observe, then we deny that the New Testament is alone sufficient, without the Old. For example, many parts of the New Testament cannot be clearly and fully understood without referring to the Old. And farther, there are some matters of faith and practice which are not contained in any part of the New Testament, but are alone revealed in the Old. How for instance, with only the New Testament, can we know the degrees of consanguinity within which marriage is prohibited? I defy any to know it merely by the New. Or how could any tell merely by the New Testament alone, how the covenant of works was broken, unless the Old had told us in Gen. 3:6, that it was by "eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil."
But the 2nd part of the objection is, that if we are to use exclusively the book of Psalms in praising God, then we should also observe the ceremonial and judicial laws. Now this objection is based on a false supposition, viz: that the singing of Scripture psalms is a ceremonial institution. But this we most positively deny, and we challenge any to prove that they are a part of the ceremonial institution. This has never yet been done, and we confidently affirm never can nor will.
But farther, the ceremonial law was ended in the coming of the Messiah; it was only the shadow of which Christ was the substance. And the judicial law had merely respect to the government of the Jewish nation, and the genealogies of their families. Hence when David’s Lord was come, the judicial law, except whatever was of a moral nature, ceased, as well as the ceremonial.
9th Objection. The book of Psalms should not be exclusively used in divine worship, because none of the psalms directly apply to either baptism, or the Lord’s supper.
Now if this objection means, that the subject matter of baptism or the Lord’s supper is not contained in the book of psalms; then we deny such a statement. The subject affair of both baptism and the Lord’s supper, is directly contained in the book of Psalms. Respecting baptism it is said in Ps. 51:5, 7, 9, 10, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me and I shall be whiter than the snow. Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me." Here we find is an acknowledgment of original sin, also the outward sign of baptism with water, and likewise the thing signified. Nay farther, so explicit is the psalms on the matter of baptism, that we have the very subjects of baptism referred to; thus in Ps. 8:2, it is said, "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength." The same thing also is the case as regards the Lord’s supper. Are, for instance, the sufferings of Christ exhibited to us in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper? so are they in the book of Psalms; read Ps. 22:1-21, at v. 14, 15, it is said, "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax: it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws: and thou hast brought me unto the dust of death." The same thing we have in Ps. 69:1-21, at v. 20, 21, it is said, "Reproach hath broken my heart, and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." Again, is Christ Jesus in the Lord’s supper set forth as suitable and abundant provision for our souls? So also is he in the book of Psalms; thus in Ps. 23:1, 5, it is said, "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over:" And in Ps. 36:8, "They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house,; and thou shalt make them drink of the river of thy pleasures." Also in Ps 63:5, "My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow and fatness," &c. And in Ps. 116:12-19, "I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord;" &c. If then the objection means, that the subject matter, or substance, of baptism and the Lord’s supper, is not in the book of Psalms, it is without foundation.
But if the objection means, that none of the psalms give us an account of the institution of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper; then we say, that objection is absurd, and contrary to reason. What! because baptism and the Lord’s supper, are not directly and expressly mentioned in the book of psalms, therefore none of them are applicable to the subject matter of these ordinances, and consequently the book of psalms should not be exclusively used in public worship. Now upon this same principle, the psalms were not adapted to the use of the Old Testament church, because neither circumcision nor the passover is expressly mentioned in the whole book of psalms. The objector would be wise above that which is written; and it is another proof, that whatever objection is advanced, against the exclusive use of the book of psalms in singing God’s praises, will be equally an objection against the whole volume of divine inspiration. Had the objector lived in the days of the prophets and Old Testament saints, he would then have deprived the church of God of the book of Psalms, and consequently of psalmody altogether.
But it is a cheering fact, that there are indications of the book of psalms being used as scripture psalmody in singing the praises of God in the church. Thus in the meeting of the General Assembly (O[ld] S[chool]) of the Presbyterian church, which met in the city of New Orleans, on the 6th of May, 1858, an overture from the Presbytery of Knoxville was presented, "asking that the Psalms of David, in Rouse’s version be published in the front part of our present hymn books," &c. And again the following resolution was unanimously adopted by said Assembly: "Resolved, 2. That it be recommended to all, and especially our ministers and churches in the South, to circulate, for examination and use, the Psalms in metre, according to the version used in the church of Scotland."
10th Objection. The 1st Psalm in the Scottish version states a falsehood, for no man is "perfectly blessed in this life." The prose translation is, "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly," but the Scottish version is, "That man hath perfect blessedness who walketh not astray," &c.
Now this objection, like most others, is founded either in ignorance or malice against the exclusive use of the Bible Psalms. Perhaps it is the offspring of both. 1st From ignorance of the Hebrew and its true and proper translation; and 2nd. The poisoned arrow of malice is thus shot against the psalms, from what through ignorance is affirmed to he a falsehood.
