Wmmm mm mm I ■■1 WBBb3sb& class JOY&m. Book £& Copyright N° COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. THE PSALMODY QUESTION AN EXAMINATION OF THE ALLEGED DIVINE APPOINTMENT OF THE BOOK OF PSALMS AS THE EXCLUSIVE MANUAL OF PRAISE BY The Rev. DAVID FINDLEY BONNER, AM., D.D. " Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly ; in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs."— Colossians 3 : 16. HANFORD and HORTON MIDDLETOWN, N. Y. 1908 JuSRARY of C ivo Copies K© MAR 1ES908 Jepyngfu titir* AXci flu. .ssA I 52i Copyright, 1908 By David Findley Bonneb PREFACE. In a way, this work is an expansion of a series of articles published in August— September, 1904, in The Westminster. And yet it is more than this. In those articles the following argument was only briefly indicated. Here it is fully stated. There authorities were not even cited. Here they are freely quoted. There important points were necessarily omitted. Here they are clearly presented. Then the object was to arrest attention. Now it is to produce conviction. The time seems ripe for the discussion here at- tempted. Fresh interest in the subject of Psalmody is being awakened; and a movement having for its object the pressing of the claims of a Davidic Psalm- ody to an exclusive place in the church's hymnody, has been inaugurated. A new metrical version of the Psalms has recently been published, and is now being perfected. Two large and enthusiastic Psalmody con- ventions have recently been held; and a volume con- taining the papers presented at these conventions has just been issued. Our United Presbyterian brethren seem disposed to make the exclusive use of the Psalms of David in the worship of God their chief distinctive principle, and to give to its maintenance and propagation a corresponding measure of devotion. 1 lf 'In providing for the publication of these convention ad- dresses the General Assembly had more in mind than a de- nominational interest. There was the further purpose to submit them to the serious consideration of the Christian Church at large." Preface to "The Psalms in Worship." iv PREFACE. This work was largely written before the writer knew that the Psalmody conventions were to be held. It was completed and ready for the press before they met. Pending arrangements for publication, how- ever, it was learned that the proceedings of these con- ventions were to be published. In view of this fact the manuscript was laid aside till the book should be issued. This book has now been published. It is a unique and imposing volume. It is unique because of its multiple authorship. Two conventions were held— the first in Pittsburg, and the second in Chicago. They were held about a fortnight apart in November, 1905. The same themes were discussed in both conventions, but by different speakers. Twenty-seven topics, cov- ering every phase of the Psalmody question, were se- lected; and each topic was assigned to two persons. Upon these topics papers were to be prepared, and one complete set presented at each convention. The re- sult is this book. Aside from a brief preface the book contains nothing but these papers. The volume is im- posing because of its size and comprehensiveness. It contains 572 octavo pages, and gathers together fifty- four papers by as many different writers. There are both advantages and disadvantages in such authorship; and this volume exhibits some of both of them. For the most part the discussion is dignified and courteous, and some of the papers have real literary excellence. As a whole, the volume is a credit to our brethren, and is a strong plea for their position. After a careful examination of the volume it does PREFACE. v not seem to be either necessary or desirable to recon- struct and rewrite my work. I have added notes to meet, so far as seemed desirable, new points, or old points freshly presented. In the hope that this little work may contribute somewhat to the bringing together of the separated groups of the Presbyterian family, the writer submits it to the kindly and thoughtful consideration of his brethren in all branches of the Presbyterian brother- hood. Presbyterian Manse, Marathon, N. Y., Aug. 29, 1907. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. Practical importance of the question. —Diverse views bar to fellowship.— United Presbyterians ac- cepted as typical Psalm-singers.— Reasons. uar to ±eiiowsuip. — umieu r cepted as typical Psalm-singers. CHAPTER I. THE QUESTION STATED. Controversy dates from 1719.— Three positions de- veloped: Davidic Psalmody; Scripture Psalm- ody; Scriptural Psalmody.— The Davidic theory. —Testimony of the United Presbyterian Church.— Testimony slightly ambiguous.— James Harper, D.D.— John T. Pressly, D.D.— J. B. Johnston, D.D. CHAPTER II. THE BASAL PRINCIPLE. Divine appointment.— Westminster Confession.— J. G. Carson, D.D.— James Harper, D.D.— D. W. Collins, D.D. —Positions controverted. —Varia- tions from Mosaic ordinances noted.— The ordi- nance of praise.— James Harper, D.D.— J. Clay- baugh, D.D.— The True Psalmody.— True con- ception of the ordinance of praise. CHAPTER III. THE BOOK OF PSALMS. Their exclusive use.— Position as stated by J. Clay- baugh, D.D.— John T. Pressly, D.D.— Dr. Martin. —J. 6. Carson, D.D.— Position examined.— viii CONTENTS. Psalmody of Old Testament church not exclu- sively Davidic.— Alfred Edersheim, D.D.— Sup- plemental Note : (a) Question stated ; (6) Psalter formed; (c) Question answered. CHAPTER IV. PSALMODY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Proof texts.