Bain Discourse I.

Page 7

DISCOURSE I.

GOD’S LAW IN HIS OWN PRAISE.

“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. ii. 16. [sic]

---

MEMBERS of my congregation have requested me to preach on psalmody. This, with other reasons, induces me to present the subject at this time.

Some persons seem to deprecate the introduction of any controverted question into the pulpit, as if in itself unfriendly to a Christian spirit, the conversion of sinners and the best interests of the Church. This is a great mistake. Shall the public instructor be confined to truths, about which all agree?

Page 8

Then his field would be limited indeed, and the utility of such an office might well be questioned. While it is certainly true that controversy may be conducted in an unchristian spirit, and so as to injure the Church, yet in the present state of the Church, and the world, controversy is indispensable. So long as there is truth and error, right and wrong, in the world and the Church, there must be controversy for the sake of truth. Again, when any persons, or society of persons, accept and practice distinctive doctrines, it is their duty to give reasons for holding such tenets, because they are supposed to be held from convictions of their truthfulness. I have very little respect for any person, or society, that hold a doctrine for which they are unable, or unwilling, to give reasons and to defend, or for which they can give no better reason than that their fathers believed it, or the greatest number

Page 9

of people believe it. Now the United Presbyterian Church holds this doctrine, that the “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” spoken of in the text, are found in the Book of Psalms in the Scriptures, and that these only should be used in praising God, in the instituted ordinances of his worship, private, social and public, in as literal a version as can be obtained suitable for singing. Differing in this from a large majority of the Church at this time, it is her duty to give good reasons for her position. Therefore, not from a spirit of controversy, but from a sense of duty, I present this question—a duty to teach the people under my charge the doctrines of the Church, that they may hold them, not on the ground of tradition, nor simply on the testimony of the Church, but from evidence of their truthfulness. Those only are strong and useful members in any organization, who hold their

Page 10

tenets, whether political or religious, from conviction; I therefore desire the members of this congregation to understand the doctrines they profess, and to adhere to them from rational and scriptural evidence of their truthfulness.

Before entering upon the main question, I wish to notice a few assertions that are often made to confuse this discussion.

1st. It is frequently asserted that we will not admit to membership any who will not declare that singing human composition in divine worship is a sin; and that we reject from membership in the Church, those who do not believe this. Now this is simply ignorance or untruth. Like every other organized society, we have doctrines and laws, against which we forbid members to teach or practice. Does any one wish to become a member of the Church? the inquiry first is, as to the evidence of

Page 11

Christian character; second, is the candidate willing to abide by the laws and doctrines of the body while in membership? If so, the private opinion of the applicant concerning other matters, is not questioned. The Presbyterian Church teaches and practices the doctrine of infant Baptism, and sprinkling, as the mode for both infant and adult, and will not permit her members to teach contrary to this, or neglect the baptism of their children. Yet, would it be true to say the Old School Presbyterian Church would not receive persons, or would expel members, who would not declare they believed immersion and the neglect of infant Baptism were sins? In receiving members we are just like any other denomination that is consistent with its tenets and laws.

2d. By some it is said we forbid all singing of uninspired songs, as neither useful nor right. This is a most absurd

Page 12

and groundless assertion. Singing may be engaged in for various purposes; for the enjoyment of the performers, or the pleasure of the hearers; in such a case the hearers, or singers, may choose the songs they think will please most. Singing may be simply to instruct, or to awaken the soul to action. Then such songs as are judged best by men may do. Social gatherings, operas, political, musical, and other conventions; Sabbath-school and other picnics may certainly gratify their aesthetic, poetic, and musical tastes, choose expression for their devotional, patriotic, and affectional emotions. But when we come to praise God, in the instituted ordinances of his worship, we contend that only the songs which he has prepared and given his people should be used.

