Gibson Public Worship III.

CHAPTER III.

Alleged Scripture Authority for Human Hymns.

---

HAVING in two preceding chapters established the great principle that nothing is to be introduced into the worship of God but what is prescribed in Holy Scripture, and having reviewed some statements and principles affirmed by Dr Hamilton in his “Three Lectures,” we concluded by proposing next to examine what is the amount of Scripture authority, adduced by their advocates, for introducing human hymns into the public worship of God.

We said we should endeavour to give the answer, if not in their own words, at least as nearly so as our space would allow, merely premising that we call upon our readers to notice the true state of the question.

1. First, The question is not whether it is lawful in individuals to indite and sing hymns of their own composition for their own edification, or for individuals to sing the hymns of other men who did the same. Nor is it whether individuals, such as an old Earl of Derby, who had benefited from a hymn repeated to him by an old shampooing nurse; or whether Prince Albert or Dr Cunningham had received comfort on their deathbeds by a hymn or a paraphrase; or whether men have been even converted by such hymns. We are under no necessity of taking the negative, more than if the question were about the lawfulness and benefit of sermons in similar cases or circumstances.

Page 37

2. Second, The question is not whether it is lawful to turn into verse a prose portion of the Holy Scripture, and sing it either publicly or privately. That may be a question, but it is not at present the question. But believing as Dr Hamilton, we have seen, as well as others who advocate the use of human hymns in the public worship of God, that the Psalms of David are divine and the “best of hymn books,” and that “of devotional manuals there is none to be compared with the Psalter,” have we any scriptural warrant for setting it aside either in whole or in part, or substituting for it, or overlaying it with hundreds, nay, thousands, of human hymns in the public worship of God?

Perhaps these questions may be best answered by examining the arguments of those who take the affirmative, as all must do who, either in theory or in practice, defend and sanction the use of human hymns in the public worship of God.

The first writer in defence of human hymns whom we shall examine with a view to find any arguments from Scripture for adopting them, in whole or in part, either to set aside or supplement the “Psalter,” is Dr James Hamilton, in the “Three Lectures” already quoted.

We have a great deal in these lectures that is eloquent and beautiful, and expressive of pious and amiable feeling. There is much too that is plausible and ably stated; and, perhaps, as a pleading for human hymns, there is nothing of the kind to surpass it. We have, however, looked in vain for any attempt at direct Scripture proof that they are either “prescribed in Holy Scripture,” or warranted, or even allowed. This every man who defends the use of human hymns in the public worship of God, and has adopted and subscribed the Westminster Confession of

Page 38

Faith as the “confession of his faith,” is bound to attempt, and to satisfy himself and others that he has to some extent succeeded, before he has any right to claim the assent, or even attention, of others to any of his pleadings. Some of Dr Hamilton’s pleadings, and some of the strange statements in these lectures, we may have further occasion to notice in the sequel. Meantime our inquiry is, What Scripture proof does he adduce to vindicate the use of human hymns in the public worship of God?

1st, Negatively, he does not—and we cannot assign the reason—even quote Eph. v. 19, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs;” or Col. iii. 16, “Admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs;” still less does he attempt, like some others, to argue from these words for human hymns. We wish to believe that he was too well versed in their meaning and their applicancy to the Psalms of David to venture on any such critical attempt. But does Dr Hamilton make no attempt at direct Scripture proof?

The following is the only passage we can find making any show of it:—Lecture II., entitled “Hymnology from the early times till Luther,” commences as follows:—“From 1 Cor. xix. 26, it is evident that new songs were amongst the contributions which members of the Church offered to the common fund of edification, and for which they were sometimes only too anxious to obtain a hearing. These ‘psalms,’ whether improvised or prepared beforehand, the apostle does not condemn. In days of fervour and first love it was only natural that emotion should overflow in metrical compositions set to music; but it was essential that the proprieties of worship should be maintained, and that the Church should have the power of deciding what

Page 39

was and what was not unto edifying. The gift of sacred song, we believe, still lingers in the Church, like the gift of preaching and the gift of prayer, and any one who hath a psalm may publish it; but after it appears, it is for the Church to say whether it shall be adopted and sung, or passed over sub silentio. Of Christian hymns the New Testament contains only a single specimen (Rev. v. 9); but less than ten years after the death of the apostle John, in his famous Epistle to the Emperor Trajan, giving an account of the Christians and their customs, the younger Pliny mentions it as one of their usages to assemble early in the morning, and sing among themselves alternately a hymn to Christ as to God,” etc.

