Gibson Public Worship IV.

Page 51

CHAPTER IV.

Historical Argument for Human Hymns.

---

WE concluded our last by intimating that we should next take up the historical argument alleged for the use of human hymns, in the public worship of God.

Having, as we think, clearly proved the total want of authority, or of even appearance of authority, from Scripture, for the use of human hymns in the public worship of the sanctuary, we might fairly, on the ground of the doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith, refuse to enter on this alleged historical argument. That doctrine is that—“The acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in Holy Scripture.” This is the doctrine received, so far as we have ever heard, without qualification, in any public document of any Presbyterian Church, and here then the question might terminate. But as the advocates for human hymns in public worship make a good deal of the historic argument, we must give it a hearing, and test its value.

Let it be observed, however, that unless a historical connexion with Bible proof and authority can be made out, it is not only of no value, but it is worse. It is pernicious. It can only be of weight with Tractarians. True Protestants admit the validity of historic fact to silence objectors to

Page 52

Bible testimony—to confirm a Bible proof, not to them, for they need no such confirmation, but to confirm it to those who doubt or question it. Without the Scripture proof, the historic, whether more near or more remote, is neither more nor less than pure Tractarianism, Popery, Tradition, and the Fathers. We wonder that any intelligent Protestant can imagine that the practice of the early Church, without connecting it with Bible fact and testimony, can be of the slightest weight as authority to determine a Bible question. Still more do we wonder that any Presbyterian Church, and especially do we wonder that any committee of the Free Church General Assembly, on the question of the use of hymns in Divine worship, should have appointed a sub-committee of learned doctors and professors of divinity and of Church history to report on such a point. So it is, however; and at the time we write, they have been engaged in this very useless, if not pernicious occupation, for nearly two years—pernicious, we say, if it imply the principle that mere primitive Church practice, outside Scripture fact and history, is to be allowed any weight in determining so important a question.

If, however, it turn out that there is neither Scripture authority, nor even any practice, that in any proper sense can be called primitive—say even in the first century, and none till the time when vast corruption had invaded the Church, indicating the rise of human hymns in the Christian public worship—then we are entitled to conclude that the negative voice of history is fatal to the plea of the advocates of human hymns, and indeed becomes a positive testimony against their use.

Let us then consider what history teaches. We may re-quote the words of Dr James Hamilton to begin with. He

Page 53

says, p. 21, “Of Christian hymns, the New Testament contains only a single specimen, (Rev. v. 9).” We have dealt with this specimen in our previous article. Dr H. goes on—“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 God.’ To this epistle much value is attached, as an important contribution to the historical evidence; but if it is good for anything, it clearly shows that, just as the Jews were wont to sing hymns to Jehovah, and just as the heathen were wont to sing to Phœbus and Zeus, so the Bithynian believers, to whom Peter addressed his first epistle, were wont to sing hymns to Jesus Christ.”

This is all that Dr Hamilton says on this point—escaping from it as quickly as possible, amid references to Jewish and heathen customs in singing hymns. It cannot have escaped the notice of any discerning reader at all competent to form an opinion on the subject, that to make his argument of the slightest weight he ought to have determined, or tried to determine, the following points:—

1st, What were the songs which the Jews were accustomed to sing to “Jehovah.” Undoubtedly they were the psalms—from the “Book of Psalms”—the New Testament name for the collection.

2d, He ought to have determined whether these Bithynian believers were all, or any of them, Jews. Peter’s epistle is addressed to the “strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” etc. Who were these “strangers scattered,” these of the διασπορᾶς? Alford says ‘of the dispersion,’ “i.e., belonging to the Jewish dispersion,

Page 54

as in reference,” “though,” he adds, “there is no reason to exclude Gentile Christians from among them, as forming part of the Israel of God.”

