An Authorized Psalmody.

United Presbyterian Tracts, No. 26.

An Authorized Psalmody.

[by Dr. James G. Carson]

[Pittsburgh: United Presbyterian Board of Publication]

[1900]

---

DECLARATION.

The position of the United Presbyterian Church is contained in the following declaration of the Testimony:

DECLARATION.

“We declare that it is the will of God that the songs contained in the Book of Psalms be sung in his worship, both public and private, to the end of the world; and in singing God’s praise these songs should be employed to the exclusion of the devotional compositions of uninspired men.”

This declaration contains a statement of truth and an inference from it. It is the positive declaration which contains the principle—the inference is the application of that principle to a particular instance, without, however, excluding other instances to which

[Page 2]

it is equally applicable, as to imitation of the Psalms, paraphrases, versifications of other parts of Scripture, &c. Indeed, if the inference is made co-extensive with the statement of the principle, as it might be, and as it logically should be, it would read thus: “And in singing God’s praise, these songs should be employed to the exclusion of all others which have not the same or equal authority for their use.”

The position, therefore, which we occupy and are called upon to maintain, as stated in this declaration, is the exclusive use of an authorized Psalmody—not simply or even primarily an inspired as distinguished from an uninspired Psalmody, for even what is inspired may not be authorized—nor yet a Scripture as distinguished from Scriptural Psalmody (as some put it;) for we maintain that to be the only Scriptural Psalmody which is warranted by the authority of the Scriptures; and what does not possess this quality is not Scriptural even, though it be Scripture itself. The key to the whole position is contained in the words, “It is the

[Page 3]

will of God,” recognizing this as the sole and sufficient reason for the use of the Book of Psalms, and the consequent exclusion of all others as not possessing the Scriptural warrant. The position as thus defined and separated from all side issues with which it is frequently confounded, is easily understood and is capable of being clearly demonstrated. We are confined to the simple question, What is the will of God? and to this question a distinct and satisfactory answer can be given. To the question, What is most agreeable to men’s taste and feelings? or even What is most profitable to inspire devotional frames and promote the growth of religion in the soul? no answer can be given which would prove universally satisfactory, nor even permanently satisfactory to any, because men’s tastes and feelings, as well as their experience, differ so widely in different individuals, and even in the same individual at different times. Hence the multiplication and continual changing of hymnologies. But to the question, what is acceptable to God—what is his will? One answer, and one only

[Page 4]

can be given. What saith the Word? How readest thou? From this question all considerations of men’s tastes and experience, or the respective merits of Psalms and hymns as determined by this standard, are utterly excluded, and we are confined to the single point, What has God appointed or authorized?

Nor is the question here respecting different versions, their comparative excellencies or defects; for until it is decided what is to be used in the praise of God, what is to be versified, there is no common ground on which the question of versions can be considered and settled; and when the former is determined there will be little difficulty in agreeing on the latter. Just as it is in regard to the Bible itself—let the inspiration and divine authority of its various books be established and admitted, and the question of translations—their comparative merits—will settle itself.

The question, therefore, between Psalm-singers and hymn-singers is not which have

[Page 5]

the best version of that which is equally acceptable to God, but a far deeper and more important one—one in which every church, and indeed every worshiper, is equally interested; not as between them and other individuals or churches, but between them and their God—what is acceptable to him in the matter of praise as an ordinance of worship. In other words, it is a matter of principle, and not mere expediency; duty, and not mere preference. When the churches come to consider and treat it on this ground, a long step will be taken toward the healing of these divisions which have been caused by the neglect or refusal to so consider it.

That, therefore, which we are required to establish as an affirmative proposition is this, and this only: “That the songs contained in the Book of Psalms are given and appointed by God to constitute the matter of praise in the worship of his church, both public and private, to the end of the world.” If any others are offered or employed, whether inspired or uninspired, it rests on those who thus offer or employ them to show the same or equal

[Page 6]

authority for their use, else they are excluded. In other words, it requires positive divine authority to warrant their introduction, but not their exclusion.

With all due deference to the honored fathers and brethren who have done so, I humbly submit that it is not proper or legitimate, to speak of the exclusion of other parts of Scripture as an attainment which the church has not made. Their introduction would properly be an attainment, for it would argue that some authority and warrant for their use had been found in the word of God. But until this is done, they are excluded ipso facto, according to the position which we, as a church, have always occupied; and this has been the practical, because it is the logical, result of that position.

It is proposed now to establish the position thus defined by a single argument in the form of a syllogism, to which I think all the arguments commonly urged may be reduced, and which answers all contrary arguments and objections, viz.:

[Page 7]

Major premise—That only is to be used in the formal worship of God which he hath appointed for that purpose.