— Ephesians 5:18-20; Colossians 3:16.— The three systems tested by these texts.— 1. Davidic theory.— John T. Pressly, D.D.— J. Clay- baugh, D.D.— William J. Reid, D.D.— Statements inaccurate. — 2. A Scripture, or Inspired, Psalm- ody.— J. B. Johnston, D.D.— Joseph T. Cooper, D.D.— Theory examined.— 3. Scriptural theory. —This theory comprehensive and not exclusive.— Texts examined.— Word of Christ.— Teaching and admonishing.— Terms, Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs.— Jewish custom.— Edersheim.— Ephesians probably hymn-singers. — Winer. — Supplementary Note: (a) Psalm titles in Septua- gint; (6) Spiritual; (c) Making songs; (d) " Un- thinkable' ' linking. CHAPTER V. PRACTICAL PROBLEMS. Place of song in Christian work.— Concessions of Psalm-singers.— James Harper, D.D.— Overture of 1787.— Concession theoretical rather than prac- tical.— Hymnody as evidence of unity.— Present hymnody not ideal.— Co-operation of Psalm- singers desirable.— Supplemental Note: (a) The Ephesian and Colossian passages; (6) Gospel hymns; (c) Outlook for Psalmody; (d) Con- clusion. INTRODUCTION. Considered in reference to their songs of praise the Presbyterian churches of this country are divisible into Psalm-singers and hymn-singers. The former, in their formal worship of God, confine themselves exclusively to the use of a metrical version of the Book of Psalms. The latter extend their songs of praise be- yond this collection. So far as mere number of organ- izations is concerned, these churches are equally di- vided between these two groups. This difference respecting Psalmody is probably the most divisive difference existing in the Presby- terian family to-day. While recent ecclesiastical his- tory and current ecclesiastical conditions forbid the fond expectation that with even this difference com- pletely eliminated these bodies would at once flow together into one organization, yet doubtless such elimination would contribute largely to such a result. It would at any rate, beyond all question, render co- operation and fellowship between them more feasible and cordial than is possible at present. No other dif- ference is such a bar to complete fraternization as this one respecting Psalmody. In fellowship meetings and co-operative activities other differences can, for the time, be ignored. Usually there is nothing to bring them into prominence and make them matters of synchronous practical importance. It is otherwise with Psalmody. There can be no devotional service without song— no song without words, But what 2 INTRODUCTION. shall these be— Psalm or hymn, or Psalm and hymn? One or other of these it must be ; and yet neither one of these alternatives is fully and cordially satisfactory to either party. Kegrettable as this condition of af- fairs is anywhere and always, it is positively distress- ing in the foreign field when workers of kindred faith and polity are seeking fullest co-operation in mission work. Such a condition cannot be absolutely justified. God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. Were his will fully apprehended and loyally obeyed there would be harmony. Either one side is maintaining a restriction, or the other is practicing a freedom, which is unwarranted. Which is it? Which has mistaken the Divine will ? It will not do to answer this question hastily or inconsiderately ; for it is a question of long standing, and has been differently answered by able and conscientious men. And yet the fact that after two or three generations of controversy the question remains an open one should not lead us to feel that a final answer is unattainable. Kather it should incite us to more careful study and more diligent endeavor to discover the Divine will. To such study and effort the following pages will be devoted. In prosecuting this study the United Presbyterian Church of North America will be regarded and treated as the representative of the Psalm-singing churches. This will be done, not because there is any- thing peculiar in the teachings of this church on the subject of Psalmody which differentiates it from the other Psalm-singing churches, but for the following reasons : INTRODUCTION. 3 1. It is by far the largest of the Psalm-singing churches in this country. The titles and membership of the various Psalm-singing churches in our country are as follows: The Associate Presbyterian, 1,000; The Associate Reformed Synod of the South, 13,000 ; Christian Reformed Church, 24,000; Reformed Pres- byterian Synod, 10,000; Reformed Presbyterian General Synod, 5,000 ; The United Presbyterian, 145,- 000 ; total, 198,000. Thus it is seen that nearly 75 per cent, of the entire Psalm-singing membership is found in the United Presbyterian Church. 2. With the possible exception of the Christian Re- formed Church it is fully and fairly representative of all the Psalm-singing churches. It is at least rep- resentative of all those with which closer relations or organic union are at present practical questions. It is so for the reason that it is a union church— a church resulting from union at different times of different bodies of Psalm-singers. And further, in this connec- tion, it is a happy fact that'these different bodies are represented in the authorship of its literature on the Psalmody question. 