Bain Discourse III.

Page 77

DISCOURSE III.

(Col. iii. 16.)

---

1st. Objections to the Scripture Psalms answered.

2d. Arguments for the use of uninspired hymns answered. 3d. Objections to the use of uninspired songs in divine worship.

I AM deeply conscious that with fallen human nature, it is difficult to answer justly, impartially, candidly, objections and arguments against that which we approve and love; and that there is the same difficulty in offering objections to that which we disapprove; yet I sincerely desire to do both to-day, briefly, faithfully, affectionately, justly and impartially.

1. Objection. The first objection I shall mention as offered against the use of the Psalms in worship is, that they contain malevolent, and vengeful impre-

Page 78

cations, contrary to the spirit of the gospel; or, in other words, they are unchristian. Since delivering the preceding discourse, I received a letter containing this objection and citing Psalm lxix., 25th and 27th verses. To this I will add the 7th, 8th, and 10th verses of the 109th Psalm, and the 10th verse of Psalm 5th, often referred to as showing an unchristian spirit. Surround these objectors with implacable persecutors; and the cruel wrongs, ruthless, fiendish oppressions, will press out of their hearts importunate petitions for the righteous vengeance of God to interpose. Instances might be given of persons, who make this objection, praying, almost in the identical language of many of these Psalms, during our late cruel war. Again, some of Dr. Watt’s Psalms are not much softer, as page 168 of Presbyterian Collection shows:

“My foes to ruin shall be driven,

The shame of earth, the scorn of heaven.”

Page 79

Again, notice that my objector asserts that this language is vengeful, unchristian, contrary to the spirit of Christ. Now whose words are these in the Psalms. Is it simply David expressing his own feelings towards his enemies? Then it is censurable. No man has a right to cherish and express feelings which even appear to be malicious in him. But David says, 2 Sam. xxiii. 2: “The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.” My objector also professes to be an evangelical Christian, believes the inspiration of the Scriptures, the whole Bible—these Psalms as well as other portions—and will he say the sentiments and feelings of the Holy Spirit are unchristian and vengeful? Does this not border very closely on a breach of the Third Commandment? Again, we know from inspired authority, that Christ himself used the 69th, and 109th

Page 80

Psalms, they are his very words, spoken by his Spirit, ages before his incarnation, concerning his betrayer and his malicious, implacable foes. It is remarkable how often the 69th and 109th Psalms are quoted or referred to in the New Testament, and applied to Christ or his enemies. (Compare Psalms lxix. 9th, with Jno. ii. 17th, also Rom xv. 3d and 21st verses, with Matt xxvii. 34th, 48th, also verses 22d, 23d, with Rom. xi. 9, 10; also verse 24th, with Acts ii. 20; also Psalm cix., verse 3d, with Jno. xv. 24; also verse 8th, with Acts i. 16, 20.) Other places might be compared, but these make it manifest, that these Psalms are the language of the Holy Spirit, declaring beforehand the cruelty and malice of Christ’s malignant foes, and Christ’s petitions and judgments against them; and in singing them, we purpose to praise the awful justice and righteous judgments of our

Page 81

Divine Redeemer. And these Psalms teach us what is the doom of those who now become fierce foes against Christ and his kingdom, such as Voltaire, who it is said had for his motto “crush the wretch,” referring to Jesus. Now if any man is willing to say the Spirit of Christ is unchristian, and his petitions, declarations and judgments, are vengeful and malicious, he will have to reconcile this with his reverence for and approbation of Divine justice and mercy. It is one of the glories of these Psalms, that they utter such startling warnings and maledictions against unbelief, rebellion and all sin, as the blighting curse of the human race. Perhaps nothing has done so much to give a vigorous growth to, and put a brazen front on crime, to-day, as puling sentimentalism, unwise leniency and mock mercy. But elsewhere in the Scriptures you find similar expressions. If my objector will reconcile the

Page 82

14th, and 16th verses, of the 4th chap. of 2 Tim., it may give him a deliverance. In the 14th verse Paul says: “Alexander the Coppersmith did me much evil; the Lord reward him according to his works.” In the 16th verse he says: “At my first answer no man stood with me, I pray God it may not be laid to their charge.”