3d. It is often said we contend only for the exclusive use of Rouse’s version. It is, perhaps, scarcely worth while to

Page 13

deny this assertion. It has been denied times almost innumerable, and has been as often re-asserted. No amount of denial or other evidence seems to make any impression on those who assert it. If any one will take the trouble to examine the “History of the Westminster Assembly,” published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, which should be good authority on this subject, he will find the version we use was in the hands of a committee of that Assembly for two years, and much pains taken in revising it. It was then sent to Parliament, and then over to the Scottish General Assembly. It was nearly five years in the hands of two able committees of that Assembly, and the Presbyteries of that Church, undergoing a most searching examination and revision, and was then, in 1649, adopted as the Assembly’s version; “translated and diligently compared with the original

Page 14

text and former translations; more plain, smooth and agreeable to the text than any heretofore;” and we might truthfully add, “OR SINCE.” Now those who call this Rouse’s version, either expose their ignorance, or design, by an implied untruth, to ward off an argument they cannot answer. The controversy is not about versions. We now use the best there is: and if any one can furnish us one more literal, and one better adapted for singing, gladly will we use it. All the would-be witticisms and humor, about “evers, eds, shions and limping lines,” do not touch the question, Should we use the Scripture Psalms exclusively in the worship of God? We take the affirmative for the following reasons: First, because for this we have Divine example, sanction, authority, and an implied, if not a positive command. Even such a heathen as Socrates, taught that men could not worship the gods acceptably,

Page 15

unless the gods would teach them how they should be worshipped. So it is a distinguishing tenet of Protestantism, especially of Presbyterian Protestantism, that the Bible, God’s teaching, is the only, and infallible rule in ordaining and administering ordinances of Divine worship. In the standards of the Presbyterian Churches, the second commandment is said to require “the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed in his word;” and to “forbid the worshipping of God in any way not appointed in his word.”

Says the Westminster Confession, “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 devices of men, or any other way not prescribed in the Scriptures.” This principle is sustained by the Word,

Page 16

Says God, Deut. xii. 32, “Whatsoever thing I command you, that observe and do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish therefrom.” Says Jesus, Matthew xv. 9, “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Whether God’s will only, or man’s judgment and views of expediency, shall govern him, has ever been the great matter of controversy between man and his Maker. Man fell by opposing his will to God’s, and this continues the great master-sin of the world, and the animating principle of man’s whole rebellion. Our grand reason, therefore, for using these Psalms exclusively is, we believe it is God’s will. Through the instrumentality of inspired writers, God the Holy Spirit prepared these songs for the worship of his people. 2 Sam. xxiii. 1, 2: “David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of

Page 17

the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said, the Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.” Remember, David was under the spirit of inspiration when he called himself “the sweet psalmist of Israel;” therefore the Holy Spirit gave him this title to denote his office, and he was just as truly anointed to this as to that of King. (See 1 Sam. xvi. 12). In Acts the inspired Peter calls him a prophet as a type of Christ, one qualified to teach and testify concerning future events. The Holy Spirit calls him “the sweet psalmist,” because he employed him to pen psalms for the use of Israel, the Church. Now, unless the Holy Spirit designed to prepare these for his people’s use in worship, I can see no reason for appointing and qualifying a psalmist. Again, if God the Spirit prepared these for this purpose, this implies a command to use them. Again, if the same Divine

Page 18

Author has not abolished these, or prepared others to take their place, or to be added to them, it is very clearly taught that these are to be exclusively used for this purpose. Man cannot say how long God’s ordinances and appointments are to stand. God alone can be judge of this.

Another evidence that they were prepared for worship is, that in the titles they are inscribed to the chief musician, that is the person appointed to lead the music in the worship of God; see, for instances, Psalms 18th, 75th, 76th, 77th, 80th, &c.

Again, in the days of Hezekiah, we find their use required in such language as implies that they alone had been so authorized. 2 Chron. xxix. 30: “Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words of David.” Another fact is the inspired name given

Page 19

to the book, “Sepher Tehillim,” which is often rendered, “a book of praises.” No other part of the Old Testament is so frequently quoted in the New, and there it is called the Book of Psalms or praises. Our Saviour quotes it as the “βιβλος ψαλμων,” book of psalms or praises. And that the Saviour himself used them in worship, no Christian scholar will deny. Their being sung by the Redeemer’s tongue, confers a glory and worth upon them above anything human. If they were sufficient for him in worshipping his Father, they ought to be sufficient for his followers until he furnishes them something else.