3. Within one of the constituent elements of this church— The Associate Reformed— the writer was reared; and in the United Church the earlier years of his ministry were passed. Its teachings are thor- oughly familiar to him. Its authors were his ac- quaintances—many of them his personal friends. The work is not undertaken because of love of con- troversy, but because the writer desires the union, or at least the complete fraternization, of the entire Presbyterian family. Neither of these ends will be 4 INTRODUCTION. effected till this question is settled. Nor will it be settled by the overpowering weight of mere numbers. It is not desirable that it should be. It will be settled only by the harmonizing of intelligent convictions. This work is the statement, explanation and justifi- cation of the convictions of the writer. These convic- tions are the results of years of study and reflection, and of many even painful struggles with doubts and difficulties. When first his inherited convictions be- gan to weaken in the presence of personal thought and practical experience the writer resisted the change, and did all in his pow r er to arrest it. The conflict con- tinued through several years. But the writer has reached satisfaction in this matter in the conclusions which in this little work find expression. Having been reached in this way, it is hoped that the conclu- sions which are here expressed, and the considerations by which they are justified, may lead other brethren passing through similar conflicts into like peace. CHAPTER I. THE QUESTION STATED. The Psalmody question as it exists to-day in this country really dates from the publication in 1719 of "The Psalms of David, Imitated in the Language of the New Testament,' ' by Isaac Watts, D.D. Up to that time not only Presbyterians of all schools, but Con- gregationalists as well, practically confined themselves to some metrical version of the Psalms of David. It was only as these imitations came into current use that the Psalmody question as it exists to-day arose in the church. As it is no part of the purpose of this essay to trace the history of Psalmody we will content ourselves with the statement of results. Suffice it then to say that in the course of the controversy three theories of Psalmody have been developed. These three theories may be designated and briefly described as follows: 1. A Davidic Psalmody. According to this theory, the church is restricted, in the formal worship of God, to the songs contained in the Book of Psalms. This is the practical, though, strictly speaking, not precisely the confessional, position of all the Psalm-singing churches of this country. 2. A Scripture Psalmody. This extends the songs of praise to all suitable lyrical portions of the Scrip- tures. This has been practically the position of the Presbyterian churches of Great Britain and her col- onies until comparatively recent years. 6 THE PSALMODY QUESTION. 3. A Scriptural Psalmody. This extends the songs to all portions of the Scripture, and only requires that the songs be Scriptural in sentiment and devotional in character. This is practically the position of all the hymn-singing churches of to-day. Of these three theories only the first and third are of present practical importance. To these then let us turn. The Davidic theory finds expression in the testimony of the United Presbyterian Church. Article XVIII. of that testimony reads as follows: "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 com- positions of uninspired men. " Examining this declaration closely, we find that it is neither so positive nor definite as at first reading it seems to be. It declares, first, That it is the will of God that the songs contained in the Book of Psalms are to be used in the worship of God, both public and private, to the end of the world. Does this mean that the entire Psalter is to be regularly sung through in course, or simply that the songs sung must be selected from the Psalter ? Time was when the former was an influential conception. In the writer's boyhood, in the first praise service of the Sabbath worship, the Psalter was regularly sung through in course. Of course this was done by portions. And these portions were always expounded— "explaining the Psalm/ ' it was called— before singing. So, too, in family wor- TEE QUESTION STATED. 7 ship the Psalter was sung through in course, as the Bible was read through in course. But the practice has long since ceased. The writer, in his pulpit min- istrations, never followed it, nor, so far as he knows, have any of his contemporaries. Selection is the rule. So largely is this the case that for years there has been in common use a little praise book, entitled l ' Bible Songs. ' 9 It consists of brief selections from the Psalter set to appropriate music. And even when the entire Psalter is at hand selection is the rule. And the se- lections, on examination, will be found to be surpris- ingly limited. Second, it declares that these songs are to be sung to the exclusion of the devotional compositions of un- inspired men. Third, it is noticeable that it does not say that they are to be used to the exclusion of the devotional com- positions of inspired men. In other words, it does not say that these songs of the Psalter are to be sung to the exclusion of other suitable lyrical portions of the Scriptures. It leaves the question respecting the use of such songs an open one. This is not an unwarranted and disavowed inference from the language of the declaration. It is a fact freely acknowledged by our brethren themselves. 