Then let him expound Paul’s language, 1 Cor. xvi. 22. “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed,” etc. Next, Rev. vi. 10, Rev. xviii. 4–6, and Rev. xix. 17, 18, then he may be able to reconcile the righteous Spirit of Christ in the Psalms, and the compassionate spirit of the man Christ Jesus, while engaged in his mediatorial work on earth, and may be able to praise the awful justice of him “to whom vengeance belongeth.” Ignorance of this portion of God’s Word, is the chief reason why any one makes

Page 83

this flagrantly unjust and perilous objection.

2d. It is objected that the Psalms speak of a Saviour to come. Whenever the objector can show a Psalm that speaks of a Saviour to come, it will be time enough to answer this. The very fact that there is no such Psalm is strong presumptive evidence that the Psalms were designed for this, the Christian dispensation. By examination you will find such Psalms as the 22d, 47th, 68th, 69th, instead of being in the future tense, or even in the present, are in the past tense; and except where Christ’s millennial, or final, judgment coming is referred to, the future tense is never used in reference to our Lord. If this objection was true, and was a sound one against their use now, would not the fact of these being in the past tense be a sound and fatal objection against their use in the Jewish Church? Could they

Page 84

sing in the past tense of what was yet unaccomplished? I reconcile it thus: Their singing in the past tense indicated that, to their faith, the redemption was as sure as if already perfected. We praise, in the past tense, him who has accomplished our salvation. This objection also savors strongly of ignorance.

3d. It is objected that the Psalms are encumbered with Jewish imagery, such as sacrifices, offerings, incense, altars, hyssop, etc. To this I answer:

First, that if it be a valid one, human hymns are open to the same objection; for instance, the Methodist Collection, p. 105:

“Thou very Paschal Lamb,

Whose blood for us was shed,

Through whom we out of bondage came,

Thy ransomed people lead.”

Same Collection, p 109:

“Thy offering still continues new,

Thy vesture keeps its crimson hue,

Thy priesthood still remains the same.”

Page 85

Disciple Book, p. 35:

“Hallelujah to the Lamb who has bled for our pardon,

We’ll praise him again when we pass over Jordan.”

Same Book, p. 423:

“Great God, where e’er we pitch our tent,

Let us an altar raise,

And there with humble frame present

Our sacrifice of praise.”

“On Jordan’s stormy banks I stand,” is just as Jewish as, “Do thou with hyssop sprinkle me.” And Dr. Watt’s “Before thine altar, Lord, my harp and song shall sound,” is just as ceremonial as, “Then will I to God’s altar go, to God my chiefest joy.”

I answer, second, this is just as applicable to Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, part of Ephesians, 1st Peter, Romans and Revelation, as to the Psalms. It is no reasonable objection at all.

4th. It is said the Psalms are not suited to days of revival. Now it

Page 86

admitted they were used exclusively in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, and those were eminently revival days. I think I have proved that they were used in the first days of the Christian dispensation, when, under the pentecostal effusion many thousands were converted. The Psalms alone were sung in the revival among the Waldenses in the Alpine valleys, and among the snowy mountains of Switzerland. In the great Protestant revival in France, the Psalms alone were sung. Says Lorimer in his “Church in France:” “In 1535, the Psalms of David were turned into verse by one of the popular poets of the day, and set to melodious music. This was attended with remarkable success. This one ordinance alone contributed mightily to the downfall of Popery and the propagation of the Gospel. No gentleman, professing the Reformed religion, would sit down at his table without praising

Page 87

God by singing. Yea, it was an especial part of their morning and evening worship to sing God’s praises.” These Psalms were the exclusive praise of the Scottish Church in her first and second Reformations. These sustained and rejoiced them in the glens and on the moors, and on the mountains and on the scaffold, and at the stake. The vast multitudes that waited on the preaching of Livingston, celebrated the Lord’s power with these Psalms, in that day when five hundred were converted under one sermon. When they gathered in their “Kirk yards,” “God’s Acre,” to hear the tender McCheyne and others, and continued their meetings till near midnight, they made the hours of darkness glad with none but these songs of God. The revived Churches in Ireland, in the days of the Bruces, Welshes, Cunninghams, Blairs and Livingston, when large districts were aroused and

Page 88

turned, almost as one man, to God, used nothing else but these Psalms. These Psalms were used in the revival under Edwards, the Tenants, and others in this country, from 1730 to 1740, which has been called “the most glorious and extensive revival of religion, and reformation of manners this country has ever known.” Webster calls these “the golden days when souls were enlightened with such a knowledge of Christ, as if the light of the sun had been seven-fold, as if the light of seven days had poured at once upon the worshipper with healing in every beam.” These Psalms have been tried in the most extensive and glorious revivals that have ever blessed the Church, and have not been found insufficient, and they will be found suitable for any revival that comes down. Those revivals that are gotten up may need something less divine.