Minor premise—The songs contained in the Book of Psalms, and they only, have been given and appointed by God to be used in his worship in the ordinance of praise.

Ergo—The songs contained, &c., and they only, are to be used in the formal worship of God in the ordinance of praise.

In regard to the first premise, the very statement of it appears almost like an axiom, the truth of which no Protestant, at least, would deny or gainsay, for it is the very principle underlying the Reformation from Popery, viz., the Word of God is the infallible, all-sufficient and only rule of faith and duty in all matters affecting the doctrine, order and worship of the Church of God. It is, moreover, the only principle on which the pretensions of Ritualism or High Churchism on the one hand, and of Rationalism or Broad Churchism on the other hand, can be successfully met and refuted. Neither the authority of Pope or councils, the dogmas

[Page 8]

of the church or of individuals, the dictates of reason or expediency—nothing but the authority of God in his Word, can bind the conscience or prescribe what is to be believed or practiced in his worship.

True, there are many things connected with the due observance of divine ordinances, or the carrying out of divine prescriptions, which are left to be regulated by the exercise of a sound reason and discretion, subject to this general rule, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” But these are only such things as are clearly and necessarily implied in the divine command or prescription itself. Thus the command to “sing Psalms,” requires that they should be translated into such a form that they can be sung, and accompanied with appropriate music; but the kind of metres and the particular tunes are determined by sound judgment and good taste. This admission, however, is neither an infringement on nor a limitation of the principle we have stated; for, as we have said, these things are implied in the command itself, just as “Search the Scriptures”

[Page 9]

requires and authorizes, by implication, translations into the vulgar tongue, of the style and faithfulness of which reason must be the judge.

I have said that the very statement of the principle contained in the major premise ought to commend itself to the ready acceptance of every Protestant mind, and for our present purpose we have to do with no other. And yet, it is on this very point that the whole issue of the question of Psalmody turns; for all, or nearly all, are willing to admit that the Book of Psalms was given to be sung in the praise of God, and that they are designed and adapted for use in the church to the end of the world. It is their exclusive use which is denied, or, rather, liberty is claimed in regard to their use and the use of any other Scriptural songs. Indeed, this is the main, I might say the only, plea which is urged with any degree of seriousness in favor of hymn singing—the plea of Christian liberty. It becomes necessary to show that this is not a matter of Christian liberty. If

[Page 10]

this is done, then the whole question is decided so far as the great majority of our opponents are concerned, and their own admission that the Psalms were given and appointed to be sung in the worship of God through all time, can be turned against them with conclusive effect.

Now, this is done by showing that the singing of Psalms or hymns in the worship of God is a matter of obligation as a duty, and not of indifference or liberty; determined and imposed by divine authority, and not by the opinions or commandments of men. Liberty can only be claimed where there is no obligation of divine authority—it is freedom from the obligation of rites and ceremonies imposed by human authority, or the obligation of which has been repealed or abrogated. It certainly cannot be urged in reference to divine commands, implicit regard to which is not only the highest duty, but at the same time the utmost liberty.

The putting in of this plea is, therefore, simply a begging of the question. It proceeds on the assumption that what we sing

[Page 11]

in the praise of God, or whether we sing at all, is left to be decided by everyone’s judgment or feeling—in other words, is a matter of indifference, like the eating of meats or the observing of days. But the truth is, that it is not only right but the duty of all who can, to sing God’s praise. If it is right to sing Psalms, it is a duty to do so. If it is right to sing hymns, it is the duty of all to do so when opportunity offers. The whole question, is one of duty and not of privilege; to be determined not by our own will and pleasure, but by the will of God as made known in his Word, which, being ascertained, leaves no room for liberty at all.

Having thus cleared the subject of all irrelevant questions and side issues, we are prepared to consider the principle laid down in our major premise—the arguments which may be adduced in its favor.

And first, we argue that nothing is to be employed in the formal worship of God but that which he hath appointed for that purpose, because,

Obedience to the will of God belongs to the

[Page 12]

essence of all acceptable worship. “In vain,” says God, Matt. 15: 9, “do ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Such worship is will-worship. For, what is true worship? It is that religious homage, reverence and honor which is due to God from his creatures, or in other words, expressed subjection to his will. It consists not only in doing what he has commanded, but doing it because he has commanded it, and therefore must be done when, where, and in the manner he has commanded. It will not avail to say, that he has nowhere forbidden it, or that the thing itself seems to us good and proper to be done. Saul could have urged all this in reference to his conduct in sparing Agag and the best of the cattle of the Amalekites, and in offering sacrifices in the absence of Samuel. But the stern rebuke of the prophet (1 Sam. 15: 22), “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, &c.,” utterly demolishes his plea, tears off his flimsy pretenses of respect to the honor of

[Page 13]

God, and leaves his conduct naked and inexcusable rebellion instead of worship—a setting up of his own will, if not in opposition to, at least in place of the will of God.