1 i Among those who advocate the exclusive use of in- spired songs in praising God, some (a small minority, it is believed) hold, that, besides the Psalter, other parts of Scripture may warrantably be employed in that exercise/ ' Rev. James Harper, D.D., in Schaff- Herzog Encyclopedia s. v. Psalms. "Between those, on the one hand, who plead for the exclusive use of the Book of Psalms, and those, on the other, who ad- 8 THE PSALMODY QUESTION. mit the propriety of using in the worship of God any song of praise contained in the Bible, the difference of opinion is not of such a nature as should disturb the peace of the Church of God. Such a difference should, I believe, be made a matter of forbearance among brethren. Let the principle be explicitly rec- ognized, that no songs of praise shall be used in the worship of God but those which are given by inspira- tion of God, and then the peace and harmony of the Christian world are not likely to be interrupted by controversy on this subject." Dr. Pressly on Psalm- ody, p. 88. ' ' True, on one hand, the practice has been confined to the Book of Psalms, while, in principle, uncompromised in regard to the use of other inspired songs, suitable for praise. It is a remarkable feature of the providence of the head of the church that has led all the psalm-singing churches to leave, in their organic law, the question of the use of ' other scrip- ture songs' an open one— one subject to interpretation, or application, as circumstances may suggest.' ' Psalmody, J. B. Johnston, p. 82. These three brethren represent the three constituent elements of the United Presbyterian Church; and hence the entire body of Psalm-singing Christians in this country. Attention is especially called to this indefiniteness in the statement of their position by our Psalm-singing brethren, not because of any prac- tical importance to be attached to it, but for its logical bearing on the Psalmody controversy. This bearing will become manifest when the argument by which the position of our brethren is defended comes to be ex- amined. CHAPTER II. THE BASAL PRINCIPLE. It is a fortunate fact that all members of the Pres- byterian household are in agreement in regard to the ultimate authority by which all questions of faith and practice are to be settled. The faith common to all of them is formulated in the Westminster Con- fession, and is as follows: "The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and doeth good unto all ; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But 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 ac- cording to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scrip- ture.' ' Confession of Faith, Chapter 21, Sec. 1. It is to this principle our brethren appeal. Upon it they found their plea. The following is a representa- tive statement of their position : "In pleading the cause of the songs of Zion, the great argument on which we rely is the divine ap- pointment of them, to be used in singing God's praise ; and our grand objection to the use of the evangelical compositions of uninspired men is, that whatever other , recommendations they may possess, they lack divine t appointment. ... As this is a principle of very great 10 TEE PSALMODY QUESTION. importance at all times; and especially so at a time like the present, when there is so strong a disposition to make improvements in religion, as well as in the department of human science, the reader will allow me to add a few remarks to what has already been said. ' ' To ancient Israel, the following direction, with re- gard to the worship of God, was given by Jehovah him- self : 'An altar of earth, thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep and thine oxen. And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it thou hast polluted it.' Exodus 20:24,25. If human wisdom had been consulted with regard to this institution, many reasons could have been ad- vanced to show the propriety of erecting an altar of a different kind from the one here described. It might have been said with much plausibility, that to set up an altar of rough unpolished stone would look very much like carelessness in relation to religious worship ; that it would seem to indicate an unwillingness to sub- mit to any labor or expense in the service of God ; and in appearance at least would be disrespectful to the object of religious worship. And the wisdom of man would not hesitate to decide that an altar of polished stone, neatly adjusted together by the skill of the artifi- cer, would appear more respectful to the Deity, and consequently would be more likely to prove acceptable to God. But, no ! It does not belong to human wis- dom to determine what is proper in the worship of God. This is exclusively the prerogative of him who is the object of religious worship ; and his declaration is, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone ; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. . . . The conclusion of the whole matter then is, that in all our religious offerings, we must be prepared to answer the question, 'Who hath required this at your hands V " Dr. Pressly on Psalmody, pp. 16, 17, 18. TEE BASAL PRINCIPLE. 