5th. It is objected that the Psalms

Page 89

are hard to be understood. By a similar argument Romanism takes the whole Bible from the common people. It is too hard for them to understand. We admit the Psalms are characterised by an inexhaustible fulness, so they can instruct and feed the largest and most eminent intellectual and religious attainments, and never become stale or empty; but we deny that they are in any peculiar sense or degree obscure, or hard to be understood. With the exception of a few short passages, no other portion of the Bible is so intelligible and singularly clear. They are far from being so difficult as the first Epistle of John, or the Epistle to the Hebrews. With the pious they have ever been favorite reading, because of their transparent clearness, yet profound depths. They are like a pure, deep fountain. The learned Dr. Horsley says: “No Book of the Bible is so universally read, and

Page 90

any failure to understand them cannot be ascribed to any extraordinary obscurity in these sacred songs; for of all the prophetic parts of the Scriptures, they are certainly the most perspicuous.” The commentator Scott says: “Their use, both by ministers and people, will generally increase with the growing experience of the power of true religion in their hearts.” Their measureless fulness and depths feed the spiritual growth of those who read and sing them, until they reach the stature of perfect men and women in Christ. But take the production of an uninspired mind, and with very few exceptions, by one or two readings, it is drawn perfectly empty and dry, like an orange rind, ready to be thrown away. You may sing it, or listen to it sung again, for sake of the music, but never for nourishment. God designs you, through the study of his Word, to become strong,

Page 91

useful and joyous Christians. Therefore he gave you a Book that while furnishing food for babes in Christ, would bear the most profound study of the mightiest intellects. Study these Psalms until you can sing them with the spirit and understanding, and you will feed, and grow, and rejoice in their depths, and never complain that they have deep places where the greatest soul can bathe.

6th. It is objected that the Psalms are unsuitable for children. If this is so now, it must have been equally so when God first gave them to his church, and whatever force this objection has against the Psalms, it has against other portions of God’s Word. There is no evidence that the children of the Jews, of the Apostolic Church, of the French, Swiss, and Holland Reformed, and of our Scottish forefathers, were more deficient in Christian knowledge, than

Page 92

those who did not use the Psalms. There is no evidence that they lost anything by not having little religious songs. More than this, when we engage our children in the worship of God we want them to sing something which contains the truth, and the spirit of praise to the Lord, not such stuff as “I want to be an angel, and with the angels stand.” This utters simply a vain, foolish wish, for they have no prospect, or promise of ever becoming angels. They may become as the angels in reference to marrying; but I am persuaded the redeemed shall be higher than angels in glory with the Redeemer. “We will gather at the river,” is a very pretty song, and I love to hear it sung by groups of children, especially in the woods. The imagery is poetical, and sung to a suitable tune, it makes sweet music, but it has in it no more praise to God than “Rally round the flag boys,” or

Page 93

the “Old Oaken Bucket.” To praise God is to celebrate his infinite attributes and excellencies, as displayed in works of creation and redemption. The Plymouth Collection provides for the worship of children, Watt’s well-known cradle lullaby: “Hush, my dear, lie still and slumber.” This is certainly very fine while rocking the crib, but to sing it in the worship of God—! Another in the same collection is, “How doth the little busy bee improve each shining hour,” which is surely a sweet thing among the butter-cups; but to use it for praise in the ordinances of God’s worship is absurd, if not worse. By turning to an issue of the Independent, in 1869, you will find the judgment of the editor is, that much prepared for the children’s worship is little better than driveling nonsense. But Dr. Theodore L. Cuyler, says of the Psalms, “from childhood

Page 94

they have been my solace and my song on life’s journey.”