3d, He ought to have shown, to be of any use to his argument, that there was no reason to believe that these dispersed, believing Jews had ever heard anything of Messianic psalms, the 45th, for instance, applied to Christ by Paul in Heb. i., addressed to the believing Hebrews, or of his reasoning in the Acts of the Apostles to prove that Christ Jesus was the Divine Redeemer, whose resurrection he proves from Psalm xvi. 10.

And, moreover, that they were more ignorant than the Ephesian believers whom Paul admonished to “speak to one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs,” which we have already shown to mean “psalms,” all of these names being used in the “Book of Psalms.”

What is the proof that these “dispersed” used human hymns? Pliny, writing to his master the Emperor, to ask instruction as to how he was to deal with these persecuted Christians, tells Trajan what he knew of them, to show that they were very harmless people, but somewhat numerous, obstinate, and superstitious, and that he was perplexed, as governor of the province, how to deal with them. He details the examinations and the threats to which he cruelly subjected them, polished as he was, and the effects on the terror-stricken, in making them deny their Master. “Omnes et imaginem tuam, deorumque simulacra venerati sunt, ii et Christo maledixerunt. Affirmabant autem, hanc summam vel culpae suae, vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire: carmenque Christo quasi Deo, dicere secum invicem: seque sacramento, non in scelus aliquod obstringere,” etc. That is, “And all venerated thy

Page 55

image, and the images of the gods, and cursed Christ. But they affirmed that this had been the sum of their fault or error, that they had been accustomed to meet before daybreak on a stated day, and to utter (dicere secum invicem) together a song in turn to Christ as God; and to bind themselves by vow to commit no crime,” etc. Riddle, on the word “invicem,” gives it thus:—“1. Alternately, by turns—Cæs. Cic.; 2. Reciprocally, mutually, diligere, Plin. Ep. to love one another; 3. On the contrary—Plin. Ep.”

Taking Riddle’s translation, it may clearly intimate that they reported to Pliny that they did as Paul commands in Eph. v. 19, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs; singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord;” and Col. iii. 16, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”

Pliny reports their own account. But the idea that he knew anything else, or troubled his head about the distinction between a psalm and a human hymn, is to our mind utterly absurd. His whole letter proves that he treated their obstinacy and proceedings with as much contempt as Tacitus did, when he recounted the sufferings of the Christians by the savage Nero, who set fire to Rome, and charged the crime upon them.

We may remark the careless, off-hand way in which writers on hymnology deal with simple words. One of them, quoted by the author of the article “Hymn,” in the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” vol. xii., ed. 8, renders the words, “carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem,” “repeated hymns among themselves.” The writer of the

Page 56

article adds, “An early Christian writer remarks that, ‘the praises of Christ, the Word of God, were set forth in psalms and hymns of the brethren written at the beginning’ (Eusebius, lib. vii., c. 28).” We have examined this chapter of Eusebius, and can find no trace of this allegation.

Now, what is this “invicem?” Dr Hamilton adds to the passage already quoted the words which immediately follow:—“These hymns,” to Jehovah, Zeus or Jupiter, Phœbus, “would inevitably be constructed in metres, with which the different nationalities were already familiar, and would inevitably be adapted to well-known tunes. If there were any modification, it would be from the influence exerted by Hebrew metre and music in communities whose first teachers were Jews, and whose minds were full of the sacred Hebrew poetry.” What inexpressible trifling! To write thus in proof of the propriety of introducing human hymns into the public worship of God! If it is an argument for anything, it is an argument to prove that Jewish believers would use the Messianic Psalms in honour of Christ whom they believed to be God. The “invicem” in turn, or to one another, is really explained by Paul, “admonishing one another,” or “speaking to yourselves,” etc., as we have already shown. But, in truth, one can hardly treat this matter of Pliny’s letter with ordinary gravity. Nobody denies that carmen signifies hymn, song, or, if you will, something sung; but whether a Psalm of David, or a hymn of nobody can tell who, it is impossible to say. All that can be proved is, that a few persecuted Christians in Bithynia honoured the Lord Jesus Christ, by a song of praise, before dawn in a secret night meeting. But to raise an argument from this incident for the use of human hymns in the public worship of God is simply