11 To this principle itself no one objects. It is only to the interpretation and application of the principle by our brethren that exception is taken. In their teaching divine appointment is always specific and positive. It always either enjoins or forbids— never simply authorizes or permits. ' ' 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, 4 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, be- cause to the conscience of the believer the very absence of a divine appointment operates as a prohibition. ' ' An Authorized Psalmody. By Eev. J. G. Carson, D.D., pp. 19, 20. Kef erring to the statements of the Westminster Con- fession and Catechisms respecting worship Dr. James Harper says : "These statements are so precise and clear that to mistake their meaning would seem well-nigh impossi- ble, and that meaning is that every part and form of lawful worship is appointed by God, and that whatever lacks this appointment is forbidden." A Counterblast to the Organ. By James Harper, p. 10. "In matters of religious worship what God has not commanded is as good as forbidden." The Ordinance of Praise. By J. Claybaugh, D.D., p. 32. "The position of the churches adhering to an inspired Psalmody, however, 12 THE PSALMODY QUESTION. is that every appointment of God for divine worship is obligatory— that there is no such thing as an op- tional warrant for any institution of that worship— that an inspired Psalmody has been appointed, and, therefore, is to be used exclusively— that singing in praise is required and instrumentation not required, and, therefore, has no place in praise. The whole lit- erature of the controversy on Psalmody has its pivo- tal point in this one question." Musical Instruments in Divine Worship, Condemned by the Word of God. By Rev. D. W. Collins, D.D., p. 18. There is a sense in which even these teachings may be cordially accepted. But taken in the sense in which they must be understood, if they are to be accepted as justification for the positions they are intended to sub- stantiate, they are neither Confessional nor Scriptural. They are not Confessional. One of the rules given for the interpretation of the Ten Commandments is this: "What God forbids is at no time to be done; what he commands is always our duty, and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times." Larger Catechism, Question 99. Specially suggestive are the Scripture texts quoted in proof of the position. They are these ; Matt. 12 : 7 : ' ' But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless" ; Mark 14 : 7 : "For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good; but me ye have not al- ways." In other words, the commands of God are always to be interpreted in the light of the purpose for which they have been given— the end they are in- tended to serve; and the spirit of the command is never to be sacrificed to its letter. THE BASAL PRINCIPLE. 13 They are not Scriptural, (a) Only the males among the Israelites were required to attend the annual feast (Deut. 16: 16, 17), and yet women attended with acceptance. 1 Sam. 1:7. ( b ) Only three annual feasts were appointed. These were the Feasts of the Pass- over, Pentecost and Tabernacles. Deut. 16:16, 17. After the Captivity two others were added— Purim and Dedication. Specially noticeable, in this connec- tion, is the latter. It was "an annual festival insti- tuted by Judas Maccabaeus in 165 b.c. to celebrate the reconsecration of the temple to Jehovah after it had been desecrated for three years by the Greek idolatries carried on within its precincts by order of Antiochus Epiphanes. 1 Mac. 4:52-59. The feast lasted eight days, beginning on the 25th of Chislev (approx- imately November), and falling consequently in win^ ter. Jesus was at least once present at Jerusalem during the festival, and delivered one of his discourses to those assembled at the temple for the celebration. John 10 : 22. The Jews still observe the festival. ' ' Dictionary of the Bible. John D. Davis, s. v. Dedi- cation. So also in substance Hastings and Smith Dic- tionaries, and other authorities. Here, then, is a feast not even mentioned in the Old Testament Scriptures, and yet honored by Jesus by personal attendance and public teaching, (c) In the times of our Saviour there were two observances connected with the Feast of Tabernacles— the pouring out of water from the pool of Siloam and the illumination of the temple— which were of post-Mosaic origin. And yet while in Jerusalem in attendance upon this feast Jesus ap- parently makes use of both of these customs to illus- 14 THE PSALMODY QUESTION. trate his mission. John 7:37; 8:12. (d) The law it- self made provision for free-will offerings. Lev. 7 : 16. The first mention of these is in connection with the building of the tabernacle. Ex. 25:2; 35:29; 36:3. And this fact sufficiently indicates their true charac- ter, (e) It seems difficult, too, on the principles of our brethren, to justify current orthodox teachings re- specting the Fourth Commandment. That command- ment as explicitly enjoins work on the six days as it does rest and worship on the seventh ; and yet no one hesitates to urge, on occasion, intermission of labor and devotion of some, or, even for a time, largely all of these six days to worship. Of course our brethren have a reply to all this. It is thus presented by one of them : " There is, therefore, no warrant in reference to the passover that did not apply to the women as well as to the men. But even if the women had not been in- cluded in the obligation to observe the passover, every- thing in the mode of observing it was obligatory, and this is the question at issue. . . . The prolonging of a feast by Solomon and Hezekiah is not a case in point, nor is the question of the appointment of the Feast of Dedication. For it is not a question of times or occasions for worship, but of the mode of worship to be observed in the praise of God. We have a right to infer for several reasons which we need not present here, that the Feast of Dedication was of divine obliga- tion. But it does not matter in the decision of the question of the mode of praise. The prolonging of a feast, or the appointment of a new occasion for others, by no means implies a permission to change a prescribed mode of worship. If the occasion was one for praise it must be rendered as the law required. TEE BASAL PRINCIPLE. 