We affirm, that the Scottish metrical version, is nearer the original, than the prose translation. The metrical is "That man hath perfect blessedness," and these are really and truly the very words of the God of Heaven, as the penman wrote under the infallible direction and inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The Hebrew word is, asherai, and means, beatitudines, a plural noun, and literally in English signifies; blessednesses, or perfect blessedness, the very words in the metrical translation. And remember, this is not our own translation of the Hebrew, but some of the most celebrated Lexicographers and Hebrew scholars that ever adorned the pages of the literary world, translates it so; for instance, Stockius. He says, that the word used by the Spirit of God, denotes all kinds of felicity, both bodily and mental, temporal and eternal. And here we cannot do better in conclusion, than transcribe the words of a celebrated divine when writing on this verse of the psalm. "It implies," he says, "the certainty of the saints final perseverance, as well as their absolute and inalienable title to that blessedness, which from eternity, God, for Christ’s sake, covenanted to bestow upon them. The condition of the covenant, perfect obedience to the law, and full satisfaction to the justice of God has been performed by Christ:—the promissory part of the covenant, perfect blessedness to all for whom Jesus died, will not fail on the part of the Father. This perfect blessedness is secured to all the people of God, not because they persevere, but because Christ has atoned for their guilt, and now pleads for them, that their faith fail not: not because they are sinless, for then they would not need the intercession of the great High Priest; but because the blood of Christ has answered all the claims of justice against them for their sins. The Saviour is before the throne, and the sword of justice can never touch the Redeemed but through him. The law satisfied by his death, never can demand punishment again, for any of the sins of any of those for whom Christ died. God is not unjust, to forget His Beloved Son’s work, and labor of love, and agonizing death; to demand again a repayment of a debt already fully paid,—paid by a ransom, sufficient, had it been needed, and had God so willed it:, for the rescue of ten thousand worlds. The believer then, may truly be said to be perfectly blessed. He has the assurance of God’s favor, the promise of supporting grace, and perseverance and all the trials of earth, till death call him to glory. Inseparably united to the true vine, his leaf shall not wither. "Wo then, shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect"? We dare say they are not perfectly blessed? The blood of Christ has purchased for all his people this perfect blessedness; who then, or what then can deprive them of this inestimable possession? God’s people may sometimes be cast down under a sense of sin; in difficulty and danger, in want and in sickness, they may sometimes deem themselves forsaken:—but God changes not; the inheritance is still theirs Perfect blessedness, made over to the believer in the Bible, sealed with the seal of heaven, and ratified by the oath of the living God, is his sure portion. In the darkest hour, he hears the voice of a covenant God proclaiming in mercy,—"In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee." Leaning on promises then, and trusting in the love of a covenant God; the believer, instead of being left comfortless, hath in possession and prospect, perfect blessedness; and thus peaceful and happy, is enabled to go on his way rejoicing. Till you stand triumphant in the temple of heaven, the God of grace will not turn away from you to do you good."
"Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy excellency: The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms."
"Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things. And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory. Amen. and amen." Psalm 72:18, 19.
DISCOURSE
AGAINST THE
Use of Instrumental Music in Public Worship.
"I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the understanding also." 1 Cor. 14:15.
All subjects which relate to the peace of the church, the institutions of Jehovah, or the worship of his people, must be important and interesting to every lover of Zion. Psalmody, in its matter and form, has ever claimed, and deservedly obtained, a large share of christian attention. "God is a spirit; and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth." Every faculty of man should be consecrated to the service of his great Creator; and it is God’s own appointment that his people "come before his presence with singing," and that they "enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise." His people, from remotest ages, have celebrated his praises "in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs," and this is represented as "good, and pleasant, and comely." In celebrating, however, Jehovah’s praises, we are commanded to sing "making melody in our heart to the Lord." And as in all the parts of divine worship, we are to follow the "pattern" given us in the word, so in singing, we are to do it not mechanically, but "with grace in our hearts," for "to the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."Jehovah is a spiritual intelligence, and, therefore, incorporeal in his nature. As to his being, he is independent, self-existent, and, eternal—as to space, his ubiquity filleth all things, for "whither shall we flee from his Spirit? or whither shall we flee from his presence?"—as to knowledge, he is acquainted with all creatures and events, "for known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world"—and as to power, he can do all things, for "he spake and it was done, he commanded and all things stood, fast." He is holy, righteous, just and true; he is good, bountiful and gracious: merciful and compassionate. And in all his natural and moral attributes; in all his will, and mind, and ways, he is immutable. Seeing then that God is such in all his purposes, and ways and works; we must have respect to the divine will as the rule of our obedience, in singing his praises, and in showing forth his glory. It is not our fancies, or feelings, or impulses, or the conduct of others, that is to be our guide or standard in celebrating the praises of our great Redeemer, but the direct revelation of God. Indeed, on any other principle, the ministry would have been as needless, as it must have proved powerless. To render it availing, it was necessary that its appointment should be accompanied by a revelation from God, to which nothing was to be added, and from which nothing was to be taker, either as respects doctrine, worship, discipline, and government.
Mighty minds in successive ages, have roused all their gigantic powers to grapple with the system of divine worship contained in the Scriptures of truth. And no other part of public worship has been more tampered with than the celebrating in sacred songs the praises of a Triune God. This has been done both as regards the matter, and the manner of singing "psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs." Some have supposed that it is their duty to celebrate God’s praises in hymns of human composition, and others have imagined that organs and other instruments of music should be introduced in the public worship of the New Testament chinch. But a third class of christians relying on the absolute sufficiency and completeness of the divine word, and imitating the example of Christ and his Apostles in the purity, simplicity, and spirituality of Gospel worship, adhere exclusively to scripture psalmody, and reject the use of instrumental music in praising God, believing that to worship aright in spirit and in truth, we must "sing with grace and melody in our hearts to the Lord."