If therefore the object of worship be primarily to please God, and not ourselves, and if implicit obedience to his will be more pleasing to him than the most costly sacrifices which he hath not prescribed, then surely the presentation of those songs to him in praise which he himself hath given and appointed for that purpose, must be more pleasing to him than any others, even though in our estimation they may be more excellent and pleasing, but which he has not prescribed. The former is true worship, for it is obedience to the will of God, doing not only what he commands, but because he commands it. The latter is will-worship—following our own will and pleasure instead of God’s; and, however sincere may be our professed intentions to honor and glorify him, we are constantly reminded of the fact that in God’s esteem “to obey is better than sacrifice,” and to the challenge “who hath required

[Page 14]

this at your hands?” we must be dumb and speechless.

That nothing should be used in the formal worship of God but that which he himself hath prescribed and appointed for that purpose we argue—

2. Because God claims it as his prerogative to prescribe the way and means of his worship, and is extremely jealous of this prerogative. This we might show a priori. It belongs to the Creator, the object of worship, to prescribe; it belongs to his creatures, as worshipers, humbly and reverently to attend and learn and receive whatever he prescribes. Thus, in the plan of salvation, it belongs to God, the Judge and Law-giver, who is offended, to prescribe the terms of reconciliation, the way by which sinners may be restored to his favor and enjoy his fellowship. Micah 6: 8—“He hath showed thee, O man what is the good” (way). It belongs to sinners, instead of striving to invent and devise a plan of their own for answering the question, “Wherewith shall I come before the Lord?” simply to hear and

[Page 15]

accept the good way which God hath devised and proposed in the gospel. And nothing can be more dishonoring to him, no matter on what pretext, than for any one to set aside his righteousness, as the Jews did, and to go about to establish a righteousness of their own their own way. The same principle applies to the means of worship. God only knows and can tell how he is to be acceptably worshiped. And especially is this true in the matter of praise, where the main object is to set forth and magnify the divine excellencies as displayed in God’s character and works. Who but God can tell what is suitable and worthy of himself? “Who can by searching find out God?” From the very nature and necessity of the case, therefore, we are led to the conclusion that it belongs to God to prescribe the way and manner in which he is to be worshiped.

But this is not all. There is nothing more clearly revealed in the Scriptures, or more frequently asserted both in the Old and New Testaments, than this claim of God’s exclusive prerogative to institute and appoint the forms

[Page 16]

of his worship. It is implied in the second precept of the decalogue, which “requires the receiving, observing and keeping pure and entire all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed in his word,” and which forbids “the worshiping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his word.” So when the tabernacle was to be built; “See,” saith he to Moses, “that thou make all things according to the pattern shown thee in the mount.” The whole ritual of sacrifice and ceremony, to its minutest detail, both in the tabernacle and the temple, was prescribed by divine authority; and any departure from this order was regarded by him as an infringement on his prerogative, and was visited with the tokens of his severest displeasure. Thus, when Nadab and Abihu presumed to offer strange fire—that is fire not taken from the altar of burnt-offering—it is said, “A fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them.”—Lev. 10: 1–8. Surely it might be asked, wherein had they sinned so grievously? Is not one fire as good as another? But God did not

[Page 17]

so regard it. He looked upon and treated it as contempt of his authority, an unwarranted invasion of his prerogative. And in this incident he whose name is Jealous, and who is a jealous God, has written over the door of his house, as in letters of fire, this fearful inscription, “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified.”

And so throughout the Bible God has declared his extreme jealousy of this prerogative, and has once and again appended his solemn protest against either adding to or taking from his commandments and ordinances. Thus, in the organization of the Old Testament Church, after having given to Moses all the directions respecting the regulation of his worship, he adds (Deut. 12: 32), “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shall not add thereto or diminish from it.” And no less careful is he to guard the sacredness of this prerogative in the New Testament Church; for, besides our Lord’s expressed abhorrence of the traditions of the Pharisees, whereby they made

[Page 18]

void the law of God by superseding or setting aside its authority, we find at the close of the sacred canon the same warning inscription over the portal of the New as over that of the Old Testament Church (Rev. 22: 18, 19): “If any man shall add,” &c. The great King and Head of the Church, whose prerogative it is, has given a perfect and complete rule of faith and worship, and therefore the addition of anything to that worship which he has not either expressly or impliedly appointed, on pretense of custom, usage, expediency, or any other plea, or, on the other hand, the taking away by setting aside or habitual disuse and neglect of what he has herein prescribed, is equally a daring invasion of the divine prerogative, a reflection on the perfection of divine wisdom, and so cannot but be offensive to him who hath said (Isaiah 42: 8), “My glory will I not give to another.”