This is a somewhat curious passage. But what we have chiefly now to do with it is, to ascertain if it affords any scriptural authority for human hymns.

On reading the above quotation, and the reference to 1 Cor. xiv. 26, we certainly had some dreamy recollection that the words “new songs” were not in the passage, yet, confiding in the writer, we concluded we were mistaken; but when turning to the passage, we were not a little surprised on finding no such words, and certainly anything but an encouragement to introduce human hymns, either on private or public authority, into the worship of God. The verse occurs in a passage where the apostle is remonstrating with the Corinthians against certain proceedings which were not for “godly edifying,” and seems the reverse of encouraging them. He says (ver. 26), “How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.” Whatever was sung, and whether orderly

Page 40

or not, it was “a psalm,” and certainly affords anything but encouragement to human hymn-writers either to “improvise” or to publish them; and as certainly gives no more right to “the church” to decree hymns than to decree ceremonies for the public worship of God. Besides, the question may be asked, Where does the Scripture give authority to any kirk-session or presbytery, or even the English Presbyterian Church in Synod assembled, or any “church,” to decree or sanction either the one or the other? No such decree is necessary to authorise the singing of the Psalms of David. The Bible commands it.

It may further be asked, What authority has the writer for assuming that the “psalm” spoken of was either “improvised or prepared beforehand?” And if that could be done then, and not condemned by the apostle Paul, as the lecturer affirms, who shall condemn it now? If the argument be good, let any one go through with it, and let every one have a psalm, a doctrine, a tongue, a revelation now, as well as then, of his own composition or devisive utterance. The lecturer says further:—“Of Christian hymns, the New Testament contains only a single specimen (Rev. v. 9); but less than ten years after the death of the apostle John, in his famous Epistle to the Emperor Trajan,” etc. It was in the year 110, more than seventy years after the death of Christ. Still of this “famous epistle” more hereafter. But what is this “single specimen” of a Christian hymn in Rev. v. 9? Was it sung in a Christian congregation here on earth? Was it the hymn of an ordinary Christian, and a specimen of a human hymn, and warranting the congregation addressed in these lectures to sing human hymns in the public worship of God? It is none of all these. We cannot quote the whole passage;

Page 41

but it is part of the vision which John saw in heaven—not on earth, then, nor ever likely to be—“And they” (“the four beasts and four-and-twenty elders”) “sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, and hast made us unto our God kings and priests, and we shall reign on the earth.” The question whether this song might be sung is one thing, but whether it authorises the singing of human hymns in the public worship of God is another. However pleasing and sentimental such a style of writing as that quoted from Dr Hamilton may be, it is sad trifling with the Christian judgment of any congregation as an argument for their using human hymns to any amount or to any extent—if of five or six hundred, of course of as many thousands, if their minister or church can collect them.

This is the whole Scripture proof attempted in these “Three Lectures” by one of the most eloquent advocates for human hymns in the public worship of God.

Are there no other Scripture proofs adduced by other advocates of this practice in former or in present times?

As to former times, we find the following, which involves both an argument for human hymns and an answer at the same time. It is from the old book formerly referred to in a preceding chapter, and printed in the year 1663, and showing how little new our modern advocates for human hymns have been able to devise. The writer, in answer to his second question, “What we must sing,” says:—

“And this also is in the text (speaking to yourselves in psalms, etc.): We must sing nothing but spiritual songs to the Lord; but what these psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs are, is another question.