Page 57

ridiculous. We have difficulty in restraining a smile at men, especially men claiming to be grave doctors of divinity, spending their own time, and the time of church courts, with what we can only consider a proof of utter dearth of argument. To be gravely told that the heathen Pliny was writing “a State paper,” and giving a “judicial” decision, and reporting it to the Roman Emperor, and so must be held deciding that the early Christians sung human hymns, and not David’s Psalms, to Christ in the public worship of God, seems the very height of trifling. Were it not that none are more grave than our Romanising Ritualists, earnest in their puerilities, it could hardly be credited. The very last thing, we believe, the heathen governor of Bithynia would think of was to be so very definite on such a point, as to determine a controversy of the nineteenth century.

Could the advocates of human hymns prove, by the testimony of any sacred writer in the Acts of the Apostles, or in any of the epistles of Paul, or Peter, or John, or any other, that human hymns were used by the authority of the Council of Jerusalem, or in their day in the churches of Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, or Bithynia, it were something to their cause. But to find in this incidental allusion to a song, used, according to Pliny, by some poor Christians in his province in a night meeting, betokens a degree of credulity quite fitted to believe in the verity of Peter’s Chair, or Peter’s Chains, in the St Peters of the Vatican, or the St Peters ad Vincula, in Rome.

But what is the next step in this argument for human hymns in public worship, derived from alleged tradition?

We shall avail ourselves again of Dr Hamilton’s lecture.

Page 58

In continuation of the passage previously quoted, he says: “There is probably no older song than the morning hymn, sometimes called ‘Hymnus Angelicus,’ which is preserved in the Codex Alexandrinus of the British Museum, and which was undoubtedly used as early as the third century. Remarkable for nothing but its earnest simplicity, it is purely Christian, without any mixture of Gnosticism, and might well have been sung by Bithynian worshippers in the days of Trajan. According to the rules of Greek prosody, it is quite irregular; and with its manifest tendency to Hebrew parallelism, it is precisely the sort of psalm which in a Greco-Judaic church, like Corinth, one of the worshippers might have sung: and just because of its directness and simplicity, laying hold of all hearts, it was treasured up and carried off, and repeated till it became a standard hymn; and, circulating through many lands, it has come down to us through several channels.”

This whole passage, declaring nothing but probabilities, assertions, and doubts, even as to dates, is besides full of internal proofs of the unreasonableness and even danger of allowing human hymns, at the instance, it might be, of simple Christians, Gnostic, Greco-Judæan, as the case might be, to be introduced into the public worship of God. This may be entertaining writing, but is anything but argument.

We do not, however, think it necessary, in a historical argument, to encumber it with specimens and conjectural criticisms. We confine ourselves to the alleged authority which Dr Hamilton adduces, for any connection with Scripture or apostolic practice, for the use of human hymns in the public worship of God. Pliny’s letter has the date of the year 110.

Page 59

But what have we in the passage now extracted from Dr Hamilton’s lecture? We have a hymn, he says, “undoubtedly used as early as the third century.” How early in that century he does not state, whether in 201 or 299.

This is very small proof of connection with apostolic times. By such a mode of proof of apostolic connection, we can very easily fasten upon the apostles, not merely the first buddings, or even efflorescence, but full fruit of some of the worst corruptions of the Church.

We have next the following statement which may be received as correct history, but what its authority can be for the singing of human hymns in the worship of God, the point which Dr Hamilton has been labouring to prove, it is not easy to discover. He says again, Lecture II., “Greek hymns are not numerous; for Greece gave to the gospel no Pindar, no Sappho. It was otherwise with a country the nearest to the Holy Land, and which is more identified with early missions than any other. It was at Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians, and it was into the Syrian tongue that the New Testament was first translated. In that language, so like the dialect of Palestine in the days of our Lord, and so little removed from the Biblical Hebrew, are preserved great numbers of Christian hymns curiously composed in lines of four syllables, or five, or more, as the case may be. We have given the Morning Hymn of the Greek Church. The following is the Evening Hymn of Ephraem Syrus, a fourth century father.”