It is needless to say, that we claim to belong to the last class of christian worshippers, and while we are advocates for the exclusive use of the inspired book of psalms, or scripture psalmody in the church, we as strenuously reject the introduction of instrumental music in the worship of God. In giving then "a reason of the hope that is in us," among many others we would mention the following arguments against the use of instruments of music in singing God’s praises in the Assemblies of his saints.
And First, it is contrary to the covenanted and recognized standards of the Presbyterian church, both in the general principles, and spirit, as well as in the particular definitions and provisions thereof, to make any innovations and changes such as is practiced by using instruments of music in the public and stated worship of God.
Second, Those who attempt either publicly or secretly, to undermine and corrupt the purity of the church in faith or practice, by human inventions, or additions; such as the introduction of organs into the public and stated worship of God; ought to be able to prove that such innovations are not merely indifferent, but actually and indispensably necessary.
Third, The introduction of instrumental music into the public and stated worship of the church, for singing the praises of God, is in direct contradiction to the express will of Jehovah, as contained in his complete and positive institutions.
Fourth, The innovations of organs in the singing of God’s praises in public worship, is contrary to the fixed and settled principle of Christ and his Apostles in the New Testament, and to the customs and practices of the churches of the Reformation.
Fifth, Instrumental music formed no part of the Jewish ritual, nor ,as it used in the ordinary and stated worship of the Old Testament church.
Sixth, Consider the true and exact position occupied by instruments of music among the Jews in the days of David, Solomon, Hezekiah, and other Kings in Judah and Jerusalem.
First then; It is contrary to the covenanted and recognized standards of the Presbyterian church, both in the general principles, and spirit, as well as in the particular definitions and provisions thereof to make any innovations and changes such as is practiced by using instruments of music in the public and stated worship of God.
In the Westminster Confession of Faith it is said in chapter 21st and section 1st, "The acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture. Now show me that the use of instrumental music is "prescribed," or ordered, in celebrating the praises of God in the public and stated worship of the church, and then, but not till then, can they be allowed in the Assemblies of his saints. And at section 5th of same chapter, it is said, that "singing of psalms with grace in the heart," is a "part of the ordinary religious worship of God." But no allowance to use organs in the church is given, but merely to "sing with grace in the heart."
Also in the Larger Catechism, in answer to question 109th, "What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?" The answer is, "The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving any religious worship not instituted by God himself." . . . . . . . and "corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever." To Presbyterians then who are in the habit of using instrumental music in the worship of God, we would say, consider your ways, for unless yon are able satisfactorily to prove, that God in his word has commanded organs to be employed in the singing his praises, you do thereby subject yourselves to the displeasure of a jealous God, "for if any man shall add unto the prophecy of this book, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."
Again, in the Shorter Catechism, at question 51st, "What is forbidden in the second commandment?" The answer is, "The second commandment forbiddeth the worshipping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his word." Now prove to me, that instrumental music is "appointed" in the Scriptures, to be used in the. public worship of the New Testament church; and if you do so, then you have authority for what you practice, but if you cannot show any such authority, and we are confident you cannot, then you are guilty of a breach of the second commandment, and Jehovah affirms, "I The Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children."
And lastly here, in the directory for the public worship of God, it is said: "It is the duty of christians to praise God publicly, by singing of Psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family. And, in singing of Psalms, the voice is to be tunably and gravely ordered; but the chief care must be to sing with understanding, and with grace in the heart, making melody unto the Lord." Anything here about organs and instruments of music in praising God? No, but the very expressions employed show distinctly the exclusion of such trumpery in public worship.
That this is the real purport and intention of the standards of the Presbyterian church is evident from an act passed by the long Parliament during the sessions of the Westminster Assembly who composed these standards, and by their advice. It was decreed that the use of organs in churches was a part of idolatrous worship; and a command was issued ordering every one to be removed. That organs were an abomination to our venerable forefathers, who aided in composing, and who sanctioned these ecclesiastical standards, is an historical fact, established by the most indisputable authorities. Thus, Baillie, in Vol. 1, let. 43, p. 421, dated 18th February, 1644, among other things, says, "Paul’s and Westminster are purged of their images, organs, and all which gave offence"; &c. Also all the Commissioners at London, in the same year, 1644, among other things, in their letter of 20th May, thus express themselves: "The great organs at Paul’s and of Peter’s Westminster, are taken down; images, and many other monuments of idolatry, are defaced and abolished," &c. And likewise, the General Assembly, 1644, in their answer to the Right Rev. the Assembly of Divines in the church of England, thus say: "We were greatly refreshed to hear of the great good things the Lord hath wrought among you and for you. Many corruptions, as altars, images, and other monuments of idolatry and superstition, removed, defaced, and abolished; the service book in many places forsaken, and plain and powerful preaching set up; the great organs at Paul’s and Peter’s taken down; that the Royal chapel is purged and reformed; sacraments sincerely administered, and "according to the pattern on the mount." The use then of instrumental music in the worship of God having been thus formally and finally settled; it is not the province of this or that particular congregation to introduce, and take upon themselves to determine what the standards of the church have decided against. Neither is it for Presbyteries, Synods, or Assemblies, by the mere casting of votes, to alter any part of the scriptural worship of the New Testament church, or to introduce any changes in either the matter or manner of singing God’s praises. The Confession of Faith as the standard of the Presbyterian church, is not in the nature of a civil constitution, which may be amended, or altered at the caprice or whim, of this or the other individual; but it is in the nature of a covenant bond or testimony, written, sworn, and filed in a court of justice. By its decisions and statutes then, as these are founded upon and agreeable to the word of God, the church is to be guided respecting the use of instrumental music in public and stated worship; and this is the most effectual method of securing peace, edification, and purity in the church, as well as uniformity in religion.