The very matter of these Psalms—their form, their titles, everything about them—shows that God the Spirit prepared them for his people to use in his praise, and that they did so use them down to our Saviour’s advent, is a historical fact which none attempt to deny. Now, if they were so prepared by God,

Page 20

authorized and used, their use could never lawfully cease, unless they were in some way abrogated. I can conceive of but three ways by which they could be abrogated. 1st. An express repeal by God himself. For no Christian will claim that any one else could have the right to repeal. Where is the statute that repeals them? Name the chapter and verse. It is required of those who abandon them to show this, not of us to show any specific order continuing them to the present day; for no new enactment is needed to continue what God has once ordained, unless he himself has in some way annulled it. 2d. Another way of abrogation might be by limitation of the appointment. But where is any limitation of this kind? Not in the law of Moses, for the Psalms evidently do not belong to the ceremonial law. But few—probably only one or two—of them were written until that

Page 21

dispensation was nearly 700 years old. The book, as a book, was not completed until that system was 1000 years old. It was prepared so near the close of the old dispensation, it seems much more like it had been designed for the new, Messianic or Christian. The old was two thirds of its existence without it; so, if not prepared expressly for the new, it is evidently not limited to the Mosaic. The opinion of the illustrious Jonathan Edwards is that the preparation of the Psalms was a great “advancement in the affair of redemption, furnishing praise-songs for the Church for all ages to the end of the world.” There is evidently no limitation in the matter, for the 96th, 97th, 98th, 100th, and many other Psalms, are manifestly designed to be sung by the Gentiles of the whole world to the end of time. And the 2d, 22d, 47th, 68th, 69th, and many other Psalms, seem especially pre-

Page 22

pared to be sung after the incarnation and crucifixion.

There is but one other way by which the book could be repealed, that is, by a substitute. Where is it? You find no other songs prepared for New Testament times, no promise of a spirit of psalmody, no hint of any but those psalms, hymns and spiritual songs we have in God’s book. Therefore, my argument stands thus: God himself prepared songs for his Church to use in praising him, which certainly implies a command to use them. These songs are still preserved in the Church, not being abrogated either by repeal, limitation, or substitute, consequently there is still the same authority and obligation to use them in praising him. To show you that we have excellent company in these opinions, I quote from Dr. Jonathan Edwards, who is admitted by the Christian world to have had no superior

Page 23

in theology since the days of Paul. In his work on Redemption he says, “at this time God inspired David to show forth Christ and his redemption in Divine songs, which should be for the use of the Church in public worship, throughout all ages. The main subjects of these sweet songs, were the glorious things of the gospel; for whereas, before, for many ages, there was but here and there a prophecy of Christ in a great many ages, but here he is spoken of by David, his ancestor, abundantly, in multitudes of songs, speaking of his incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension into heaven, his satisfaction and intercession, his prophetical, kingly and priestly office, and his glorious benefits in this life, and that which is to come. All these things and many more concerning Christ and his redemption, are abundantly spoken of in the Book of Psalms. This was a glorious advancement in the

Page 24

affair of redemption, as God hereby gave his Church a Book of Divine songs for their use in that part of their public worship, namely, singing his praises throughout all ages to the end of the world. It is manifest the Book of Psalms was given of God for this end. The people of God were wont sometimes to worship God by singing songs to his praise before, as at the Red Sea, in Moses’s prophetical song in the 32d of Deut., and in those of Deborah, Barak, and Hannah, but now, first, did God commit to his Church a Book of Divine songs for their constant use.” So says the great Edwards.