We are not writing a history of hymnology, and must forbear quoting specimens. The above may be interesting or amusing, but cannot be of the smallest weight to determine the question in hand. Clear it is, there are no exist-

Page 60

ing specimens of Christian hymns of any sort earlier than the beginning of the third century, and not the slightest proof for several centuries that even those that existed were ever formally, by any ecclesiastical court, synod, or council (and such there were, frequent enough to determine other questions), introduced into the public worship. Even the writer of the article “Hymn” already referred to, says, “The first writer known to have composed hymns for the worship of the Western Church is Hilary, of Poitiers, who died A.D. 368.” We know no one so absurd as to affirm that no such hymns were either written or sung by any one, or for any purpose whatever.

We might here end the discussion on this point. But rather to show the utter weakness of the attempt to argue from the practice of the primitive Church, than to oppose a difficult argument, we shall notice the somewhat ludicrous Paul of Samosata argument. Dr Hamilton, in his usual style of pleasant narrative, rather than of thorough and solid argument, introduces Paul of Samosata thus:—“When Arianism was creeping in among the Presbyterians of England a hundred and fifty years ago, it found an obstacle in the Trinitarian doxologies then attached to the psalms; and transforming itself into an angel of light, it urged that these human additions should be omitted, and that nothing should be sung in public worship except the Psalms of David.”

What does the writer mean by this statement? Could he mean to insinuate that without a doxology the Psalms of David were favourable to Arianism, and this too with Psalms ii., xvi., xxii., xlv., cii., cx., quoted by our Lord himself and His apostles, to describe and prove His atoning death, His resurrection, and His divinity? We will not

Page 61

give expression to the feelings which spring up in our bosom in reading such language in support of human hymns. Was it human hymns that preserved the orthodox faith with the Bishop Bulls, the Leslies, the Waterlands, older Edwardses, and many others who defended the divinity of Christ against Arians and Socinians in England? There were none such then in the Church of England. Better were it that she had none such yet, and then tractarian and other sectarian hymns would not be so rife in promoting error and sectarianism, and preparing, as they have done, so many for going over to the tents of the “man of sin.” But, historically considered, what has this statement to do with “hymnology from the early times till Luther,” the subject of the lecture?

It serves as an appropriate introduction to insinuate the same reflection against the “Psalms of David,” as helping Arianism, or even something worse, in “early times.” Accordingly the writer goes on:—“Going back to the dawn (?) of Church history, it is instructive to find that even then Christian hymns were a hindrance to heresy, and then also men unsound in the faith pled for the exclusive use of the Psalter. In that same Syrian Church of which Ephraim was the ornament, but a hundred years before him flourished an able man and a bishop who absolutely ‘struck,’ and refused to employ the Church’s hymns. Some suspected him of a leaning towards Judaism, but it turned out that he regarded Christ as a mere man; and under the pretext that they were an ‘innovation,’ he banished the hymns which crowned the Saviour ‘Lord of all.’ At last Paul of Samosata was himself deposed for errors which we now call Arian.”

What is affirmed or assumed in this passage?

Page 62

1st, It is assumed that at this period the Church had hymns—“the Church’s hymns”—and that these were different from the Psalms. 2d. That Paul condemned the “Church’s hymns,” of course human hymns, and substituted the Psalms as more favourable to Arianism. Suppose all this had been true, what then? It would only prove that far on in the third century they had human hymns, but by whose authority used, no evidence is afforded—or what Church, Church universal, or particular, or what individual, used them, is not told; and this, simple people are to take as historical argument!