Second, Those who attempt either publicly or privately, to undermine and corrupt the purity of the church in faith or practice, by human inventions, or additions; such as the introduction of organs into the public and stated worship of God; ought to be able to prove that such innovations are not merely indifferent, but actually and indispensably necessary.
It is a fundamental principle in Protestantism, and in the christianity of the Bible to reject everything of human addition, to God’s word, God’s ordinances, and God’s worship. Now unless it can be shown that the use of organs in public worship is of positive institution, and sanctioned by the Almighty, it must follow that it is a thing of human invention, and that those who advocate the use thereof are "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." That any will be so fool-hardy as affirm, that instrumental music is indispensably necessary in praising God in public worship, I presume not. This would be to say, that God has not been worshipped aright according to his own appointment for many centuries together. It would be one church un-churching another whilst in the bond of the same ecclesiastical communion. And it would be virtually to affirm, that God has left his church without a perfect pattern of worship, until the ingenuity of man discovered the flaw, and remedied the mistake. In other words, it would be to make God a liar, and say, "the wisdom of the world is wiser than the wisdom of God," it has supplied the defect by the necessary adjunct of organs, and other musical instruments in the stated and public worship of the church upon earth.
Few however will venture to assert that the use of instrumental music in the worship of God is absolutely and indispensably necessary; all they will affirm in justification of organs in singing God’s praises is, that it is a thing of indifference, a non-essential, and that it merely assists the congregation in singing. If then it is a matter of so little indifference, surely the real, general, and long established principle, faith, and practice of the church against them, are reasons sufficient why innovations should not be made in the mode of worship, merely for the sake of bringing in things indifferent. By the introduction of organs, in the stated and public worship of God, a change takes place from the simple and spiritual exercise of "singing with the spirit, and with the understanding," to a carnal and sensual service, and therefore it must be offensive and sinful in the sight of Heaven.
But still the advocates of instrumental music in the worship of God will reason thus; "Every thing which is non-essential may be tolerated: instrumental music is such, and therefore it may be justly, properly, and commendably used." Now in reply to this plausible, but sophistical argument, we only deem it necessary to say, that for this principle we should not require our congregations to be Presbyterians, because Presbyterianism is not essential to salvation. Neither should any require their congregations to be Methodists, Independents, or Episcopalians; because Methodism, Independency, or Episcopacy, are not essential to salvation. And hence we have the non-essential element exploded in doctrine, worship, and government; and in its room the heterogeneous medley, that salvation is of grace, and yet that it is not of grace; that there is a parity among the ministers of the gospel, and at the same time there is no parity: and that the diocesan bishop is superior to an itinerant preacher, or grave-digger, and yet that he is not superior.
But it is said, organs are only used in public worship to assist the congregation in singing God’s praises. If then such be a reasonable and justifiable excuse for the introduction of instrumental music; on the same principle, and for the same reason, why not introduce crucifixes and images of departed saints and angels, to assist the worshippers in their worship. Any argument that will go to justify the use of instrumental music in public worship, will equally support the superstitions of the church of Rome; and prove that baptism should be administered with chrism and salt, and that instead of singing psalms "with grace and melody in the heart," you may sing mass to a tune on the organ or fiddle.
Third, The introduction of instrumental music into the public and stated worship of the church, for singing the praises of Jehovah, is in direct contradiction to the express will of God, as contained in his complete and positive institutions.
In deciding this question we must be guided by the absolute sufficiency and completeness of the word of God. "The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture;" Con. of Faith, chap. i. sect. 10. Now it is by this test, viz: the scriptures of truth, as the infallible rule of faith, practice, and obedience, that the doctrines of men, are to be tried; and by this rule all controversies in religion and modes of worship must be determined. What we mean then is, that in deciding whether instrumental music should, or should not, be used in the stated and public worship of the New Testament church, the word of God is to be the absolute, infallible, and only rule. This is the peculiar property of the christian religion—its grand characteristic—that which distinguishes it from all other systems, and elevates it infinitely above human authority and resources. It is clothed in its own majesty; it travels on in its own strength: and it is independent alike of friends and of enemies.
In the Holy Scriptures we have the absolute, infallible, complete, and only rule respecting the doctrine, government, discipline, and worship of the church. And just as we are bound to believe the whole doctrine revealed in the word of God; so we are strictly to adhere to, and obey the ordinance of God, which Christ Jesus has set up in the form and order of his worship, without any right to add to, or take from the same. And any attempt to do so, either by the introduction of organs into public worship, or any other way not appointed in his word, whether designedly, ignorantly, or perversely done, is an encroachment on the divine headship of the Son of God, and a daring usurpation of his royal prerogative over his own heritage.