It would certainly be a very singular proceeding to demand that everything in God’s worship be adapted to the comprehension of the very young. Then numbers of the human hymns must be thrown away, for there are many that surely neither youths nor adults can understand, if they contain anything to be understood. On the same principle you must demand “a child’s Bible.” But it is not true that the Psalms are uninteresting to the young. Many of them are most attractive, and become, at a very early age, indelibly imprinted on the hearts of the children of the church. He who provided them knew the wants of children, and has met these wants in praise-songs which not only suit their young hearts, but grow up with them for the strength, food and comfort of their maturity and age.

Page 95

II. Having thus attempted to answer all the objections to the use of the Psalms which I have been able to reach, I now propose to reply briefly to some of the arguments offered for the use of human compositions in the worship of God.

1st. One says: I admit the warrant to use these Psalms; but we also have a right to make and use others! If you admit the truth, that God alone has a right to institute and direct in the ordinances of his worship, we ask where did you get that right? Can you present such a commission from the Spirit, as a Psalmist, as David did? If you claim the right without any specific warrant from the Lord, we ask where will you limit human inventions in the worship of God? Until you produce your authority we deny your right.

2d. Another says: We have a right to use such, because God has not for-

Page 96

bidden it. To this I reply: First, that the worship of the Virgin Mary is not forbidden, and perhaps many a Catholic would think he had considerable proof in favor of it, when quoting Luke i. 28, 48. “From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” Neither gambling, horse-racing, nor the seven sacraments, are directly forbidden.

I reply Second; that the want of Divine appointment in this case amounts to a prohibition.

3d. Another offers as an argument, the fact, that very excellent, pious and learned men have made and used these hymns in worship. To this I reply first, that the best of men are liable to do that which will dishonor God and injure the Church. Second, that we demand higher than human authority and example to direct us in the worship of God. Third, that many very excellent, pious and learned men never did, or

Page 97

would use uninspired hymns in Divine worship, and they are just as good examples to follow as those who did.

4th. Others offer as an argument, that those who use human hymns are the most numerous. Well, the Devil, I fear, can beat any and all of our denominations with such an argument. If truth is to be determined by numbers, then Mohammedanism and Paganism are nearest the truth. Further, it was not always so that worshippers with human hymns were the most numerous, the time was when the whole evangelical Church used only an inspired Psalmody, and it may be so again. You need not go very far back to find the time when the large body of the Protestant Church used nothing else, and going back to that time we might turn this argument against our opponents with all the power it has. But this is very little, for it is worth almost nothing

Page 98

on either side. The multitude is a dangerous guide in seeking after truth. But, say they, the numbers and growth of the hymn singing Churches proves that God blesses them, which he would not do if their practice was wrong? If the Lord should never bless his Church until she is perfect, she will never be blest. But he blesses her in spite of, or notwithstanding her imperfections.

5. It is argued that worshippers are allowed to compose their own prayers, in their own language, why not their songs of praise? To this I reply first, whether it be a duty or a right for every worshipper to compose his own songs for worship, it is a well known fact that few worshippers can do this; and the divine knowledge of this fact is, very likely, one reason he gave them a Psalm Book. If this congregation had to depend on itself for praise-songs, I suspect their homes, like too many others,

Page 99

would be very destitute of devotional melody, and this would be a quaker assembly, or else strain out some horrible driveling.

Second, the hymn singing denominations do not act consistently with this argument. They do not leave their people to furnish their praise matter, as they do their prayers. Nay more; they do not allow them to do it, but provide them with praise songs. Mr. James Gallagher, of the Old School Presbyterian Church, formerly of Cincinnati, compiled a hymn book; but the Assembly did not permit its use. The book their people use must be provided through the General Assembly, and have its imprimatur upon it. What would the Presbyterian people think, and say, if the General Assembly should collect a Book of prayers and require them to use it? How many congregations would adopt it? Their actions show

Page 100

that they discover a difference between prayer and praise. Rev. Dr. Miller, of the Presbyterian Church, once debated against prescribed forms of Prayer with Dr. Prideaux, of the Episcopal Church. The latter offered a similar argument to this; and in his work on Public Prayer, page 60, you will find Dr. Miller answers it thus: “With regard to the use made of the analogy between the preparation of psalms and hymns, and prayers, it is too weak and childish to be regarded as at all applicable. How is it possible for a worshiping assembly to unite in singing a psalm or hymn, unless the words and tune are previously agreed upon and known? In this case it is impossible to proceed a step without something prescribed and known beforehand. But all experience proves that no such prescribed form is needful in prayer.” With this argument we heartily agree,