But not one of these assumptions can be maintained, and we shall endeavour to state the facts so far as anything like history is to be found.

It is right to give Dr Hamilton the benefit of the following note which he appends to the above statement:—“The Church hymns which had been in use since the second century ‘he banished as an innovation’ (eine neuerung,) ‘and in so doing he probably went on the assumption which has subsequently been held by others that in the Church those pieces only should be sung which are taken from Holy Scripture.’ Neander, Geschichte, 1827, erste band, p. 1010.” We do not understand the meaning of this very exact reference to the German of Neander, seeing the words quoted are verbatim from Clark’s Translation of 1847, vol. ii., p. 366. Dr Hamilton proceeds—“In this Neander accurately renders the statement of Eusebius or rather of the Synod by which Paul was condemned: ‘The psalms to our Lord Jesus Christ he put down as innovations and the composition of modern men.’” (The Greek we shall give afterwards.) “A nick-name is very powerful, but it is sometimes well to know its pedigree. As far as we can learn,

Page 63

Paul of Samosata was the first who applied to Christian hymns the nick-name ‘innovations.’”

The word in Eusebius is “psalms,” and neither “Church hymns” nor “Christian hymns”—though Neander’s translation suited the writer best for the time.

Let us examine this proof of an alleged historical fact. Why does Dr Hamilton render the Greek word ψαλμους by “Church hymns,” and not by “psalms?” Why does he assert, contrary to all which he himself had previously alleged, that these “Church” or human “hymns” “had been in use since the second century?” Why does he quote Neander when he assumes as “probable,” what this Paul did, and which if he had done he would have acted on a sound principle? Why but to connect the name of an acknowledged heretic with those in his own day who maintained a sound principle. He avouches for the accuracy of this statement of Neander. Fortunately we have the power of testing it.

The following is extracted from Eusebius at such length as will enable us to determine the true state of the case. We quote from the English translation published at Cambridge in 1683, when the question of human hymns in public worship was not agitated.

After describing the avarice, extortion, scandalous ambition, tyranny, and vain impiety of this same Paul, Eusebius says—Book vii., ch. 30, “In his public discourses he reflected upon those doctors of our religion that were dead, with all imaginable scorn and petulency; but he magnified himself, not as became a bishop, but rather like a counterfeit and impostor. He abolished the Psalms,” (not “Church hymns”) “which were usually sung in honour of our Lord Jesus Christ, as novel and the composures of modern men.”

Page 64

Dr Hamilton quotes the Greek to confirm his statement. But why does he stop short, and not add what makes manifest the real point and object of the historian, which was not to show that by this conduct Paul objected to hymns as an Arian, but to psalms in honour of Christ; as singing “psalms” in honour of Christ was an innovation, as Christ, according to him, did not deserve such an honour. And therefore to mark his impiety, Eusebius immediately adds—“On the great feast of Easter, he appointed women to sing psalms”—not in Christ’s but “in his commendation,” εις εαυτον δε, but to himself, “in the body of the Church, which whosoever heard might justly tremble.”

A more lame and impotent, we might say unfair attempt to raise an argument in favour of human hymns out of this strange incident can hardly be imagined, and cannot be too strongly condemned. Can any Christian man believe that the audience would have trembled or been “struck with horror,” if this man had merely made the psalms of David be sung in place of human hymns? The whole point of the transaction is, that this impious man made psalms sung in honour of Christ be removed, πανσας, made to cease, and psalms in honour of himself be sung in their stead. We conclude this point by the following extract from the admirable little work “The True Psalmody,” in which it will be observed that the word “as” in the old translation is the correct rendering of ὡς.