I presume that all lovers of the word of God—all Bible readers, and enlightened christians—will admit that the Lord Jesus Christ is King and Head of Zion hath therein instituted a stated public worship for his church, and to be observed by His professed disciples in the end of time. Now the several parts and particular modes and forms of said worship are as follows:—1st. The public reading of the scriptures with godly fear: Acts 15:21. Rev. 1:3. 2nd. the public preaching of the gospel, and hearing thereof, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence; Matt. 13:19. Acts 10:33. 2 Tim. 4:2. Heb. 4:2. 3rd. Public prayer to God: Acts 3:1, 16:13. Eph. 6:18. 4th. The due administration and we thy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; Matt 28:19. Acts 2:42. 1 Cor. 11:20, 23-34. 5th. Public praise of God by singing, or singing of psalms with grace in the heart: Eph. 5:19. Col. 3:15. 6th. Public benediction of the congregation: Num. 5:22-26. 2 Cor. 13:14. Examine then the whole word of God, and you will find that there is no other ordinary, stated, and public part or particular, of the divinely instituted worship of the New Testament church, but the six afore mentioned things, each and all of which are clearly defined, and held forth as of divine appointment. Since then this is the whole of the complete and positive institutions of God contained in the Scriptures of truth, respecting the public and stated worship of Christ’s church, to which nothing is to be added, and from which nothing is to be taken; we ask what authority has any man, or body of men, to alter any part of the matter, manner, or mode of said worship. Which, of the particular parts of the divinely instituted worship of God has any man a right to add to, or take from? Not one, the word of God being our complete and infallible rule. As well may you join with the public reading of the scriptures, the Targum, and Talmuds of the Jews; the Koran of Mahomet, or the bible of the Mormons, as the introduction of organs, or other instruments of music in singing the praises of God. As well may you add to the public preaching of the gospel, or justification by faith through the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, the necessity of penance, and a purgatory; as the adjunct of organs and bass-fiddles to celebrate the excellencies of a covenant God. With as good a grace you may as well in your public prayers to God, add prayers to departed saints and angels; or to the New Testament sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper, add the five bastard sacraments of the Romish church; as in vain to worship God by the innovations of organs, or an other way not appointed in his word. Where is the difference ask between corrupting, the word of God; the appointment of mediators besides the Lord Jesus Christ: or the adding to the sacraments of the church; and the praising God with "artificial noise of machinery," instead of singing "with the spirit, and the understanding, and making melody in our heart to the Lord." There is no difference, and the one as well as the other involves rebellion against the divine authority of Almighty God, and subjects to the woes denounced in the scriptures of truth.
Of all innovations into the church of Christ, that of organs is the most dangerous and fatal for corrupting the worship of God. It is in the singing of divine praises, that every human being can take a public, direct and active part. But by the introduction of organs, the worship of God is corrupted, the Lord Jesus Christ robbed of the public praises of his people, and the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty deprived of access to him in celebrating his glories. Besides this, we would observe that frequently things in themselves indifferent, or even commendable, become unlawful when they have been made instruments of dishonor to God, or grounds of temptation to men. Look for example to 2 Kings 18:4, where Hezekiah King of Judah gave orders to "brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it. And he called it Nehushtan." Now observe, this serpent was made according to divine appointment, by Moses in the wilderness, and the children of Israel brought it with them into the land of Canaan, and it was there kept as a memorial of the miracle wrought for them by looking to it. For this serpent they had a great veneration, both because it was made by Moses, and was a means in his time of healing the Israelites. Hence they imagined that it might be of some service to them in the worship of God; and Laniado says, that they were not guilty of idolatry in worshipping it, but merely used it in worship, supposing that what they did was for the honor of God. But good King Hezekiah perceiving that they were ensnared by it, "broke in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made," and by way of contempt called it "Nehushtan," which means brass. By this he taught them, that it was nothing but a mere piece of brass, and could therefore be of no service to them in divine things, or in worshipping God; and that it might no longer be a snare to them, or the worship of God be corrupted by it, he "broke it in pieces."
Now exactly so is it, that of all instruments of music, the organ is the very one that should not be used in the church of Jesus Christ. Like the brazen serpent it is the great engine in corrupting the praises of God, and has been of the grand devices of the Romish Church for seducing mankind to attend upon their superstitious and idolatrous worship. Unless then it can be shown that organs are positively necessary in themselves, or that their use in public worship is absolutely required by Jehovah in his word, we are led to conclude that they foster idolatry, corrupt the simplicity and purity of divine worship, are dishonoring to the God of Heaven, and ruinous to the best interests of immortal beings. Away then with such from the service of the living God, they are at best but the work of men’s hands, dumb idols, and the use of them in the public and stated worship of God, is only "worshipping and serving the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
Fourth, The innovations of organs in the singing of God’s praises in public worship, is contrary to the fixed and settled principle of Christ and his Apostles in the New Testament, and to the customs and practices of the churches of the Reformation.