Page 101

and accept it as a strong reason why God gave us an inspired Psalm Book, but did not give us an inspired Prayer Book. The Doctor here recognizes a difference between prayer and praise, and this difference clearly exposes the sophistry and fallacy of this argument. “Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God;” and our desires must change with our ever varying condition, necessities and wants; and our petitions must be framed in accordance with these. But praise is the celebrating of God’s attributes and infinite excellencies as revealed in his Word, Providence, and creative and gracious works, and as the Lord is unchangeable, “the same yesterday, to-day, and forever,” so the glory proper to be ascribed to his name, is ever the same. Whatever may be our situation, whether in prosperity or adversity, in joy or sorrow, still God is to be praised for what he is in himself,

Page 102

and for his glory displayed in works of creation, providence and redemption. In the “psalms, hymns, and songs,” of his Spirit, God has told us what ascriptions are becoming and due to his name, and we could know this only by revelation. Again, in social prayer one leads while others follow and unite silently in presenting the supplications, but in praise all simultaneously lift their voices together in extolling the name of God. Hence a written form is necessary, and because thus needful, God has provided his Church with a Book of Praises. If the Episcopalian could show in the word of God one hundred and fifty prayers, declared to be prepared by the Spirit for the Church’s use in prayer, would we not admit he had a strong argument for a “Prayer Book?” Now God commands all men every where to pray, yet he has furnished them no Prayer Book, but has promised the

Page 103

Spirit to help them in prayer. He has also commanded his people everywhere to praise him, yet has not promised his Spirit to help them to make praise songs. But knowing their necessities, he has furnished them a Book of Praises. This fact is proof, that God regards the ordinances of Prayer and Praise as in some respects different; and that we may not as lawfully use our own language in praise as in prayer. This argument is, therefore, without force, because the two things compared are so dissimilar. The claim for any Scripture warrant for such a use of uninspired hymns is answered in the first discourse.

III. The last point proposed here is to offer some direct objections against the use of uninspired composition in the instituted worship of God.

1st. Because they are totally without proper sanction and authority. We say the Psalms should be used because Di-

Page 104

vine sanction, example, and authority demand their use, and whenever we are shown such sanction and authority to use others, we shall yield without reserve, heartily believing the doctrine, that God alone has a right to prescribe in his ordinances. It will not do to say there is no positive prohibition, for in this case the want of a warrant amounts to a prohibition. Neither will it do to reply, you cannot show a positive command in the New Testament to continue the use of David’s Psalms; for if this were true, we answer:—An appointment once made by God needs no repetition to give it authority, unless at some time or in some way it has been repealed, which cannot be shown in respect to the Psalms. But one says, “are not many of our hymns, such as, Rock of ages cleft for me,” “Awake my soul in joyful lays,” “Nothing in my hands I bring,” etc., are these not just as sound

Page 105

in doctrine, and just as praiseful as the Psalms?” They are certainly beautiful, correct and devotional, and at certain times may certainly be sung with propriety and profit; but there is a distinction to be made between the ordinary use of song, and its use in the instituted ordinances of Divine worship. If you go to a neighbor’s table, he may set before you meat, potatoes, cake and coffee, but when you go to the Lord’s Table; you have no right to expect there anything but the bread and wine, which he has appointed. This argument from the human judgment of suitableness, would justify Nadab and Abihu’s incense offering. When objected to, they might have said, the common fire will burn the incense just as well, it will smell just as sweetly, the perfume will ascend just as high, we think it just as good. But God thought not; he had commanded the sacred fire to be used, and had not

Page 106

commanded the other. Now I am not comparing hymn singing with the sin of Nadab and Abihu, nor designing to teach that there is such guilt in it; yet who can say it is any less, by showing that such an argument would justify them. And I do wish to teach that unquestioning compliance with a Divine appointment is the very core of Christian obedience.