Page 42

“The greatest difference I find amongst interpreters is the difference between these; it being a matter of some difficulty to distinguish them, so as to determine precisely what are psalms, what hymns, and what spiritual songs.

“Many and various conceits of men I meet, with which I shall not trouble you withal, being the most of them very groundless. I know nothing more probable than this, viz., that psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs do answer to Mizmorim, Tehillim, and Shirim, which are the Hebrew names of David’s Psalms. All the Psalms together are called Tehillim, i.e., praises or songs of praise. Mizmor and Shir are the titles of many psalms—sometimes one and sometimes the other, and sometimes both joined together, as they know well who can read the original. Now, the apostle calling them by the same names by which the Greek translation (which the New Testament so much follows) renders the Hebrew as an argument that he means no other than David’s Psalms. Besides, when the New Testament quotes the Psalms, it means those of David, and so the apostle speaks as taking it for granted that they to whom he wrote knew what Psalm he meant. Sure I am that David’s Psalms are spiritual songs, if ever there were any spiritual songs in the world.

“Yea; but some will object that the apostle means, not David’s Psalms, but such spiritual songs as shall be, upon occasion, composed by some officer or member of the church; for as in the primitive times there were some who had a gift of psalms, so now also there are that have, if not the same, yet the like gift; and such new songs, they grant, may be sung, but not any other.”

This objection, the reader will remember, is in substance a part of the argument used in Dr Hamilton’s “Three Lectures;” and how is it disposed of 220 years ago? As follows:—

“1. In answer to this, I say first, that in the primitive churches some had a psalm or spiritual song, dictated and inspired by the Holy Ghost, though I dare not determine anything peremptorily concerning their manner of singing these psalms in the church.

“2. I say, if any have the same gift now, they may do well to show and use it for the benefit and edification of themselves and others. But I suppose no sober man will now pretend to any such extraordinary gift, which ceased in the church long

Page 43

since, as the gift of tongues, and other effects of the Spirit extraordinary.”

Had the good man who thus wrote upwards of 200 years ago lived now, he would have seen that we had men who professed to have the gift of tongues as well as the gift of song, which they think themselves warranted to propose and even prescribe for the public worship of God, and that even in Presbyterian churches. But though it is not done in the “Three Lectures,” and not even an attempt is there made to base an argument for human hymns about spiritual things on Scripture authority, yet the attempt is made by others, though wonderfully sparingly indeed. Still it is necessary to attend a little farther to this part of the subject. We deeply regret that our space forbids us to transfer to our pages, at any length, the full discussion of this and other points of this subject of the admirable little treatise entitled, “The True Psalmody,” etc. But as we write, not for the praise either of originality or of fine writing, but of establishing the truth on a deeply important subject, we shall avail ourselves of the following extract on this part of the argument. Under the heading—“Chap. III. Is there any warrant for making or using in the worship of God psalms or hymns other than those already provided by God for His church?” the writers say:—

“(3.) A warrant for the use of uninspired compositions is sought in Eph. v. 19, and Col. iii. 16; and on these the advocates of ‘hymns’ lay the greatest stress. That these passages will not bear the interpretation put upon them as enjoining or favouring the use of uninspired songs, is thus satisfactorily shown by Dr Cooper:—

“It is admitted by those who urge these passages as authorising the use of other songs than those contained in the Word of God, that the ‘psalms’ which we are here enjoined to sing are