In the New Testament we are told what we are to sing. and how to sing; but we do not find a single syllable about instrumental music being used in the worship of God. We are to sing "psalms, and hymns and spiritual songs," and to sing them "with the spirit and with the understanding also." No more should organs be used in singing God’s praises, than in praying to him. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 14:15, connects them together, and says, "I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." What use could an organ be to aid a man in prayer? and yet you may just as well sing prayers to God with musical instruments, as sing praise to him with them. The one would be as reasonable as the other but God would be dissatisfied with both, and they would be an abomination unto him. And take notice, that although organs are highly prized and "esteemed" by some in the public worship of God, yet Jesus Christ declares in Luke 16:15. that, "that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." And the Apostle Paul was of the same opinion when he affirmed that he would both pray and sing with the spirit, and with the understanding also. He would sing vocally, with his own spirit, that is, with his heart engaged in the work, with grace in it, and in the lively exercise of faith, hope and love; with spiritual light, knowledge, experience and judgment, which are, necessary to the discharge of this duty. But he would also sing, with the aid of the Spirit of God, which is needful to excite attention, assist meditation, enlighten the understanding, raise the affections, strengthen faith, and make a comfortable application of what is sung.
In the New Testament we have many examples of Christ and his Apostles meeting together with others for public worship, and in these assemblies we find them, reading the Scriptures—preaching the gospel—offering up prayer—administering the sacraments—and singing the praises of God; but never in one solitary instance do we read of organs, or any instruments of music being used by them. For proof of this read in Luke 4:16-22. 24:47. Acts 2:14-47. 3:12-26. 8:5. 13:14-52. 15:7. Eph. 3:8, 9. Heb. 10:25.
The singing of psalms, without the use of instrumental music, was enjoined under the Old Testament, as a part of the ordinary worship of God, and it is distinguished from ceremonial worship. Thus in, Ps, 69:30, 31. "I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving. This also shall please the Lord better than an ox or bullock that hath horns and hoofs." Now the name of God is himself, his perfections and attributes, which are to be praised by all his creatures, and especially his saints. But here it may mean, by the Messiah, who sung the praise of God with his disciples at the sacramental supper, and this being said to be done by a song agrees with Heb. 2:12, where the apostle speaking of Christ says: "I will declare thy name unto my brethren; in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee." These are the words of Christ Jesus addressed to his Father, whose name he promises to declare to his brethren, and he declares that it shall be done "in the midst of the church," in the stated and public worship of God; but how? not with organs, for he adds, "I will sing praise unto to thee," and this he did at the institution of the supper; hence in Matt. 26:30, it is said, "and when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives." This hymn was the Hallel which the Jews were obliged to sing on the night of the passover, and consisted of six psalms, viz: the 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, and 118. Think you then if it was the will of God that organs should be used in the ordinary worship of the church, that Jesus Christ would not have strictly adhered to it, seeing he was privy to all the counsels of the Father, and decimated that "one jot or tittle should in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Seeing then that Jesus Christ sung praises to God, and sung praises in psalms, or hymns, but never did make use of instrumental music in singing, how could he, if such had been used by the law or the prophets, say in Matt. 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
But further here we would observe, that the singing of psalms, is not only enjoyned under the Old Testament, but it is confirmed under the New, and sanctioned by the example of the Apostles, as well as by Christ himself, but never in a single instance by using musical instruments. Thus in Eph. 5:19, "speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." Here we see that "singing," is praising God with the voice, and is rightly performed when the heart and voice agree, for "singing and making melody in the heart" is singing with, or from the heart, and heartily to the glory of God. There is then, but the heart enjoyned by the Holy Spirit, to accompany the voice in singing the praises of God, and not an organ, or musical instrument of any kind. The same thing also we have in Col. 3:16. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." Here we find that the first necessary qualification to enable is to sing acceptably the praises of God is, that "the word of Christ should dwell richly in us." By the word of Christ here, we understand especially the gospel, of which Christ is the author as God, the preacher as man, and the subject-matter as God-man, and Mediator. It is the word of Jesus Christ, concerning him as our God, Redeemer, Saviour, Husband, Head, and King; concerning his person, offices, fulness, freeness, and fitness: concerning reconciliation, peace, and pardon by his blood, justification by his righteousness, and complete salvation through his obedience, sufferings and death. But how can "this word of Christ," thus dwell in a senseless, dumb organ. An organ has no heart for "the word of Christ to dwell in," hence the heart is far from him; whereas to sing acceptably, it must be "with grace in our hearts." That is with the assistance of Spirit and grace of God, and to spiritual profit and edification. Seeing then, that neither Christ, nor his Apostles made any mention or reference to instrumental music, their practice, in not using such music in worship, clearly and plainly proves, that it is not of divine authority in the gospel church, and that such was not in use in the days either of Christ, or the Apostles.
2nd. The introduction of organs in the singing of God’s praises in public worship is contrary to the customs and practices of the churches of the Reformation.
Respecting the use of instrumental music in public worship, we find no reference either in the apostolic or primitive churches. In fact, there was a total silence upon the subject for at least a period of 800 years. And Neander says, that it was not until the 8th century that the idea was first heard of. Instrumental music, in the worship of God, was not practised by the primitive christians, as is evident from church history. The organ was first introduced into the church service by Marianus Sanutus, in the year 1290; and the first that was known in the West, was one sent to Pepin, by Constantinus Copronymus, about the middle of the 8th century.