2d. I object to human composition in the worship of God because it is a most subtle and successful way of introducing error into the Church. It has done, and is now doing this. The first writer of hymns for divine worship, in the Christian era, is said to have been Bardesanes, a Gnostic. He wrote to oppose the doctrine of Christ’s Divinity. But we will hear the “Biblical Repertory;” it ought to be good authority on this subject, as its editors belong to a hymn singing denomination. They say “the

Page 107

Gnostic doctrines were poetic; and they were made popular and widely extended by the hymns and odes of Bardesanes, and those of his more distinguished son Harmonius.” Again, says the “Repertory,” alluding to the partisan use of songs, “thus one of the most sacred portions of worship, degenerated into the mere watch-word of a party, and the signal for strife and controversy.” Neander says, “Sectaries and heretical parties had recourse to church Psalmody to spread their own religious opinions.” From the days of Bardesanes to the present time you cannot find a sect spring up, that does not prepare songs to inculcate its peculiar tenets. From the hymn-book of any denomination can be learned its distinctive dogmas. The author of the book, “Voice of Christian Life in Song,” shows clearly that the worship of the Virgin Mary was introduced by hymns prepared for that pur-

Page 108

pose. But hymns and songs now used by the Protestant Churches contain and disseminate error. And here my witnesses shall all be from those who have used uninspired hymns. The “Glasgow Examiner” for September, 1852, speaking of the Hymn-Book of the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland, says, “it contains not a few very trashy productions.” Dr. McCook, of Belfast, says: “I never found a compilation of hymns which I could pronounce free from serious doctrinal error.” In 1838 the General Assembly, Old School, appointed a committee to revise their Hymn Book. In their report they say, “on a critical examination they found many hymns deficient in literary merit, some incorrect in doctrine, and many altogether unsuitable for the sanctuary as songs of praise.” If we take out the “many” that are deficient, the “some” that are incorrect, the “many” that are “alto-

Page 109

gether unsuitable,” how many will be left? It must have been a very sorry Hymn Book. But the one given to that church through the labors of this committee, the “Repertory” pronounces very little, if any, better, and many others agree in this opinion. A writer for the “Presbyterian” of Philadelphia, November, 1858, who signs himself S. D., and of whom the editor says: “He is a greatly respected correspondent, who has given the subject much consideration, says: “Our hymnology is far from perfection. It needs emending and purging. It abounds with hymns addressed to creatures, sinners, saints, angels, the living and the dead!” Most Protestants believe that addressing worship to any creature is idolatry; but S. D. says they do this! This writer further says: “These hymns are not the impassioned cry of an adoring soul calling on all things to praise and

Page 110

magnify the Lord. That is of the very essence of worship. But they reason, exhort, expostulate, promise, threaten. They moralize, soliloquize—sometimes eulogize. They sing to frail, sinful, dying men, not to the great God!” The same writer, in the same paper, November 27th, 1858, says, in worship, “they sing, now to God, now to creatures! What then? This: ‘Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.’ No creature, man or angel may share this honor. It belongs exclusively to God. The evil reaches our Hymn Book, it demands a material change in its character. Here they sing to creatures, there to God, thus practically teaching that the one is as right and becoming as the other.” These are certainly very grave charges against those who use them; but remember they are not mine, they are made by “a prophet of their own.” I

Page 111

might give from the same source many more, just as severe. But look at a few of the hymns themselves. In the Presbyterian Collection may be found these lines:

“Until my God in flesh I see

No comfort can I find.”

Then you have poor encouragement to ever expect comfort; he was in the flesh once, but never will be again. In 2 Cor. v. 16, Paul says, “yea though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.” And in the first Epistle 15th Chapter he says: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.” On p. 420, same Collection, is a hymn commencing thus:

“Thou art gone to the grave, we will not deplore

thee,” etc.

Now this is no praise to God; it is simply an address to a dead person! Another which is frequently used begins thus:

Page 112

“Sister, thou wast mild and lovely,” etc.

This is not praise to God, but praising and eulogizing a dead friend, in language, which, if allowed by poetic license, is certainly very extravagant license. Another found in many Hymn Books begins thus:

“Vital spark of heavenly flame

Quit, oh, quit this mortal frame.”

Adrian, one of the most brutal of the Roman Emperors, is said to have been the original author of it, but Pope by a free translation puts it into a modern and more Christian dress. It is a poetical, sublime and impassioned address of a dying man to his parting soul, but to offer it in worship to God is surely improper. In the Disciples or Christian Hymn Book, page 445, is one to the brook Kedron. “Thou sweet, gliding Kedron, by thy silver stream,” etc. Which may or may not be true concerning that little creek, and may be

Page 113

very creditable to the writer, as poetry, but not very creditable for any Christian to offer in worship to the great God. Another in the same Collection is for worshipping the Bible.