Page 44

the psalms of inspiration. We have the highest authority for regarding it as an admitted fact that the psalms here referred to are the Psalms of David. We have the authority of the ‘Princeton Repertory’—a work published under the auspices, and sustained by the patronage, of the Old School Presbyterian Church, and edited by men of superior learning and talent. In the volume for 1829 the editors say, in an article entitled ‘The Sacred Poetry of the Early Christians,’ ‘We can hardly conceive it possible that the Psalms of David could have been so generally adopted in the churches, and so highly esteemed by the best of the fathers, unless they had been introduced and sanctioned by the apostles and inspired teachers.’ Again, they say: ‘It seems more correspondent to Scripture usage to consider the term psalms here as meaning the Book of Psalms, as used in Luke xxiv. 44, and equivalent to βίβλος ψαλμῶν, Luke xx. 42; Acts i. 20; to which the New Testament writers so frequently refer for prophecies, proofs, and illustrations of their facts and doctrines.’ In another part of the same article the reader will find the following remark, which will no doubt commend itself to his good sense: ‘As the first Christians were drawn from the synagogue, they naturally brought with them those songs of Zion which were associated with their earliest recollections and best feelings, and appropriated them to the services of the New Dispensation.’ Olshausen, in his Commentary on Eph. v. 19, says: ‘ψαλμοί (psalms) are probably here the Psalms of the Old Testament, which passed from the synagogue into the church service.’ Bengel also calls them the Psalms of David. In addition to this, we may adduce the fact that the book of Dr Watts is professedly made upon an admission that the psalms here mentioned by the apostle are somehow or other the Psalms of David; for we have in this collection one hundred and fifty psalms, which were doubtless made on this presumption. We, then, surely have the very best reasons for coming to the conclusion that all parties are agreed that the apostle here refers to the Psalms of David. Indeed, the denial of this would be attended with so many difficulties, that we do not apprehend that the friends of human compositions will be disposed to take any other position. We wish the reader, in the subsequent discussion, to bear this in mind.

“The true and only question, then, before us is, Have we any reason for supposing that the ‘hymns’ and ‘spiritual songs’ here mentioned are anything different from the ‘psalms’? It will not do to assume a difference. That difference must be proved in order to justify a resort to these passages, as authorising

Page 45

the use of anything else than the Book of Psalms. The reader will notice here that the burden of proof rests on those who take the position that the hymns and spiritual songs here mentioned are such as are not contained in the Word of God. Here is the very question at issue between us and our brethren. It is apprehended that multitudes interpret these passages under the force of their own practice, and the preconceived views upon which that practice is based. For instance, they are using, and have been from their earliest recollections using, a book containing religious devotional poems, under the distinct head of ‘psalms,’ bearing in point of number an exact correspondence with the divine collection, and also in point of sentiment some resemblance to it. In addition to these, there is also a large number that are published under the head of ‘hymns.’ As these are always called hymns, and the others psalms, the idea associated with the former word, as it occurs in these passages, is that they are something like what is found in their book. Very little reflection, however, must suffice to show any person, that as these passages were written by the apostle many centuries before the existence of any hymn book now in use, so we must go to some other source if we would ascertain the idea attached to this word by the apostle when directing us to sing not only psalms but hymns. The question for you, reader, to answer is just this: How do you know, and what reason have you to give, that the hymns mentioned by the apostle are not those which are contained in the Word of God, instead of this hymn book of yours, which was made ten, twenty, or fifty years ago? Now, if you can present nothing more than the simple fact that in your book they are called hymns, you must at once see that you have nothing that in the least affects the question of divine authority.

“Perhaps you will be ready to say, Are the ‘psalms and hymns and spiritual songs’ mentioned by the apostle only different names for the same things? Suppose we say yes. How will you prove that they are not? How will you prove that any one of the inspired collection is not a hymn or a spiritual song? If you deny it, be so good as to give a good reason for it. The only reason that I can conceive of as capable of being given by you is that they are called by different names. Well, be so good as to tell us the difference between statutes, and judgments, and commandments, in the following passage (1 Kings vi. 12): ‘If thou wilt walk in my statutes, and execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments, to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee.’ Here are different names, and do they not relate to the same things?

Page 46

Are not God’s statutes His judgments, and are they not both His commandments? But suppose we say no, they do not mean the same thing; psalms are not just the same as hymns, and hymns are not just the same as spiritual songs. What, then? Why, it appears that there is a difference. But the question still recurs, What is that difference? Is it the difference which exists between what is inspired and what is not inspired? Do you not plainly see that unless you prove such a difference as this, you have not touched the question at issue between us? We may imagine a thousand differences, but they have no relevancy to the point before us, unless they go to show that these names are designed to express what is inspired and what is not inspired. Now, reader, this you can never do. You may try it as long as you please, but you will fail in every effort. This you will see to be the case before we are through with the examination of this passage.