3. This positive divine authority and appointment is necessary as the warrant and foundation of a divine faith on the part of the worshiper. “Without faith,” it is said (Heb. 11: 6), “it is impossible to please God,” and (Rom. 14: 23), “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Now, one essential element of this faith, which is so necessary to acceptance with God in every act of worship,

[Page 19]

is the persuasion or assurance of a divine warrant for what we are doing; and this can only rest on a divine institution or appointment. Thus, under the law it was necessary, not only that the offering be perfect of its kind, but that it be the very kind which God had prescribed. While therefore, the worshiper who brought the two turtle-doves or young pigeons could come with the same faith of acceptance as his richer brother who brought a kid or an ox, yet he who brought the most valuable and costly sacrifices of something which was not prescribed could have no such confidence. Now, praise is one of the sacrifices we are to offer in the worship of God under the New Testament (Heb. 13: 16). When, therefore we bring a Psalm, or a hymn to offer unto God, the very first requisite to acceptance is a divine warrant on which faith can rest and say, “We bring to thee that which thou hast required and appointed.” And for this nothing less and nothing else will serve than a positive divine appointment, either by express Scripture precept or example, or good and necessary inference from Scripture. Faith is a positive, not a negative exercise, and requires a positive, not a negative authority. It will not satisfy such a faith to say that the thing is not forbidden,

[Page 20]

because to the conscience of the believer the very absence of a divine appointment operates as a prohibition. And therefore, unless we are prepared to accept the dogma of Popery—that the authority of the church as expressed through Pope or council is infallible, and so a sufficient foundation for the faith and obedience of its members (which it is taken for granted no Protestant will for a moment admit, much less claim,) we are led irresistibly to the conclusion from this, as well as the two preceding arguments, that nothing is to be used in the worship of God but that which he himself hath instituted and appointed for that purpose, which is our major premise.

And now we have a right to demand, and we are bound to demand, in reference to any songs, whether inspired or uninspired, which are offered to be employed in the praise of God, “By what authority doest thou these things, and who gave thee this authority?” and to reject whatever cannot furnish the divine credentials, however highly recommended otherwise. We are now prepared to inquire what songs, if any, have this divine authorization, which brings us to the consideration of the second premise, viz.:

Minor Premise—The songs contained in

[Page 21]

the Book of Psalms, and they only, have been given and appointed by God to be used in his praise.

It is assumed, or taken for granted, in this argument, that praise is an ordinance of divine worship, and that this duty is to be performed by the singing of Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. It is also admitted and recognized as a necessity by all churches, that a form must be prepared beforehand, in which all can join. However they may differ in regard to a Book of Prayer, yet all are agreed in regard to the necessity of a Book of Praise or Hymn-book. The only question to be settled is, how shall that book be furnished? Has God provided and furnished such a book, or has he left each church or each age of the church to furnish one for itself? We affirm that God has provided and given the Book of Psalms to be used by his church in all ages to the end of time, and argue:

1. From the form of these Psalms and the title of the book, which show that it was given for this purpose. We need not stop to prove that this book of Psalms is inspired that is given by God to his church; its place in the sacred canon is sufficient evidence of this. True, language has sometimes been

[Page 22]

used respecting some of these Psalms inconsistent with that reverence which is due to the words of the Holy Ghost—the word of God. But such objections coming from evangelical Christians must either be covered with the mantle of that of charity which “hopeth all things,” or treated as we would any other infidel objections, with which we have nothing to do in this discussion. If these Psalms, or any of them, are not the inspired word of God, let them be stricken from the sacred canon; if they are inspired, let them be treated, not as the words of David, or any other mere man, but as the words which the Holy Ghost spake by the mouth of these men. The only question with which we have to do is the purpose for which they were given. In reference to this, we affirm that they, in common with all Scripture, are “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness,” etc. Yet their lyrical form and their titles—Psalms, hymns and songs—together with the title of the book, “Sephir Tehillim”—book of praises—sufficiently indicate their specific design to be sung, and sung in the praise of God. Indeed, this is admitted by all commentators of any standing. Among the many which might be quoted, we have

[Page 23]

space only for the testimony of the late Dr. Addison Alexander, in the preface to his Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. I, page 7: “These hundred and fifty independent pieces, different as they are, have this in common, that they are all—

1. Poetical; not merely imaginative and expressive of feeling, but stamped externally with that peculiar character of parallelism which distinguishes the higher style of Hebrew composition from ordinary prose. A still more marked resemblance is that they are all not only poetical, but—

2. Lyrical, i.e., songs, poems, intended to be sung, and with a musical accompaniment.

3. They are all religious lyrics, even those which seem at first sight the most secular in theme and spirit, but which are all found, on inquiry, to be strongly expressive of religious feeling.