“The old fashioned Bible, the dear blessed Bible,

The Family Bible that lay on the stand!”

We certainly ought to love the truth it contains, and adore its author, but we have no inclination to worship the Book. If we had, it is forbidden. In the “Plymouth Collection for the use of Christian Congregations,” page 340, is one addressed to a dead infant:

“No bitter tears for thee be shed,

Blossom of being! seen and gone!”

No reference to a Creator in the whole hymn, nor any title of the Deity, it might do those who worship the dead, whether heroes, children, saints or angels, but not those who worship God. I might give you specimens, as S. D. says, of those addressed to every crea-

Page 114

ture living or dead, but will only give one more from this same Plymouth Collection, page 81; and if God’s buried could be disturbed by the sounds on earth, they certainly would be at its singing, by Protestant congregations. Knox, Calvin, Edwards, and others might turn over in their graves. It begins, “Why is thy face so lit with smiles, Mother of Jesus? Why?” Shades of all our protestant ancestors! have we gone back to the worship of the Virgin Mary?

That by the means of an uninspired hymnology serious error is successfully introduced into the Church, is a true and very weighty objection. We might offer the character of many of the hymn writers as an objection to the use of their production in Divine worship. Every Hymn Book is indebted to Universalists, Unitarians, Papists, and Infidels. They nearly all patronize Tom

Page 115

Moore, Bulfinch, Festus Baily, Miss Landon, Miss Martineau, Chapin, Furness and Pope. However grand and beautiful as poetry their compositions may be, we object to presenting the effusions of unbelieving, rebellious, polluted souls, as a sacrifice of praise to the holy God.

But say some, “why not use Watts’ psalms?” I reply, first, Watts does not profess to give us a translation of the Psalms, and clearly does not. He only claims to give an imitation. But hear what Dr. R. J. Breckinridge says of them: “We freely confess that for ourselves we consider the Paraphrase of the Psalms by Dr. Watts the most defective part of our Psalmody, and only more and more marvel that such a miserable attempt should have acquired so much reputation.” Now hear what Dr. George Junkin in his Lectures on Prophecy says: “Dr. Watts has attempted, pro-

Page 116

fessedly, to improve upon the sentiment, the very matter, and the order, and by various omissions and additions to fit the Psalms for Christian worship! This is unfair. If Pope had taken the same license with the poems of Homer, all the amateurs of Greek poetry in the world would have cried shame on the presumptuous intruder! But it is a pious and zealous Christian divine, who has taken this liberty with the songs of Zion, and almost the whole Church acquiesces in it! What would we think of the French poet, who should so mangle and transpose the torn limbs of the Paradise Lost, that Milton himself might meet his first born on the highway and not recognize it? And must this literary butchery be tolerated, because forsooth the victim is the inspired Psalmist? Why should the heaven taught bard be misrepresented? Let us rather have the songs of inspiration

Page 117

as God inspired them, as nearly as is possible, and consistent with the laws of English versification. God’s order of thought is doubtless best for his Church. If any one thinks he can write better spiritual songs than the sweet singer of Israel, let him do it; but let him not dress the savory meat which God hath prepared, until all the substance and savor are gone, and then present it to us as an imitation of David’s Psalms.” This is pretty severe on Mr. Watts, but justly deserved. We would much prefer to use Chapin, Furness, Moore & Co., unadulterated, because we abominate all imitations and shoddy work, in the worship of God. If a lady wishes to adorn her beauty with ornaments, let her put on the genuine gems of the mine, and not the tinsel gewgaws or tawdry of a dime or dollar store. So if the Church wishes to make her praises glorious, let her adorn them with the

Page 118

gold and diamonds of Heaven’s mine and mint. If a gentleman wishes to appear in rich garb, let him wear the genuine broad-cloth, and not the flimsy shoddy of a second-hand shop. Dr. Watts was too much of a Sabellian to compose songs for the worship of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Sabellians believe there is but one person in the Godhead, and the Son and Spirit are only powers, operations, or offices of the Deity. Says Dr. Ely of the Presbyterian Church, “that some of the writings of Dr. Watts were hostile to the real Deity of Christ, and to the doctrine of the Trinity is incontestable.” In the works of Dr. Isaac Watts, vol. 4., London edition, printed 1753, he says: “The Angel of the Old Testament, the Angel of God’s presence, was only the pre-existent soul of Christ, who afterwards took flesh and blood upon him, and was called Jesus Christ on earth.” Again he says, “this human soul of