The Committee of the United Presbyterian and Reformed Churches in America, who prepared this admirable little work, say:—“As to Paul of Samosata, we allow Dr Pressley to speak:—‘There is a passage of history in connection with the life of Paul of Samosata, which has sometimes been referred to for the purpose of establishing the conclusion

Page 65

that hymns of human composition were in general use in the primitive age in the Orthodox Church, and that it was through the influence of heretical teachers that the Psalms of David were introduced. It will at once occur to the reflecting Christian, that it would be something very strange if it really were so, that the enemies of the truth should manifest a partiality for a portion of the Word of God, which has always been peculiarly dear to the humble practical Christian. But what are the facts in the case just referred to? Paul of Samosata, who rejected the doctrine of the Lord’s divinity, has been represented as banishing from the Church in Antioch “the old church hymns that spoke of Christ as the incarnate Word,” and as introducing in their stead the Psalms of David as being better adapted to the promotion of his heresy.’”

That this portion of history, in so far as it stands connected with the subject of Psalmody, may be set in its true light, I shall present to the reader an extract from the epistle of the Council of Antioch, which condemned the heresy of Paul, together with the Latin translation of the learned Valesius. Our information with regard to this matter is derived from the proceedings of the Council. The original may be seen in “Harduin’s Acta Conciliorum,” tom. i. 7, or in the “History of Eusebius,” lib. 8, cap. 30.

ORIGINAL OF THE EPISTLE.

Ψαλμους δε τους μεν εις τον Κυριον ημων Ιησουν Χριστον παντας, ὡς δη νεωτερων ανδρων συγγραμματα· εις εαυτον δε, εν μεση τη εκκλησια τη μεγαλη τη του πασχα ημερα; ψαλμωδειν γυναικας, Παρασκευαζων ων και ακουσας αν τις φριξειεν.

TRANSLATION OF VALESIUS.

’Quin etiam psalmos in honorem Domini Jesu Christi cani solitos, quasi novellos, et a recentioribus hominibus compositos abolivit. Mulieres, autem magno paschae die in media ecclesia,

Page 66

psalmos quosdam canere ad sui ipsius laudem instituit; quod quidem audientibus horrorem merito incussent.

The scholar who examines the original will see that the following is a literal translation. Paul “put a stop to the psalms in honour of our Lord Jesus Christ, as though they (had been) modern, and the compositions of modern men, and prepared women on the great day of Easter, in the midst of the Church, to sing psalms in honour of himself.”

It is unnecessary to vindicate critically this translation; it is plain and obvious, and bears out fully our preceding remarks. We have examined Harduin’s “Concilia,” and corrected one or two slight mistakes in the Greek of this quotation not affecting the meaning, and probably merely typographical.

After a full and able critical discussion and proof, that the early Church perfectly understood the Messianic character of the psalms, and which some of our modern hymnologists, contrary to the true Catholic faith of Christendom, seem not to believe, Dr Pressly adds (and with this extract we shall conclude this part of our discussion, not deeming it of any use as argument, whatever it may be as literary history, to enter on the mediæval use of hymns), “I am aware that it has been customary to suppose that Paul introduced the Psalms of David in the room of those which he displaced. Neander says, ‘he probably suffered nothing but psalms to be used.’ Others not quite so modest assert, without any qualification, that it was the ‘pompous Unitarian, Paul of Samosata, who first set the example of installing the Psalms in the place of exclusive dignity.’ But where, I ask, is the authority for such conjectures, or for such unqualified affirmations? The epistle of the

Page 67

Council, by whose authority Paul was condemned, says no such thing.

“So far from it, the express declaration of the Council is irreconcileable with such a supposition. The psalmody which, according to the Council, Paul introduced was designed to celebrate his own praise; was in honour of himself; and this could not have been an inspired psalmody, but must have been a system of which man was the author.

“The conclusion, then, to which I am conducted, taking the language of the Council as my guide, and not suffering myself to be misled by the mere conjectures and suppositions of men, may be exhibited in the following propositions:

“‘1. The psalmody employed in the worship of God in the church of Antioch, in the days of Paul, was a divine system. The psalms which were sung at that time were in honour of our Lord Jesus Christ. And this character belongs appropriately to the Psalms of David, for they speak of Christ and celebrate His glory.