4. They are all ecclesiastical lyrics, Psalms or hymns, intended to be permanently used in public worship, not excepting those which bear the clearest impress of original connection with the social, domestic, or personal relations and experience of the writers.” This testimony, with which all other commentators agree, is conclusive, and will not be gainsayed. These Psalms, and

[Page 24]

all of them, were given, in the words of Barnes, “to be sung, not read,” and “intended to be permanently used in public worship.” But—

2. We argue the same from the history of their use with divine approval in the Old Testament Church. This appears not only from the inscriptions directed to the chief musician, showing that they were composed not for private but for general use, but also from the express testimony of the sacred history contained in the books of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah and Israel. We shall only refer to the passages without quoting them at length—I. Chron. 16: 7; II. Chron. 29: 25–30. From these and others which might be quoted we are warranted to infer that this was the original design of God in giving them, and that they were so regarded and treated by the church of that day down to the time of the captivity. After that they were collected into a book and placed in the sacred canon by the same authority as the other books of the Old Testament—whether by the hands of Ezra, which is most probable, or of some other person unknown, matters not to the argument. Besides the testimony of the Jews, particularly in the Septuagint translation, we have the conclusive testimony of the

[Page 25]

Saviour and his apostles that they continued to be received and used as a book of praises down to their day.

But were these the only ones that were given for this purpose? We answer, yes. Because—1. No mention is made of any others having been used in the regular and permanent worship of God; and 2. Whatever others were used occasionally even in the worship of God, as the song of Habakkuk, were not designed for general use, else they would have been put into this divine collection.

We are, therefore, warranted in the conclusion that the songs contained in the Book of Psalms, and they only, were given and appointed by God to be used in his worship in the Old Testament Church. It remains only to show the authority for their use in the New Testament Church, and this we argue—

1. From their adaptation for use under the New Testament, as well as or even better than under the Old. They are moral, not typical; spiritual, not carnal; evangelical, full of Christ and his gospel, and highly devotional. The truth is, that if they were adapted for use under the Old Testament, they are much more suitable now; for much

[Page 26]

of the language employed in them respecting Christ and his kingdom must have conveyed but a dim and shadowy meaning to Old Testament saints. But in the clearer light of the New Testament these shadows disappear, and the rich, golden truths contained in these Psalms shine forth with a beauty and splendor which delight the eye and ravish the heart of every enlightened student and lover of God’s word. We might fill pages with the glowing eulogies pronounced by poets, scholars and divines, indeed by all who have written on the Psalms, who can find no language sufficiently strong to express their admiration of their beauties and excellencies, not simply as compositions, but as lyrics adapted to all the purposes of praise, whether in showing forth the divine glory and perfections as manifested in the works of creation, providence and redemption, or in giving expression to every variety of devotional feeling which corresponds to the utmost range of Christian experience, in the church and individual, down to the latest ages. The more they are known, and the better they are understood, the more highly they are appreciated, and “the more transcendent,” in the words of Milton, “does their

[Page 27]

superiority appear over all other lyrical compositions whatsoever.” If their use is not continued in the New Testament Church it certainly is not for want of suitableness and adaptation. Why they are not used, why they are superseded by compositions confessedly so far inferior, even by those who thus eulogize their superiority, is a mystery which remains, and must remain, unexplained. But—

2. Their divine appointment has neither terminated nor been abrogated or set aside under the New Testament. Though used in connection with instruments and sacrifices in the temple service, yet all are agreed that the singing of Psalms belongs to the moral worship of God, the obligation of which did not cease with the coming of Christ and the destruction of the temple, as did the use of instruments and the offering of sacrifices, which needed no re-enactment, but, unless expressly abrogated by divine authority, passed over into the New Testament Church by virtue of their original appointment. At all events, whatever difference of views there may be in regard to the use of instruments, yet the duty of singing in the worship of God is universally recognized and practiced by the Church to this day. The only question to be settled

[Page 28]

is, What is to be sung? Has the divine appointment of the Book of Psalms as the matter of the Church’s praise terminated—been abrogated or superseded by the appointment of others?