But that they were not used in the christian church in the primitive times, is attested by all the ancient writers with one consent. This I might easily show by a thousand testimonies, from Clement of Alexandria, Basil, Ambrose, Jerom, Augustine, Chrysostom, am many others; all of whom figuratively explain the passages of the Old Testament, which speak of musical instruments.
The testimony of Clement is, that musical instruments in worship is fitter things for beasts than for men. Basil says, he thought musical instruments unprofitable and hurtful. He calls them, the inventions of Jubal of the race of Cain. At page 955, he says, "In such vain arts, as the playing upon the harp, or pipe, as soon as the action ceases, the work itself vanishes. So that really, according to the Apostle’s expression, The end of those things is destruction." And again, at page 957, he says, "Laban was a lover of the harp and of music, with which he would have sent away Jacob: if thou hadst told me, said he, I would have sent thee away with mirth, and with songs, with tabret, and with harp. But the Patriarch avoided that music, as being a thing that would hinder his regarding the work of the Lord, and his considering the works of his hands." Isidore of Pelusium, who lived since Basil, held, that music was only allowed the Jews by the Almighty, in a way of condescension to their childishness; in book 2nd. and epistle 176, he says, "If God bore with the bloody sacrifices, because of men’s childishness at that time; why should you wonder, he bore with the music of an harp and a psaltery." It is evident then, that no musical instruments were used in the pure and primitive times of the church. It first became antichristian, before they were received. Even Bellarmine does not deny, that they were late brought into the church. He says; "The second ceremony, are the musical instruments, which began to be used in the service of the church, in the time of Pope Vitalian, about the year 600 as Platina relates out of the Pontifical; or as Aimonius rather thinks in book iv. chapter 114, after the year 820, in the time of Lewis the Pious." But farther we notice, that instruments of music were not used in public worship about the year 1250, as Thomas Aquinas is himself witness to. He says, "in the old law, God was praised both with musical instruments, and human voices. But the church does not use musical instruments to praise God, lest she should seem to judaize." Again, he says, "pipes are not to be used for teaching, nor any artificial instruments, as the harp, or the like: but whatsoever will make the hearers good men," &c. Also, Cardinal Cajectan in his voce musica says, "Tis to be observed, the church did not use organs in Thomas’ time. Whence, even to this day, the church of Rome does not use them in the Pope’s presence. And truly it will appear, that musical instruments are not to be suffered in the ecclesiastical offices we meet to perform; and so much the rather are they to be excluded, because God’s internal discipline exceeds all human disciplines, which rejected these kind of instruments."
But to return, in Justin Martyr’s works, at Quest. of Respons. ad Orthodox, Q. 107, we have this answer; "Plain singing is not childish, but only the singing with lifeless organs, with dancing, and cymbals, &c. Whence the use of such instruments, and other things fit for children, is laid aside and plain singing only retained."
Chrysostom also, who flourished in the 4th century, expresses his dislike for organs in worship; and says, Psalm 149, and 143. "But now, instead of organs, Christians must use the body to praise God." Again, Pareus in 1 Cor. 14:7, says, "In the christian church the mind must be incited to spiritual joy, not by pipes and trumpets, and timbrels, with which God formerly indulged his ancient people on account of the hardness of their hearts, but by psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs." Also Zepperus, de lege Mosaica, lib. 4. says, "Much less should that jarring, organic music, which produceth a gabbling of many voices, be allowed, with its pipes, and trumpets, and whistles, making our churches resound, nay bellow and roar." Again, Beza in Colloq. Mompelg. parte 2, p. 26, says, "If the Apostle justly prohibits the use of unknown tongues in the church, much less would he have tolerated these artificial musical performances, which are addressed to the ear only, and seldom strike the understanding, even of the performers themselves."
Likewise Calvin in Hom. 66, in 1 Sam. 18:1-9. p. 570, says, "Instrumental music was only tolerated, on account of the times and of the people. But in gospel times, we must not have recourse to these, unless we wish to destroy the evangelical perfection, and to obscure the meridian light, which we enjoy in Christ our Lord." And we find from Reform. Leg. de Div. offic, that the 32 commissioners appointed by Edward VI., the most eminent men then it England, complained of cathedral singing, and advised it to be laid aside.
Organs then, in the worship of God are but of recent origin, and the church of England when the innovation was attempted, had such an abhorrence to the practice, that we thus find her saying in the Apostolical Constitutions, Book viii. chapter 32, "If any come to the mystery of godliness, being a player upon a pipe, a lute, or an harp; let him leave it off, or be rejected;" and also in the Homilies of the church of England, we find in part 2nd, page 131, of the place and time of prayer, that when that church was "secured of such gay gazing sights," and "the false religion banished," some lamented and complained, saying, "Alas! gossip, what shall we now do at church, since all the saints are taken away; since all the goodly sights we were wont to have are gone; since we cannot hear the like piping, singing, chanting, and playing upon the organs as we could before? But, dearly beloved, we ought greatly to rejoice and give God thanks, that our churches are delivered from all those things which displeased God so sore, and filthily defiled his holy house, and his place of prayer." To this we would also add, that a great number of the ministers of the church of England, in the first convocation of Queen Elizabeth in 1562, earnestly labored to have organs, and that pompous theatrical way of singing laid aside, and only by one vote missed the carrying out. It is true, that organs are used by some foreign churches; but Hickman says, "They are laid aside by most of the Reformed churches; nor would they be retained among the Lutherans, unless they had forsaken their own Luther; and who by the confession of Eckard, "reckoned organs among the ensigns of Baal."
