Gibson Public Worship V.

Page 70

CHAPTER V.

Historical Argument Continued.

---

HAVING, in the preceding chapter, satisfactorily, as we think, disposed of any argument to be derived from the practice of the primitive church in favour of any divine authority for the use of human hymns in the public worship of God, we indicated the opinion that it is altogether unnecessary to follow out the argument to be derived from the history of mediæval hymnology. To do so might be very interesting as a subject of literary curiosity, and even instructive and edifying as a study of church history, nay, even as an aid to spiritual life and devotion; just as the study of the theology of these times, or of the Meditations of Augustine, or the “Imitation of Christ” of Thomas á Kempis, or the sermons of Tauler, or the “Short Method of Prayer,” and other productions of Madam Guyon, or any of the crowd of mystics may be. But this can no more warrant us to introduce into the public worship of God human hymns, than to appoint by church authority, for public daily use in the worship of God, any of the devout contemplations of the men of the present day for the public ministrations of the pulpit, and thus open a wide door, it might be, not only for sectarian error, but sectarian folly and enthusiasm. This can never be a danger accruing from the book of Psalms, both divinely inspired and of divine appointment, in the worship of God, as well as having all the authority that can be derived from the practice of the

Page 71

universal Church of Christ; no branch of which, though it may in practice have superseded them by various human compositions, has ever formally dared to pronounce them unfit to occupy their place; though we have had the opinions of men of easy-going views doing something very like this. It is of supreme importance that all we think, say, or do in the service of God be on His own authority, being appointed in His own Word. In listening to a sermon, the hearers may, and are commanded to try the spirits, whether they be of God, and that by His Word. Every hearer can do this individually for himself. But praise in the public worship of God is a combined and united act, in which all ought to join, and join aloud, with open articulate voice. You cannot do this, and yet be trying the spirit of the human hymn at the same time. This you require not to do when singing in your own tongue the Psalms, the book of Psalms. The ordinary Christian knows they are the Word of God, just as well as he knows that this is true of any portion of the sacred Scriptures perused or heard in his own tongue.

We might now come at once to the last point we intended to touch upon—viz., briefly to notice some of the hymn books now in use, and thereby illustrate the doctrine we have stated. But perhaps it may be useful to glance at the Reformation period generally, and especially as affecting our own Church; keeping in mind that our object is not to give a history of hymnology, but to examine any claim to Scriptural authority for the use of human hymns in the public worship of God. For this purpose the history of the Reformation period affords no great materials. It does not seem to have entered into the minds of the Protestant reformers that the canonical Psalms were not sufficient for the

Page 72

public worship of God. Their great principle, “the Bible, and the Bible alone, the religion of Protestants,” seemed to carry this idea along with it. Accordingly, when the minds not only of the ministry, but of the laity, were set free from the idea of the substitutionary services of a priestly caste affecting, from the Pope downwards, to be the vicars of Christ, and standing to the people in the place of God, and on whom the laity were to devolve all their spiritual responsibilities for time and for eternity,—and when all owned the duty, claimed the right, and enjoyed the privilege of unitedly engaging in all the solemn services of the sanctuary according to the comely order of the Word of God, in the preaching, prayers, and praises of God’s house, the psalmody, especially, could no longer be left to the chauntings of ghostly fathers in an unknown tongue, and to be a mere sensuous round of sounds, expressive to them neither of articulate words nor of articulate ideas. The reformers, knowing from their Bibles that there was a book of Psalms which had been used without question as of divine appointment in the Church of God, both before and after the coming of Christ, had them translated into the vulgar tongues of their respective nations. Accordingly we have them used in Germany, Geneva, France, and Switzerland, England and Scotland, and all other Protestant countries. In this respect there was a beautiful catholic unity, and at that period nothing sectarian or heretical to disturb it. The Reformed Church generally, in proportion to the distance which they removed from the practices of Romanism, and adopted the simple and severe Protestant principle, seems to have thrown off every addition to their service, in all its parts, which had not direct divine sanction, as prescribed in the Holy Scripture. In their psalmody in the public wor-

Page 73

ship nothing was left but an occasional and almost solitary doxology at the end of the book of Psalms.