We have already seen that it has not terminated, because these Psalms are neither typical, ceremonial nor symbolical, but being moral and spiritual, are even better adapted to the present than to the former dispensation. Indeed this is now generally admitted, and has been from the first, by the use of them in the Church from the earliest ages, and more especially since the Reformation. We might have said, their exclusive use by the purest Reformed Churches down to a comparatively recent period; but this is not necessary to our argument, as we only wish to show that their continued obligation, or at least the propriety of their use, has been universally admitted even by those Churches which have practically set them aside, and this admission brings them under the operation of our first premise which excludes all others that have not equal authority for their use. But in addition to this we affirm that their appointment, instead of being abrogated, has been endorsed and repeated by our Saviour and his apostles, both by example and

[Page 29]

precept. That the hymn or Psalm which was sung by the Lord and his disciples before going to the Mount of Olives, on that memorable night when he instituted the Lord’s Supper, was one or more of these songs (Ps. 113–118) there can be no reasonable doubt, and this is almost universally admitted by commentators. Equally plain and clear is it that the direction given by Paul to the Ephesians and Colossians to “sing Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,” apply, at least in part, to the Book of Psalms. We do not now raise the question in regard to the hymns and spiritual songs there mentioned, we shall notice that again; but all are agreed that by Psalms are meant those contained in the Book of Psalms. Here then we have express authority in the New Testament by example and precept for the continued use of the Book of Psalms in the worship of God. Whatever else is denied, there is, there can be no doubt that we have a divine warrant and authority for singing the Psalms, and all of them, in the worship of God, now as well as under the Old Testament. In the words of our Declaration, “It is the will of God that the songs,” &c.

If this be so, then those who sing these Psalms are using this book in obedience to

[Page 30]

the command of God, and for the very purpose for which it was confessedly given—“to be sung, not read.” Those who refuse or neglect to do so are chargeable with disregarding a plain command of God to sing Psalms. Whether they are right or wrong in singing hymns, they are clearly and confessedly wrong in habitually omitting to use the Psalms; for when the command of God is interposed there is no room for liberty. Omission or neglect of performance is as truly disobedience as positive transgression.

Here we might safely rest the argument. We have shown the authority and warrant for the use of the Book of Psalms in the praise of God, both in the Old and New Testaments. If authority is claimed for using any other, we have a right—nay, we are bound—to demand that it be shown by positive appointment of God, either expressed or implied; and until this is done such songs, whether inspired or uninspired, are excluded from the formal worship of God on the principle laid down and established in the major premise. Here the burden of proof rests on those who introduce something beside or in addition to what we have proved to be given by Divine appointment; and we are safe in

[Page 31]

affirming that such proof has not and can not be furnished. But waiving this for the present, we shall endeavor to demonstrate the negative of our proposition, viz., that no others have been given or authorized under the New Testament. Our argument may be stated thus:

Major Premise—If any such songs have been given for use in the New Testament Church, they must have been furnished either by our Saviour and his inspired apostles or by some one specially commissioned and inspired for this purpose.

Minor Premise—No such songs have been thus furnished.

Ergo—No other songs than those already given have divine authority for their use.

In support of the first position we offer the following:

1. Nothing less than supernatural inspiration is requisite to furnish songs of praise for the Church of God. We have hitherto laid little stress on the inspiration of the Psalms, because, as stated in the outset, the question is not, primarily nor principally, one of inspired or uninspired, but of an authorized or unauthorized Psalmody. But at this point the fact of inspiration becomes a conclusive argument in favor of the Book of

[Page 32]

Psalms as against all compositions of uninspired men, because such inspiration is indispensably requisite to the making of songs of praise, both from the nature of the case and from the fact that God has seen proper to give such an inspired book. We affirm:

I. That supernatural inspiration is indispensably requisite from the very nature of the case. It has already been observed that a liturgy or form of praise is a necessity felt and acknowledged by all; for, unlike prayer, it is an exercise in which all unite in singing the same songs. And these songs must be prepared beforehand and adapted to the vast multitudes of worshipers in the different places and ages of the church, with all their diversified circumstances and wants as churches and individuals. While, therefore, it might be possible for one in ten thousand to compose hymns for their own use (though even this is not admitted,) who but God, or one inspired by God, can furnish hymns for the Church? Let it be borne in mind that the main object of praise is to declare and magnify the excellencies of the divine character, as well as to give expression to every variety of devotional feeling which the contemplation of these perfections is designed to quicken and call forth. Such a task requires a

[Page 33]

perfection of knowledge of God and humanity which is beyond the natural capacity of the highest angel, much more of such ignorant, fallible men as the best of God’s saints are even when enlightened by the word and ordinary influence of the Spirit of God—as much beyond their ability as the writing of one of the epistles or other books of the Bible would be. “What man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God”—because the Spirit, and he only, “searcheth all things, even the deep things of God.” Now, in the Book of Psalms we have a collection of songs which has stood the test of ages and centuries, which Christians all over the world and in all ages have found from comfortable experience to be admirably adapted to all the ends for which such a book is needed—a collection complete as a whole and perfect in all its parts, without a mistake or error in doctrine or sentiment, without a defect in style or expression—and why? Because it is the work, not of David or Asaph, of John or of Paul, but of the omniscient, all-wise, infinitely perfect Spirit of God himself, who alone knoweth the things of God and the things of man, and so how