Dr. James Addison Alexander says: “they were all intended to be permanently used in the public worship of God.” If there was not a word in the New Testament about psalmody and praise, we would still have sufficient warrant and obligation from God himself, to use

Page 25

the songs he prepared, and be without warrant to make or use any other. But we have a warrant and command in the New Testament to continue to use these “psalms, and hymns and spiritual songs” which God has given us. My text, and also Eph. v. 18, 19, contain this warrant and command. That the term psalms, in these passages, refers to this book of the Old Testament, there is scarcely any dispute. In the “Princeton Repertory,” vol. for 1829, this is admitted in an editorial. Olshausen in his comment on this passage, says, they refer to the Psalms of David; Bengel says the same. In truth, no respectable commentator questions it. But, say our opponents, the terms hymns and songs refer to something else of more recent date; to human composures sung in the worship of God. But we are unwilling to accept mere assertion; we ask proof. If other songs were used in the Church at that

Page 26

time, where are they now? If none of that date exist now, we ask proof that they ever existed. Who prepared them? Surely these Ephesians and Colossians, new converts from heathenism, would scarcely be qualified to prepare songs for divine worship. We have reason to conclude that the converts from heathenism were principally from the lower and middle classes. Says Paul, “not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called.” Is it probable they should prepare a psalmody for the Church? Did the Apostles prepare them? Then is it not strange we have no hint of this, and that they are all lost? Did the Holy Spirit qualify some one to prepare songs for the Church at that time? Then is it not stranger still that there should be no hint of this, and that they should all so utterly perish? He does not usually suffer his words and works to

Page 27

fall to the ground and disappear. Yet all these, if they ever existed, have so entirely disappeared that no subsequent writer or historian has so much as mentioned them. The first known composer of uninspired hymns, for divine worship, was Bardasenes of Edessa, a Gnostic, a zealous opponent of the divinity of Christ. He wrote in the second century. Only a few fragments of such hymns, now possessed, can be traced back of the time of Clement in the same century. There is not a particle of evidence that there were any Christian songs then used, except those in the Bible. But some very innocently argue that the fact of the names “hymns and songs” being used, is sufficient proof there were others besides those in the Scriptures; for there are no hymns and songs there! Very slight evidence is sufficient to establish what we wish to believe. Perhaps these persons can tell us the

Page 28

exact difference between a psalm and hymn, a hymn and a song, a song and a psalm; if so they never learned it from Webster, for he defines a song to be a hymn, a hymn to be a song, and a psalm a sacred song or hymn. Can they give any good reason why the terms hymns and songs should not be applied to the poems of the Bible? We shall show from Scripture and history that both these terms have been and are now so applied. In the Hebrew the Book itself is “Sepher Tehillim,” which may be translated, the “Book of Hymns,” “Hymn book;” the 145th is called in the original “Tehilla’l David,” which Gesenius translates “a hymn of David.” Dr. Gill says, in the Talmud they are called praises, “songs or hymns.” The three distinctive titles given them in the Hebrew are Mizmor, Tehilla, Shir, which the most eminent Hebrew scholars admit, is correctly translated psalm,

Page 29

hymn and song, so in your English Bibles you will find them variously entitled, psalm, or song, or a psalm-song, as Psalms 18th, 30th, 44th, 46th, etc. And in the Septuagint Greek translation, which was in use among Greek Christians at the time Paul wrote to the Ephesians and Colossians, they are called “psalmos humnos, and ode,” the very terms which the Apostle here uses. Now is it not morally certain, that when Paul writes to these Christians of Ephesus and Colosse, and speaking of the matter of their praise, using the very titles used in the Psalm Book they then had, they simply would understand him to refer to that book and to no other? When the Evangelist says, after supper our Saviour and his disciples “sung an hymn,” Dr. Adam Clark, an advocate for uninspired hymns, says, as to this hymn mentioned here, we know it was composed of Psalms from 113th to 118th. So say the

Page 30

great body of Biblical interpreters. The Old School Presbyterians now apply the name hymn to them, for they have the 23d and 100th Psalms in their collections under this title. There is nothing simpler or plainer than that when the Apostle used these terms he referred to the “psalms, hymns and songs” contained in the inspired book of Psalms. The most eminent Bible scholars and commentators are of this opinion. The great Edwards, Drs. Ridgely and Gill, Calvin, Beza, Macknight, Bloomfield, Brown, Horne, Durham, Daille, the celebrated Dr. Owen and twenty-five of the most illustrious divines of his day, (there were giants in Biblical learning in those days,) all agree in this opinion. So with this interpretation we are in excellent company. And here is a clear warrant, and we believe, a command to use in the worship of God only what he has prepared. Another proof that the