Page 119

Jesus Christ, called Logos or Wisdom, God sometime before the creation of the world, created, generated, or caused to exist.” Again he says, “we may suppose the Deity of the second person of the Trinity to be an eternal principle in the Godhead.” Abundant evidence of this heresy can be found in this 4th vol., on pages 263, 255, 240, 209, and 59, and in his famous Anti-trinitarian Prayer on pages 641, 642.

3d. Another objection to the use of human composition in Divine worship is; they are and must of necessity be sectarian. When a man composes a hymn, of course he puts into it his own conception of God and his truth, and is very particular to give prominence to any tenet that distinguishes him from others. For this reason every denomination has its own Book, and one cannot use that of the other. The Presbyterian sings:

Page 120

“Conceived in sin, O, wretched state,

Before we draw our breath,

The first young pulse begins to beat

Iniquity and death.”

But the Methodist, and some others, cannot sing this, because it sets forth with such force the doctrine of original sin and total depravity. And I should certainly object to the poet’s way of stating it. Again the Presbyterian, or the Baptist sings:

“Behold the potter and the clay,

He forms his vessels as he please;

Such is our God, and such are we,

The subjects of his high decrees.”

“And grace was given us in him before the world began.” This the Methodist cannot sing because it teaches personal, eternal election. Then the Presbyterian, and perhaps the Methodist, also sings:

“Now our dear offspring are baptized

According to his word,

As Abraham his did circumcise

Obedient to the Lord.”

Page 121

Here the Baptists and the Disciples demur, saying we don’t believe baptism came in the room of circumcision, or that “obedient to the Lord,” children are baptized. So these strike up the hymns:

“He bade all those who did repent

Forthwith to be immersed.”

“Forsake your sins and be immersed

For near’s the reign of heaven.”

Then the Presbyterian sits dumb, and the Methodist raises the hymn:

“Thou didst for all mankind atone,

And standest now before the throne.”

But the Baptist and Presbyterian are both dumb. Did space permit, it would be easy to show that the Universalist, Congregationalist, Lutheran, etc., etc., etc., each and all worship by the use of their own peculiar dogmas. The question may be asked do they thus worship God or their own peculiar doctrines? Now against this I protest, as a lover of

Page 122

and petitioner for union among God’s children. There must be a unity of spirit; for Paul teaches to “keep the unity of the spirit,” and “speak the truth in love.” But this can never be while every one injects into the very core and central act of worship his own distinctive tenets. If an ecumenical council of the Protestant Church was called together to-day, they could not adopt a Hymn-Book in five years; for each would insist on his songs going in, and by the time they got through, the Book would be larger than Webster’s Unabridged, and every lady would need a wheel-barrow to carry it to church. We worship with a book of praises that has been in use more than ten times as long as any other in existence—almost 3,000 years—a book furnished by our Saviour through the inspiring influence of his Spirit; and in the coming unity of the Church, the only one that can be

Page 123

adopted; it may not be this particular version, but some true version of the songs of God.

We might offer several other objections, but let one more suffice for the present.

4th. The principle that advocates an uninspired Psalmody invades the divine prerogative in respect to his own ordinances. The distinctive and fundamental doctrine of Protestantism is, that the instituted ordinances of worship must be ordered by the clear requirements of Scripture. Abandon this principle, and you may take away the Word of God from the common people, introduce the Confessional and the Seven Sacraments. There will be no limit to human inventions in the Church. Now unless a clear warrant from God can be shown for this usage, then we believe it violates this important doctrine. Our own and some other portions of the Church,

Page 124

feeling that this principle is sacred and immeasurably important, attempt to bring persons to unite in a testimony for, and in defence of it; not from a desire or design to unchurch or condemn brethren in Christ, but to witness unitedly for our Master’s truth and prerogative. We accept the teachings of his servant when he says: “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.” May we all at last join in songs of perfect, everlasting praise!