[Page 34]

to praise the one and express the feelings of the other. If space permitted, we could show, what any one can ascertain for himself by an examination of this matchless book, how in these one hundred and fifty Psalms is comprised all that is elsewhere revealed—of the character and perfections of God, in the relation of the three persons of the Godhead to each other, in his relations to man in the works of creation, providence and redemption; everything respecting the person and work of Christ, his life, death, resurrection, ascension, his kingdom and glory, his second coming and the final judgment; all that relates to the work of the Spirit in the application of redemption, and all that relates to the experience of men as sinners saved by grace; in a word, an epitome of the Bible itself, and of that Bible in its results as written in human history and human experience. Even among the books of the Bible it is a non-such. Who can imitate it? Who can excel it? Who can equal it? Who, unless one inspired as David was—the sweet Psalmist of Israel—who could say, “The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.” Surely the conclusion is irresistible: None but an inspired man—and we used the word inspired in its

[Page 35]

highest sense—is competent to furnish a Psalmody for the Church of God to-day any more than in Old Testament times—may we not say, much less competent now than then? But the same conclusion follows—

2. From the fact that God did deem it necessary to raise up and inspire men to prepare a Book of Psalms for his Church. It is a maxim the force of which even a heathen could appreciate, “never introduce a god except upon an adequate occasion.” If a book of Psalms could have been given without inspiration, we may be sure that God would not have inspired men to do it; for he never interposes in a supernatural manner without necessity or sufficient reason. When Christ was on earth he never, so far as the record shows, cured a disease by a miracle which could have been cured by ordinary means. When he raised up Lazarus from the dead, he exerted his divine power only in doing what could not be done by human agency. When the stone was to be rolled away and the living man was to be unbound, he said to those who stood by, “Roll away the stone—loose him and let him go.” It was only when the dead corpse was to be quickened with renewed life that

[Page 36]

he spake the words of divine power, “Lazarus, come forth.” Now, if God has given to his Church a manual of praise by a supernatural inspiration, the inference is more than presumptive; it is fair and legitimate, that nothing less than this is requisite for that purpose. Thus we are led to the same conclusion both from the nature of the case and from the fact that God has deemed such inspiration necessary. Inspired songs we must have. Nothing else and nothing less will serve the purpose.

The only question which remains to answer is, have any such been given to the New Testament Church? If so, when and by whom? This brings us to the

Second Premise. No such songs have been given either by the Saviour or his inspired apostles and prophets; nor is there any promise of inspiration or authority given to any one to prepare such songs. That Christ or his apostles have furnished such a book or any additional songs to the Book of Psalms, will not, I suppose, be asserted. If they did prepare and use such themselves, we have no record of it, and there is no trace of them now; they are lost and their place cannot be supplied. But is there no promise or authority given to the Church to supply

[Page 37]

this supposed want which the Saviour and his apostles failed to supply? No, none whatever! We have many promises of the assistance of the Spirit in making our own prayers and in leading the prayers of others, but nowhere throughout the whole New Testament a single promise or the slightest hint of any such promise for making our own hymns, much less the songs of the Church. We have the command to “sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs”—none to make them. There is ample authority for using those then in existence—not a particle for bringing into existence any others.

Again, when Jesus “ascended on high and received gifts for men,” he bestowed upon the Church all the gifts necessary for her edification to the end of time. But among all these mentioned (Eph. 4: 11; I. Cor. 12: 8–11, 28) we look in vain for the gift of a Psalmist or the spirit of Psalmody, and yet, as we have seen, if songs of praise other than or in addition to those already in her possession, were to be given to the Church, such a gift was absolutely necessary. That no such gift was either bestowed or promised by the great Head of the Church is conclusive demonstration that no others were needed. We are constrained, therefore, to say what to

[Page 38]

some may appear harsh, but what we think truth justifies us in saying, and even requires to be said, that whoever undertakes to prepare songs of praise to be used in the worship of God in addition to or in place of those which God has given, not only does so without warrant and authority from Christ, but thereby arrogates to himself the power and prerogatives of the Spirit of God, and presumes to do that which none but one supernaturally endowed by inspiration is competent to do—an arrogance and presumption which might well make one shudder. Is not, then, the conclusion at which we have been aiming all but irresistible: No other songs but those contained in the Book of Psalms have been provided by divine authority either in the Old or New Testament, and, therefore, all others by whomsoever else provided are excluded.

We have space only for a brief notice of those two passages in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, where direction is given to sing hymns and spiritual songs as well as Psalms, which furnish the only plausible objection against our argument from a scriptural basis and in favor of the use of uninspired hymns and songs. Besides what

[Page 39]

we have already said in relation to these passages as furnishing authority in the New Testament for the use of Psalms, it is only necessary farther to observe—

1. That the very language implies that these hymns and songs were then in existence and familiar to those to whom the apostle wrote. Where are they to be found if not in the Book of Psalms?