“Here we might with the greatest confidence leave the whole question; God has given to His church a book of praise, and a due regard for Him as its Author requires its use until those who offer us some other book, on the ground that He requires us to sing hymns and spiritual songs, show us that hymns and spiritual songs are not to be found in this book.”

For the full discussion of this point we must refer to the “True Psalmody” itself. But as the opinion of President (Jonathan) Edwards has sometimes been referred to in this discussion, if not actually adduced in favour of human hymns in the public worship of God, we shall here quote a passage from his works:—

“Another thing God did towards this work at that time was His inspiring 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. This was also a glorious advancement of the affair of redemption, as God hereby gave His Church a book of divine songs for their use in that part of their public worship, viz., 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. It was used in the Church of Israel by God’s appointment; this is manifest by the title of many of the Psalms, in which they are inscribed to the chief musician, i.e., to the man that was appointed to be the leader of divine songs in the temple in the public worship of Israel. So David is called the

Page 47

sweet Psalmist of Israel, because he penned psalms for the use of the Church of Israel; and accordingly we have an account that they were actually made use of in the Church of Israel for that end, even ages after David was dead; as 2 Chron. xxix. 30. ‘Moreover, Hezekiah, the king, and the princes, commanded the Levites to sing praises unto the Lord, with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer.’ And we find that the same are appointed in the New Testament to be made use of in the Christian Church in their worship. Eph. v. 19: ‘Speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs.’ So they have been, and will, to the end of the world, be made use of in the Church to celebrate the praises of God. The people of God were wont sometimes to worship God by singing songs to His praise before, as they did at the Red Sea; and they had Moses’ prophetical song, in the 32d chapter of Deuteronomy, committed to them for that end; and Deborah, Barak, and Hannah sung praises to God; but now first did God commit to His Church a book of divine songs for constant use.”*

On the meaning of the phrase “spiritual songs,” in Eph. v. 19, and Col. iii. 16, we beg to quote another passage from an authority who will not be accused of having any prejudice against the use of hymns. It is extracted from a passage in the work entitled “True Psalmody.” The writers say (p. 85):—

“In the preceding remarks we have looked simply at the names employed by the apostle in designating that which he would have these Ephesians and Colossians to sing. We now request the reader to give us his attention while we present to his consideration some additional evidence, drawn from the language employed by the apostle in connection with the use of these three terms.

“(a.) These songs are called ‘spiritual songs,’ (‘ᾠδαὶ πνευματικαί.’) The heathen made use of odes. In order to distinguish those which the apostle would have them to use, he calls them ‘spiritual.’ Now we apprehend that there is in the use of this term a proof that the songs referred to by the apostle were those contained in the Scriptures. If the reader will take the pains, as we have done, to examine those places in the New Testament Scriptures where this word occurs, he will find that in every instance where the reference is not to created spirits, there is a distinct reference

_____

* Edwards’ Works, vol. iii., pp. 230–232. N.Y. ed., 1829.