15 The principle holds good in reference to every ex- ample. 1 ' The claim that in the institution of free-will offer- ings the letter of the law makes a distinction between the voluntary and the obligatory ' respecting religious worship, ' furnishes absolutely nothing in favor of the theory of an optional warrant for anything in divine worship. Moses commands, respecting the offering, made on the three great occasions of the assembling of the people at the appointed place, that 'they shall not appear before the Lord empty. ' ' Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which he hath given thee. ' Deut. 16 : 16, 17. This command included what is in Lev. 23 : 38 called 'gifts/ 'vows' and 'freewill offerings.' They were all required offerings. Every one was required to know how the Lord had blessed him and to offer accordingly. The offering was to be 'of his own will.' But the principle is that the giver recognizing the extent of the blessing he enjoyed should give with a cheerful heart, and his gifts were to be the evidence that his will was in hearty accord with the will of the Lord. It is the very principle on which all offerings are to be presented to God still. . . . Other examples are al- leged as being recognized by the consciousness and universal practice of Christendom as having for them an optional warrant, such as week-day services and prayer-meetings. It need only be replied here again that when such services are held God has prescribed the matter and manner of the service. Nothing is to be presented in such services but the ordinances as divinely appointed." Musical Instruments in Divine Worship, Condemned by the Word of God. By Rev. D. W. Collins, D.D., pp. 20-22. It is difficult to know how to reconcile these ap- parently conflicting teachings of our brethren. In worshipping God "the very first requisite to ac- 16 THE PSALMODY QUESTION. ceptance is a divine warrant on which faith can rest and say, We bring thee that which thou hast required and appointed," and yet here is an Old Testament feast which "was of divine obligation," though not mentioned in the Old Testament Scriptures, and which did not even originate until, according to the tradi- tional view accepted by our brethren, long after the canon of Old Testament Scripture was closed. Here, too, are offerings our brethren say were required, and hence obligatory, which God himself said were free- will offerings and hence voluntary. The key to the reconciliation of these apparently contradictory teachings of our brethren lies in their conception of the ordinance of praise. That concep- tion is that the singing of Psalms in the formal wor- ship of God constitutes the ordinance of praise. This is the assumption underlying their entire argument. That it is, at least implicitly, their positive teaching the following quotations make evident: "What are the commonly acknowledged ordinances of the New Testament church ? The sacred observance of the Lord's day; the reading of the Scriptures; preaching; the benediction; prayer; the singing of psalms; the giving of our substance for the cause of God ; fasting in certain circumstances ; vowing to God ; the observance of baptism and the Lord's Supper; the form of church government; and the administration of discipline." A Counterblast to the Organ. By James Harper, pp. 81, 82. "No enlightened Christian w T ill deny that praise is an ordinance of God. . . . An ordinance always implies an ordaining power, to which exclusively belongs the regulation of the whole matter ordained. ... In the very nature of the thing, the entire ordinance is from the ordaining power. And THE BASAL PRINCIPLE, 17 certainly the matter to be sung is of prominent im- portance in the ordinance of praise. And this or- dinance not merely prescribes praise in general, but appoints the Book of Psalms for this purpose." The Ordinance of Praise. By J. Claybaugh, D.D., pp. 11-15. " There is an ordinance of praise. . . . But what is the ordinance of praise ? Does it consist merely in the use of musical instead of reading tones? And can there be so much difference between these two modes of uttering the same sentiments, as that one is allowable, and the other not? This is a very subtle form of the general argument which we have just con- sidered. And we remark, (1) That the same kind of reasoning would be equally available, as we have seen, to confound other religious acts and ordinances with the doings of every day, or of the Christian life. (2) It is not the mere use of singing tones, but the design of the act, and its circumstances, which we are here to consider, just as we do in reference to baptism, the Lord's Supper, and laying on of hands in the act of ordination. Are we engaged in celebrating God's praise in song, according to his appointment, and in circumstances to which that appointment relates? If so, we must have regard to something more than the tones merely in which we utter our praises. We must take with us the entire institution of praise as a part of the prescribed order of worship. Hence (3), it is most important to remember that we have a book, pro- vided by Him whose name we magnify in song, and appointed for this very end; and