Hymns were extensively composed, but rather as “gude and godly ballads” for popular use, and to counteract the use of Popish hymns, rather than for the public worship of God. This was the idea of Calvin and Beza, and was the purpose of many of Luther’s hymns, as well as some written in Scotland and elsewhere—such as Wedderburn’s “Psalms and Godly Ballads.” Anything to the contrary of this adduced by the advocates of human hymns is mere conjecture, and at least entirely of a negative character. For whatever may have been the opinions of individual men, whether of great or small name, or the occasional irregular practice, the taste of private parties, or whatever the interest or likings of printers might suggest or dictate, as in the case of Andrew Hart, there is not a vestige of proof that the use of human hymns in the public worship of God was ever sanctioned by anything which could be called Church authority, either in the first Reformation period or the second Reformation period in Scotland. All this, too, at a time when the Church was only struggling to get out of the corruptions, and to shake itself free from the trammels of Popery, and to provide itself with a book of praise according to the Scriptures.

We have in our possession, and now before us, a curious copy of the “Breeches” Bible, “imprinted at London by the deputies of Christopher Barker, printer to the Queen’s most excellent Maiestie, 1599, cum privilegio.” Affixed to it is the “Booke of Psalmes, collected into English meeter, by Thomas Sternhold, John Hopkins, and others. Conferred with the Hebrew; with apt Notes to sing them withall. Set forth and allowed to be sung in all churches of the

Page 74

people together, before and after morning and evening prayer; and also before and after sermon; and, moreover, in private houses, for their godly solace and comfort, laying apart all ungodly songs and ballads, which tend only to the nourishment of vice and corrupting of youth. James v., Colossians iii.”

To this “Booke of Psalmes” are prefixed several of the ancient hymns, with the Athanasian Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and Ten Commandments in metre, and followed in a similar way. It is to be remarked, however, that of none of these is it said that they are “to be sung in all churches.” They were probably printed at the will of the “Deputies of Christopher Barker,” and for the purpose specified of the “laying apart of all ungodly songs and ballads.”

The same remarks will apply to other instances. Thus we have in our possession, and now before us, a beautiful, large, folio copy of the “Geneva Bible,” “Imprime Pour Jacque Chouët. M.DC.XLVI.” Bound up with it, and printed at the end, we have, with musical notations, “Les Pseaumes De David, mis en Rime Francoise, par Clement Marot et Theodore Beze.” To the Psalms there are added, “The Ten Commandments of God,” and “The Song of Simeon,” in metre, by “Cl. Mar.”

There is in all this no great proof of any strong love for a human hymnology in the public worship authorised by the Church. This Geneva Bible contains at the end the Apocryphal books, from which it is pleasant to observe that the “Breeches” Bible is free. But this fact is no more a sanction of human hymns than it is of the Apocrypha.

The hymns or paraphrases to which we have referred as printed in our copy of the “Breeches” Bible, are those

Page 75

referred to in the following passage in a paper given in to the Free Church Committee, 1868:—

“In 1575 his (Bassandyne of Edinburgh’s) next edition came out with full authority, and it contained five songs, two of them from Scripture, the other three corresponding to hymns. There were also conclusions or doxologies, and the whole circumstances clearly prove that neither were there per incuriam. The full number of hymns ultimately was fourteen, but as some of them were pretty long, and in several parts, their bulk was considerable, equal in the number of lines to the first thirty-seven of our collection of Paraphrases, or about half the Paraphrases and Hymns together. Their titles are given, and were as follows:—The Ten Commandments, Prayer, the Lord’s Prayer, Veni Creator Spiritus, Song of Simeon, Twelve Articles of the Christian Belief, Humble Suit of a Sinner, Lamentation of a Sinner, Complaint of a Sinner, Song of Mary, A Lamentation, The Song of Moses, Thanksgiving after the receiving of the Lord’s Supper, A Spiritual Song.”