Page 48

to the Spirit of God as the author of that to which the term is applied. Thus ‘spiritual gifts’ are such as are communicated directly by the Spirit. We shall here quote the words of Mr Barnes on the word ‘spiritual,’ as it occurs in 1 Cor. x. 3, 4: ‘And did all eat of the same spiritual meat, and did all drink of the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them.’ ‘The word spiritual here,’ says Mr Barnes, ‘is evidently used to denote that which was given by the Spirit, or by God; that which was the result of His miraculous gift, and which was not the gross food on which men are usually supported. It had an excellency and value from the fact that it was the immediate gift of God, and thus called angel’s food, (Ps. lxxviii. 25.) It is called by Josephus “divine and extraordinary food,” (Antiq. iii. 1.) In the language of the Scriptures, that which is distinguished for excellence, which is the immediate gift of God, which is unlike that which is gross, and of earthly origin, is called spiritual, to denote its purity, value, and excellence; compare Rom. vii. 14; 1 Cor. iii. 1; xv. 34–46; Eph. i. 3. The idea of Paul here is, “that all the Israelites were nourished and supported in this remarkable manner by food given directly by God.” Again he says, “The word spiritual must be used in the sense of supernatural, or that which is immediately given by God.” In addition to the passages to which Mr Barnes refers, let the reader consult Rom. i. 11; xv. 27; 1 Cor. ii. 13–15; ix. 11; xii. 1; xiv. 1–37; Gal. vi. 1; Col. i. 9. Now let this meaning be attached to the word in the passage before us, and we are brought to the conclusion that the songs here referred to by the apostle are those which were “given by the Spirit, or by God,” which were “not produced in the ordinary way,” but which were “bestowed in a miraculous and supernatural manner;” and where will we find such songs, but those which are contained in the Scriptures? In singing the Psalms of David, we know that we are singing such songs, for He himself tells us that “the Spirit of the Lord spake by him, and His word was on his tongue.” That this is the import of the word spiritual, as here used, is rendered highly probable from the circumstance that the apostle has expressly mentioned the Holy Spirit in the same sentence.

“(b.) Another reason for this interpretation is, that the apostle directs to the use of these ‘psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs,’ as the means of being ‘filled with the Spirit.’ Now, is not the word of God, the very word of God, the means which He makes use of in filling the hearts of His people? When the Saviour prayed that the Father would sanctify His disciples

Page 49

through His truth, He adds, ‘Thy word is truth.’ There we must go, if we would be filled with the Spirit. Out of these living wells we must draw water with which to refresh our souls.”

The only other attempt at Scriptural argument is in an article in the Encyclopædia Britannica, quoted by Dr Hamilton, justly praised also at p. 31 of his “Three Lectures,” and ascribed to the late Rev. James D. Burns, of Hampstead. We suspect that it is from this article that some Free Church advocates of human hymns derive what they call an argument for them from the writings of the apostle Paul. Dr Hamilton does not, however, use the argument for any such purpose. The writer says:—“At what period hymns distinctively Christian were introduced into evangelical worship cannot be exactly ascertained. The apostolic writings speak of ‘psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs,’ and the last of these expressions has been supposed to refer to the doxologies or fervent strains of thanksgiving uttered by those who possessed spiritual gifts. We learn from Philo (De Vit. Contemplat.) that ‘hymns of their own composition were used by the Essenes or Therapeutæ, a sect of Jewish ascetics, in their religious assemblies.’ There is no Scriptural argument here, it will be admitted, for the use of human hymns in the public worship of God. But the writer adds:—“Michaelis and others think they discover fragments of apostolic hymns in such passages as Eph. v. 14; 1 Tim. iii. 1–16; 2 Tim. ii. 11, which have a kind of rhythmical flow.” We have then a reference to “The famous letter of Pliny,” of which more in the sequel. But what are the words of the passages to which reference is thus made? The first is—“Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” The second is—“If a man desire the office of

Page 50

a bishop, he desireth a good work.” The third is—“And, without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” The last is—“It is a faithful saying: for if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him.”

We hardly think it necessary to trouble our readers with the Greek of these passages. We have looked at them in Alford’s edition of the Greek Testament, and glanced at his notes. But he nowhere makes such a use of them as some of those do to whom we have referred, and gives no weight to the conjectures on this point which several writers have indulged in. If by “rhythmical flow” is meant euphonious Greek, we cordially assent. But we engage to find hymns in every chapter, if not verse, of Paul’s epistles, if we be indulged in such a fancy.

So much for the support of Scripture to justify Presbyterian ministers in using human hymns in the public worship of God, after they have solemnly engaged that nothing is to be introduced into it but what is prescribed in Holy Scripture. Of course we do not affirm that we have adverted to all their reasonings from alleged Bible principles; but we have adverted to all the Scripture texts in proof. Hereafter we shall take up and discuss briefly the alleged historical argument, or argument from early tradition.