no command or promise, regarding another. Had we a book of prayers in the Scriptures— were we commanded to use this — were there no precept enjoining the use of any prayers not contained in this book— were there no promises of help in making prayers, the whole ordinance of prayer would be comprehended within this inspired liturgy with the appropriate and prescribed restrictions, sea- 18 TEE PSALMODY QUESTION. sons, etc. We have no such prayer book, but we have a hymn or Psalm book, similar in position, in refer- ence to the ordinance of praise, as our supposed in- spired prayer book to that of prayer. Hence, we ought to infer that in singing praises, this alone is to be used, whatever other uses we may lawfully make of song. (4) If there were no difference between reading and singing, we might omit the singing entirely, and only read Psalms and hymns ! Would this be the ordinance of praise? (5) God has linked singing of Psalms to the ordinance of praise, and we should not cavil about it, as if there were no material difference. ' p The True Psalmody, pp. 134, 136, 137. Such is the assumption— such the teaching of our brethren. It is noticeable that the assumption stops just short of claiming that singing praise and sing- ing Psalms are equivalent, and hence interchangeable, expressions— the teaching just short of declaring that the worshipful singing of Psalms constitutes the ordinance of praise. They stop just short of these positions for the reason, as seen in the preceding chap- ter, that the Psalm-singing churches have never offi- cially declared in favor of the use of the Psalms to the exclusion of the use of other inspired songs of praise. And yet, with exceptions which will be noticed in a subsequent chapter, this assumption lies at the basis of the entire argument of our brethren, and is essen- tial to its validity. 1 *I have sought in vain for a clear and terse definition of praise in the writings of our brethren. It is promised in the index of The Psalms in Worship. But careful reading of the six pages cited does not reveal it. In one of the places cited I thought I had found it — "What is praise? The word is de- rived from the word 'price.' But who knows God's price or TEE BASAL PRINCIPLE. 19 But the assumption is unwarranted— the teaching unscriptural. There are, it is freely and cheerfully conceded, three texts in our authorized version that apparently justify the assumption. Chiefest of these is James 5:13: ' ' Is any among you afflicted ? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.' ' Here are evidently contrasted conditions and contrasted ordinances. The conditions are wretchedness and hap- piness. The ordinances Prayer and Praise. But in- stead of writing Let him praise, James writes, Let him sing psalms. Evidently, then, singing psalms and singing praise are equivalent expressions, and value? To prepare a complete and sufficient manual of praise ..." Then follows a plea for the Psalter. — "Inspira- tion has furnished Psalms, praises." On a page not cited in the index I found the following: "The verb to praise occurs four times in the New Testament, and in three of these in- stances, by universal admission, it refers to the Book of Psalms." These places are Matt. 26: 30; Mark 14: 26; Heb. 2: 12, and Acts 16: 25. Then follows argument to prove that this fourth case also refers to the Psalter. The Psalms in Worship, pp. 60, 459. 108. This last statement, made by an old and esteemed schoolmate, is an amazing one. It implies: 1. That the verb to praise occurs but four times in the New Testament. 2. That when it does occur it is the rendering of the Greek word vfiveco. 3. That it always means singing Psalms. The facts are: 1. There are three other verbs rendered praise. 2. The distinctive word for praise is aiveu. 3. It occurs nine times: Luke 2:13, 20; 19:37; 24:53 (A. V.) ; Acts 2:47; 3:8, 9; Rom. 15:11; Rev. 19:5. 4. It never means merely singing Psalms. I do not wish to misrepresent our brethren. But their reasoning reduced to definition yields this: Praise is the wor- shipful singing of Psalms. And this is a definition of praise which is not justified by the word of God. 20 THE PSALMODY QUESTION. hence the ordinance of praise consists in the worship- ful singing of Psalms. This is very simple, and, seem- ingly, very conclusive. The other two texts are 1 Chron. 16:9 and Ps. 105:2. These passages are identical ones, and furnish no appreciable support to. the argument. In regard to this, notice— 1. In the revised versions —both British and American— each of these passages is rendered, sing praise, or sing praises. The passage in James is so rendered also in the version of the American Bible Union. 2. In the originals these phrases are represented by single words. They are the rendering of simple verbs— not of a transitive verb and its object. These words are psallo in Greek and zamar in Hebrew. Both are used with some fre- quency, and both alike primarily denote singing with instrumental accompaniment. They point then to the manner of praise rather than to its matter. The ordinance of praise then does not consist in the worshipful singing of Psalms. It consists in the musi- cal rendering of religious truth as an act of worship. But whether that truth shall be embodied in Psalm, hymn or spiritual song, and whether that rendition shall be choral or antiphonal— tune or chant, uni- sonous or harmonious — with or without instrumental accompaniment, are matters for separate considera- tion. All these things belong not to the essence, but to the circumstances, of praise. But, after all, this controversy between Psalm-sing- ers and hymn-singers in regard to divine appointment is largely a strife of words. Hymn-singers are not more disposed to render to God unacceptable worship THE BASAL PRINCIPLE. 