2. There is here no authority to make hymns and songs, but only to use those already made, and yet it is this very authority for making which it is necessary to find.

3. These very titles, and all of them are found in the Book of Psalms, the only ones known to be in existence at that time.

4. If any others were in existence and in use in the Church they must have been inspired as we have seen, and if so, they are now lost and there is no authority here or elsewhere in the New Testament to supply their place or to use those which are not inspired.

5. That inspired songs are referred to is evident from the word spiritual, which is nowhere applied in the New Testament but to that of which the Holy Spirit is the author.

6. They are to be used as a means of “being filled with the spirit”—to which

[Page 40]

end the words of inspiration are peculiarly adapted.

7. We are to sing them as a means of letting the “word of Christ dwell in us richly”—language which will apply more appropriately to that Book of Psalms, which are all the word of Christ, and which are full of Christ, than to any human composition whatsoever.

For a more extended and exhaustive exegesis and discussion of these two passages the reader is referred to the admirable remarks of Dr. Cooper contained in the “True Psalmody,” page 73 and onward, of which these seven points are a brief outline taken from the Argument and Illustration of the Testimony.

From these considerations, therefore, we are warranted in viewing these passages as furnishing strong corroborative evidence in favor of instead of against our position, containing as they do an apostolic injunction to praise God by means of those “Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” which he himself had given to the Church, and which, so far as we know, were the only ones then in existence.

We have now finished our argument, and shown a scriptural warrant for our position

[Page 41]

viz: it is the will of God as indicated in his word, that the songs contained in the Book of Psalms, and they only, should be used in his formal worship. We have carefully avoided all side issues and arguments ad hominem, and confined our attention exclusively to the Scripture as the sole and sufficient arbiter on this subject. All the questions of history, of experience, or of expediency, are subordinate to this fundamental inquiry, what is the will of God? And as we said before, so now we say again, when this is settled satisfactorily to the conscience of the Church, there will be little difficulty in adjusting these others and determining the place of other sacred songs and their proper use. That “the devotional compositions of uninspired men” have their proper use and place cannot and will not be denied. It is their improper use and the putting of them in place of God’s songs in his worship—in singing his praise—which we oppose, and which has caused the disturbance and division in the Church of God. Let us all go back to the ground occupied by our fathers in the purest times of the Reformation, and allow nothing to have place in the worship of God, but that which has the positive sanction of his authority, either by express Scripture

[Page 42]

precept or example, or by good and necessary inference from it. Let this be done, and it will not be long till these divinely prepared and appointed Psalms will again occupy their appropriate place in the worship of God, as in the best days and purest Churches of the Reformation and the whole Church of God once more “with a voice together sing.” May the Lord hasten it in his time!

RECAPITULATION.

First Premise—That only is to be used in the formal worship of God which he hath appointed for that purpose.

Second Premise—The songs contained in the Book of Psalms, and they only, have been given and appointed by God to be used in singing his praise.

Ergo—In singing his praise, these only should be used; or, “it is the will of God that the songs,” etc.

That nothing should be used in his worship but that which he hath appointed, we argue—

1. Because obedience to the will of God belongs to the essence of worship.

2. God claims this as his prerogative to

[Page 43]

prescribe the manner and means of his worship, and is extremely jealous of this prerogative.

3. Because this positive divine authority and appointment is necessary as the warrant and foundation of that divine faith, “without which it is impossible to please God.”

That the songs contained in the Book of Psalms, and they only, have this divine authority and appointment, we argue—

1. From the very form of the Psalms, as “religious, ecclesiastical lyrics,” designed to be “sung, not read,” and from the name of the book, “Tehillim”—book of praises.

2. That they were so used with divine approval in the Old Testament Church down to the time of our Saviour.

3. That their collection into a book, and their place in the sacred canon, is sanctioned by his authority.

4. That this appointment did not terminate, but passed over into the New Testament Church, unless expressly abrogated or superseded.

5. That instead of being abrogated, their use was expressly sanctioned and enjoined by our Saviour and his apostles.

6. That they have not been superseded

[Page 44]

by others; because—(1) our Saviour and his inspired apostles have left no others; nor (2) has any promise or authority been given in the New Testament to prepare any other; (3) nor is there any mention of the gift of the Spirit of Psalmody; and yet (4) such a spirit of inspiration is absolutely necessary to the preparation of such songs of praise, both from the nature of the case and from the fact that God saw fit to inspire men to furnish such songs, which he would not have done had it not been necessary.

UNITED PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION,

53 & 55 NINTH ST., PITTSBURGH.