Page 31

Apostle, by these “psalms, hymns and songs,” referred to those prepared by God the Spirit, “the Book of Psalms,” is, that they are called “spiritual.” In Scripture this signifies that which is distinguished for excellence, purity and value, which is the immediate gift of God. (Consult Rom. i. 11, and xv. 27; 1 Cor. ii. 13, 14, 15; ix. 11, also xiv. 1–37; Col. i. 9.) Albert Barnes, in commenting on this word, “spiritual,” says: “The word must be used in the sense of supernatural, or that which is immediately given by God.” Give the word this meaning and what songs can it apply to, but those of inspiration? David, their composer, says, “the Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.” Another proof that the Apostle refers to inspired psalms, hymns and songs is, that he says by the use of such “the Word of Christ may dwell in us.” No song of

Page 32

uninspired man can be properly called the “Word of Christ.” But those in the Scriptures are the Word of Christ in the full and correct meaning of the expression. He is the great subject of them all. He is the true author of them all. Says Bishop Horsley, “David’s complaints against his enemies, are Messiah’s complaints of the unbelieving Jews, of heathen persecutors, and the apostate faction of the latter ages. David’s afflictions are Messiah’s sufferings; David’s penitential supplications are the Messiah’s supplications in agony; David’s songs of triumph and thanksgiving are Messiah’s songs of triumph and thanksgiving for his victory over sin, death and hell. There is not a page of this Book of Psalms in which the reader may not find his Saviour.” Then when the Apostle tells us to let “the Word of Christ dwell in us richly,” by teaching, admonishing and singing

Page 33

with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, he certainly intended we should use such as are truly entitled “the Word of Christ;” and such can be found only in the Bible. What would you think of a Christian saying he expected the “Word of Christ” to dwell in him by teaching and singing with Tom Moore’s “Lament to his sly mistress?” “Come ye disconsolate?” or with the effusions of Burns, Scott, Pierpont, Chapin, and the atheist Miss Martineau? Or such a gospel melody as this from Dr. Watts, book 1st, hymn 15:

“So Sampson when his hair was lost

Met the Philistines to his cost,

Shook his vain limbs in sad surprise,

Made feeble fight, and lost his eyes?”

Now this is neither physiologically, historically, or scripturally true; it is neither poetical, devotional, nor musical. True, it is not in the edition of his hymns now used, but it was once. Or take the verse beginning,

Page 34

“God builds and guards the British throne,

And makes it gracious as his own.”

Will this give the indwelling of Christ’s Word? Is it true, devotional and suitable for the worship of God? Would you like to be admonished by it? True, this is not now sung in the United States, for about 1775 or 1776 we found out the British throne was not quite so gracious as Jehovah’s. But sing, and teach, and admonish, by the sweetest, most musical, most orthodox and devotional, of Wesley, Watts, Barbauld, Dwight, etc., yet you cannot truthfully claim that it is “Christ’s Word,” and that you get an indwelling of his truth and obey the apostolic injunction by the use of such. When the Lord, by the Apostle, commands to teach, admonish and sing in the use of psalms, and hymns and spiritual songs, he requires the use of such as the Spirit of Christ prepared, that by these the indwelling

Page 35

of his word may be secured. This can be only by the use of a Scripture Psalmody.

The sum of the argument is this: God by his Spirit prepared these songs for his people’s use in worshipping him. This implies a command so to use them. They have never been in any way abrogated, but are continued with authority in the Church; Christ and his Apostles used them, and we, in using them, obey him and secure the spiritual indwelling of the Divine Word. “To obey is better than sacrifice,” and to praise the Lord according to his command, with the best we have, is better than smooth and faultless rhyme, harmonious rhythm, and charming music, without this. For in the one case we can rest upon a promise of acceptance, in the other we cannot. May the Lord lead all into truth concerning this matter.