It is manifest that these songs or hymns were used so close upon the times of Popery, and for such a specific purpose as is specified in the title to the Psalms of Sternhold and Hopkins, that no possible argument can be drawn from such facts to warrant the use of human hymns in the public worship of God, or to entitle any one who has subscribed the Confession of Faith, as the confession of his faith, to cast aside the principle that nothing is to be used in the worship of God but what “is prescribed in the Holy Scripture,” and more especially when the Westminster Assembly itself authorised nothing to be sung in public worship but the Psalms of David. In the Preface to the “Directory for the Public Worship of God,” they say that “long and sad experience hath made it manifest that the liturgy used in the Church of England (notwithstanding all the pains and religious intentions of the compilers of it) hath proved an offence, not only to many of the godly at home, but also to the reformed Churches abroad;” and

Page 76

after enumerating many evils resulting from it, they prescribe in opposition to it the general mode of worship, and at certain times “a psalm to be sung.”

Even in the paper given in to the Committee of the Free Church, as printed in Proof Report of May 1, 1868, as the result of the labours of a devoted advocate of human hymns, the writer sums up as follows:—

“The discussions of the beginning and middle of the century were in view when the Standards were accepted in 1647, both in their utterances and silence on the subject. From Baillie’s letters it is evident that the matter was much canvassed in the Westminster Assembly, and it was deemed advisable to discontinue the use of doxologies, not as being in themselves wrong, but because Papists and Prelatists so unduly set by them. The paper closes with the following statement of opinion as the result of the survey it contains:—‘It can scarcely be a matter of surprise that evidence on the subject is so scarce, and what there is of so minute a character as to be tedious in its statement. The conclusion warranted is, however, pretty clear, that these songs and hymns were never formally sanctioned, but were, on the other hand, never forbidden, though it was known that they were freely used, and that some parties in the Church—not apparently very influential—objected to their use. As to the distinction attempted to be set up, that they were allowed in private, and not in public, it is neither consistent with the facts—for we have seen that they were used in kirks and other public gatherings—nor with the known opinions of the leaders of the first and second Reformations, who not only recognized no such distinctions in the worship of God, but even legislated for the right conducting of “worship in private houses.” The scanty and occasional notices of the subject from 1542 to 1647 must be held as so far favourable to the general use of the songs and hymns, since, had the occasions alluded to been so exceptional, the mention of the historians could scarcely have been so casual, nor the silence of the Church against their use so entire. On the other hand, the diversity of the number found in various editions of the Psalter evidently betokens a considerable diversity in practice. So that we are left with the conclusion that it was one of those things designedly left an open question, received by some, and refused by others; while the discrimination shown in condemning Bassandyne’s “Welcome Fortune,”

Page 77

and allowing others to remain unchallenged, and the fact that until the attempt of the Brunists there is no mention of a movement amongst them, seems to indicate that those who did not use them were either not very numerous, or not very decided in their opposition.”

We cannot examine the feeble logic of this passage. We only remark that if everything that is “not forbidden” by positive law, or not objected to by “influential men,” may be “left an open question” in the public worship of God, then the whole outward system of modern and even Popish Ritualism may be introduced as the fruit of “open questions.” The only protection against it is the Canon of our Confession of Faith, that nothing is to be introduced into the worship of God but what is “prescribed in Holy Scripture.” Spiritual songs, or songs of the Spirit, or Scripture songs, can never sanction the use of a man’s own songs, both in words and sentiment; in other words, of human hymns at the discretion of fallible men, even though these were not only “influential men,” but a General Assembly; which also not only may err, but in numberless instances has erred, and that grievously.* At all events its decisions for the time being, unless guided and limited by some fixed constitutional principle as that just quoted from the Confession, must bear the stamp of the party prevailing at the time. Hence the extreme danger of meddling with the Church’s psalmody on any sectarian or latitudinarian principle; into which the history of the Church proves all churches adopting human hymns

_____

* If “influential men” were to be the rule of adoption, human hymns would have had few supporters. Those who have persistently agitated for them have seldom been “influential men;” but they have made themselves troublesome or serviceable, as the case may be, to “influential men,” and the “influential men” were too feeble to do without them, or too facile to resist them.