Also we would notice, that in the National Synod at Middleburgh, in the year 1581, and in the Synod of Holland and Zealand, in the .year 1594, it was resolved, "That they would endeavor to obtain of the magistrate the laying aside of organs, and the singing with them in the churches, even out of the time of worship, either before or after sermon."
Such authorities then as the foregoing, with many others of a like kind that might be adduced, go to prove that organs, and other instruments of music in singing God’s praises in public worship, are contrary to the customs and practices of the churches of the Reformation. But before concluding this part of our discourse, we would take the liberty of adducing one or two testimonies from writings of Roman Catholics. For be it remembered, that just as some honest Papists in these days are shocked with the Pope’s impious and newly-invented doctrine of the Immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, so many well-meaning ecclesiastics of the Romish church were much opposed to the innovation of organs into public worship. On this hear what Polydorus Virgilius says, in book vi. chapter 2, and page 379. "Now our singers make such a noise in our churches, that nothing can be heard, beside the sound of the voice; and they who come there are satisfied with the concert of music, which their ears itch for, and never mind the sense of the words. So that we are come to that pass, that the whole affair of religious worship is lodged in these singers; although, generally speaking, there is no sort of men more loose or wicked, and yet a good part of the people run to church, as to a theatre, to hear them bawl; they hire and encourage them; and look upon them as ornaments to the house of God.—Therefore, without doubt, it would be for the interests of religion, to cast these jackdaws out of the church."
Again, hear the opinion of Erasmus: "We have brought into our churches a certain operose and theatrical music; such a confused, disorderly chattering of words, as I hardly think was ever heard in any of the Grecian or Roman theatres. The church sings with the voice of trumpets, pipes and dulcimers; and human voices strive to bear their part with them. Men run to church as to a theatre, to have their ears tickled. And to this end organ-makers are hired with great salaries, and a company of boys, who waste all their time in learning these whining tones."
By the foregoing quotations then, from the Fathers, the Schoolmen, the Reformers, and others, we have the authority to assert, that the history of the church gives no countenance for the introduction of instrumental music into the public worship of God. But we would here also add some recent decisions of several branches of the Presbyterian church respecting the use of organs, where it had been attempted to introduce them, into public worship.
An organ having been used in the Presbyterian church, St. Andrews, Glasgow, Scotland, in the year 1807, the Presbytery of Glasgow in connection with the church of Scotland, condemned the practice, and at a meeting of said Presbytery, Nov. 4th, 1807, passed the following resolution; "That the Presbytery are of opinion, that the use of organs in the public worship of God is contrary to the law of the land, and to the law and constitution of our established church, and therefore prohibit it in all the churches and chapels within their bounds." Also, in the Synod of the Presbyterian church of Canada, in consequence of an organ having been introduced into the congregation in Brockville, the matter came up before Synod at its annual meetings in 1856, and 1857; and after long and mature consideration. Synod passed a resolution condemnatory of the use of organs in public worships and ordered said one to be immediately removed. Again, at a meeting of the Synod of the United Presbyterian church of Canada, held in Hamilton, June 1st, 1858; the following resolution on Instrumental music, was adopted:—"That the use of musical instruments in conducting the public worship of God is highly inexpedient, and order the Presbytery of London to use due diligence to see that the congregation of London cease from the practice complained of."
Also, the Synod of the United Presbyterian church of Scotland which met in Edinburgh, May 3d, 1858, condemned the use of instrumental music, in their churches in a series of resolutions. And finally, the Presbyterian church in England which met in Synod, in Manchester, on April 19th, 1858, the subject of Instrumental music in churches, called forth a debate of several sessions, and a resolution condemning the use of organs was adopted.
Here then we have four or five different branches of the Presbyterian church, both in the Old and New Worlds, and all, of late, condemning the use of Instrumental music in public worship. We have the Presbytery of Glasgow, in connection with the church of Scotland, in 1807; then the Synod of the Presbyterian church of Canada, in 1857; next, the Synod of the United Presbyterian church of Canada, in 1858; also, the Synod of the United Presbyterian church of Scotland, in 1858; and lastly, the Synod of the Presbyterian church of England, in 1858.
Seeing then clearly from the history of the church, that musical instruments of all kinds were excluded from public worship in the days of our Saviour, and his Apostles, and also from all the churches founded by the Apostles, for at least six or eight centuries after Christ; we would notice by way of application, the following particulars:—
1st. The innovation of organs into the public worship of Gods has ever been accompanied with the gradual defection and corruption of the clutch, in other respects; and has ever been opposed and protested against by the wisest, the greatest, and the best of God’s people, in every period of the New Testament church.
2nd. The several denominations of professing christians, who, at the Reformation opposed, and who still continue to oppose the introduction of organs in the singing of God’s praises, will be found on examination to be the most orthodox, and most faithful, and who adhere most closely to the doctrine, purity and simplicity of the gospel of Christ.
3d. Whatever changes have taken place in any of the Protestant denominations, since the Reformation, by the use of organs in public worship, is uniformly attended by other injurious inn