“‘2. This daring impiety of the heretic Paul was manifested in this, that he took as much liberty with these psalms, whose author is the Holy Spirit, as though they had been the compositions of uninspired men.

“‘3. The psalmody which he introduced was designed to celebrate his own praise. He appointed women in the church, on the great day of Easter, to sing songs in honour of himself, the hearing of which was adapted to fill the pious mind with horror.’”

We have previously referred to a committee appointed by the Free Church to report on the practice of the Primitive Church. We have since seen an interim report containing an abstract of some historical inquiries on the subject. It has only confirmed our previous opinion. We have not space to examine it, and though we had, it would only be waste of our space and of the time of our readers. It has made nothing of Pliny, or of Paul of Samosata. It merely refers to the rendering of “ὡς” by “quasi,” “as if;” but it does not pretend to give it the meaning of “because.” It proves nothing. The paper then gives a variety of something like proofs that hymns of some kind had been written

Page 68

by various parties as early as A.D. 139, 200, 220, 230, 250, 329, 379, and on to the Council of Toledo in 633. It proves that some Councils forbade the use of “private psalms.” This prohibition continued till the sixteenth century. All this while there is no proof that the Church, in any sense that could be called a church authority, either enjoined, or sanctioned, or even practised the use of human hymns in the public worship of God—still less is any attempt made to connect such use with either apostolic practice or Scripture authority. The document clearly proves that hymns had been written, and as clearly proves one thing, viz., that heretical hymns seem to have been as frequent as orthodox. Scarcely any of them have been preserved, which cannot be said of the canonical psalms.

The document candidly admits, or at least makes clear, that it is useless even to establish anything as matter of fact. The following is its conclusion:—

“Such is a bare statement of unquestionable facts and testimonies, omitting several which some members of the Committee think relevant and important, but are considered by others more or less doubtful. In judging of the conclusion to be drawn from them, it is to be borne in mind that the evidence on such a subject must, from the nature of the case, be cumulative, and that it is not to be expected that each separate testimony should by itself be absolutely conclusive. In particular, it may be doubted as to some of the above statements whether they may not refer to Scriptural psalms or songs, and as to others, whether they speak of public worship. With regard to the former, it may be observed that they may all be fairly and most naturally understood of extra-Scriptural hymns; and that they stand alongside of other statements which clearly and expressly refer to such, and must be viewed in the light of these. As to the latter, it must be remembered that we have no satisfactory evidence of the existence of Churches in the modern sense before the beginning of the third century. (Indeed!) Christian worship until then being held, wherever it was safe and convenient, as Justin Martyr expressly testifies (see Neander, i. 396.) So certainly it was in apostolic times, when ‘the

Page 69

Church’ was often ‘in the house,’ (Rom. xvi. 5, 14, 15.) Hence the line of demarcation between the public and private worship would not be very sharply drawn, especially considering how frequent and humble the meetings would be; and hence it is not likely that any Christian hymns which were deemed suitable in the more familiar meetings of believers, would be considered inadmissible in public worship.

“It only remains to be added, that, on the ground of such evidence as has been presented above, the most eminent modern Church historians, of all shades of opinion, such as Neander, Hagenbach, Kurtz, Hase, Dorner, Schaff, and Killen, state it is an undoubted fact that hymns of human composition were in use in the Church from the earliest times.”

But was there no church government, no presbytery, no bishop, no synod, no council, enjoining or sanctioning their use? Was there ever such a document produced before as evidence of a fact, and such a fact?

We only remark on this last sentence, that the phrases, “in the Church,” and “earliest times,” are equivocal and incorrect. “In the Church,” in the sense of existing as they do now, where the Free Church exists, is very different from being authorised and practised by the Free Church—and “from the earliest times,” by the authority of the Church, by synodical authority or general practice, we have shown to be without the vestige of proof.

The historical argument therefore entirely breaks down.