Page 78

have extensively fallen; every sect having its own, and completely hindering, if not destroying the communion of saints in the public praises of God; an evil entirely avoided by an inspired psalmody which all Christians do, and certainly ought to acknowledge. This evil is clearly proved by the very question raised in the Free Church as to the propriety of sanctioning the common paraphrases never yet sanctioned by any authoritative act of the Church of Scotland; and especially proved by selecting or rejecting what the people of God are to sing in His own worship, and that from doubtful human compositions, and these too by some men of doubtful religious and moral reputations; even though sanctioned by the votes of a prevailing party in a General Assembly! This may be liberty for the imposers; but we decline to acknowledge the right so to introduce or reject at their will, or to take a committee, or General Assembly, as our guide and ruler in such a matter. If they can truly say, Thus saith and thus speaketh the Scripture, we bow submission.

Amid all the excitement for some “new thing,” we have not yet heard of any formal proposal to select or reject any particular psalms of David for the public worship of the sanctuary. These cannot be affected by debates as to what was orthodoxy during last century, or heresy in the present.

No one can read with candid reflection any production, whether a pamphlet, speech, or periodical article, written by any advocate for human hymns, without coming to the conclusion, that, to say the least, no system of human hymns has yet been devised, or is likely to be devised, that can be safe from this dangerous sectarian and latitudinarian element.

The adoption of poetical versions of certain portions of Scripture, though experience has proved it to be one of no

Page 79

small practical difficulty, we are not prepared to say is one so clearly objectionable in principle, or so clearly excluded by the authority of our Confession of Faith, as that of the use and sanction by any church authority of human hymns, though these hymns are about spiritual things; and which, as we have seen, as even of paraphrases themselves, may be anything but songs of the Holy Ghost. The Church of Scotland has never as yet sanctioned, even in appearance, or by authoritative toleration, any songs but “songs of the Holy Ghost,” whatever irregularities or improprieties may have been unobserved, neglected, or winked at, which is often the case even with heretical opinions, or it may be irreligious, worldly, or sinful practices. Such neglect or unfaithfulness must not be pleaded, as our hymnologers now do for the rightness and propriety of the things themselves. The “use and wont” argument would sanction all the abuses of moderatism, and in other days would have stereotyped the whole system of Popery itself. Our forefathers, by God’s grace, made “a blow at the root” of the whole enormous system of falsehood and folly and puerility, by the great principle laid down in our Confession of Faith. On any other principle we defy the advocates of human hymns to show that the ritualistic follies of England, or even of Popery, in crucifixes, vestments, candles, incense, etc., etc., are forbidden in Scripture. The principles we are advocating are not only those of Scripture, but the safeguards of Christian liberty, and of true spiritual worship, free from the devices, the doctrines, and commandments of men. We cannot conclude this article without strongly condemning the principle and conduct of some Free Churchmen, whom we could name, who presume to introduce human hymns into their congregations, and avow their re-

Page 80

solution to do so, who seek to compel the Church to yield to their demands, by shouting the now too oft-repeated defiance, “Libel us if you dare.” This is not the language of law and order, but of anarchy and contempt for lawful authority.

At the moment this is passing through the press there are parties making a collection of hymns for presentation to the first General Assembly. On what specific authority we know not. It is not yet forgotten what was the fate of 95 hymns printed in this way by some Free Church Presbyters of Glasgow, names unknown.