21 than are Psalm-singers. Nor do they recognize less clearly and acknowledge less fully that worship to be acceptable must be conformed to the will of God. It is simply a question as to what that will is. Our brethren seem to be strangely oblivious to the fact that the divine appointment, in other words, the revealed will of God, respecting worship covers two quite dis- tinct things. The one is the ground of worship, the other is its mode. On what ground can any sort of worship on the part of a sinful being be acceptable to a holy God? A basis of worship being provided, what form of worship is acceptable? It is evident that the ground, or basis, of worship must be divinely and graciously provided. Provision for worship hav- ing been furnished, worship itself must be rendered agreeably to the divine will. Broadly speaking, under the Old Testament dispensation, these two depart- ments of worship were committed to two orders of ministers— priests and prophets. It is true that while the prophet, as such, could discharge no priestly functions, yet the priest was charged with some pro- phetic duties. But, distinctively regarded, they rep- resented these different elements of religious worship. These two elements of worship were differently treated in the divine appointment. It was not that the divine will was to be disregarded in the one case any more than in the other. It was simply because the divine will itself treated the two things differently. And there was a manifest reason why it should. The ground of acceptable worship is the atonement. Under the Old Testament dispensation this was typically rep- resented by the propitiatory sacrifices. This atone- 22 THE PSALMODY QUESTION. ment is a divine thing. Human work and human merit are utterly excluded from it. It was fitting then that when it was typically represented by human agency these agents should be strictly held to obedi- ence to divine instructions. And they were. Direc- tions were given in regard to the altar— the sacrifice —the priest— respecting everything in fact relating to the service. These things pertained to the priest; and hence regulations respecting the priesthood were explicit. It was otherwise with the prophet to whom distinctively the religious life of the people was en- trusted. There were no restrictions as to persons or times or places. It was only required that the teach- ing should be conformed to the truth as divinely re- vealed; and the worship should be that of the heart, and the life, and not simply of the lips. It is only when these great fundamentals were disregarded that there was condemnation and punishment of prophets and their adherents. Punishment for viola- tion, or disregard, of ritual was confined to priests or those who, without authority, sought to discharge priestly functions. It is not necessary to cite texts or refer to examples. All the texts quoted and all the cases cited in the entire literature of our brethren, so far as I recall, are covered by the statement. 1 Now Psalmody was a prophetic and not a priestly function. It was a spiritual and not a ritual service. It was a service, moreover, w T hich antedated the in- 2 The practically synchronous cases of Nadab and Abihu ( Lev. 10:1-3), on the one hand, and Eldad and Medad (Num. 11:16-30), on the other, indicate how differently from the beginning the two orders were regarded. THE BASAL PRINCIPLE. 23 stitution of the priesthood; and even in the palmiest days of priestly ministration was under other than priestly superintendence. 1 Chron. 6 : 31, 49. Nor was the service so guarded by restrictions as were the functions of the priests. Uzziah the king was smitten with leprosy for daring to enter the temple and offer incense (1 Chron. 26:16-21), but there was no mani- festation of either human or divine displeasure when Hezekiah the king prepared songs of praise and di- rected their use with instrumental accompaniment in the house of the Lord. Isa. 38 I20. 1 Psalmody then is an ordinance of spiritual, as distinguished from ritual, worship, and is to be regulated by the general princi- ples regulating religious worship, except so far as it has been made the subject of special revelation. To a consideration of the extent to which it has been the subject of such revelation attention will be turned in the next chapter. 1 So far as the present point is concerned, it is immaterial whether we read "my songs" or "my stringed instrument." In either case he was supplanting, or supplementing, the ordi- nance of praise as instituted by David. 2 Chron. 29 : 25-30. CHAPTER III. THE BOOK OF PSALMS. It is not my purpose to traverse all that our brethren in their literature on the subject have writ- ten respecting the Book of Psalms. Much of it is ex- traneous to the psalmody controversy; and hence is not relevant to our present purpose. This fact has been well stated by one of our Psalm-singing authors : " It is high time that we were all, in this controversy, brought back to principles in common, and that we shape our discussions accordingly. 1 ' On the one hand, most of the treatises in favor of a scripture psalmody have been apologies for the Book of Psalms, or defences of their use in the worship of God, to the exclusion of human compositions ; or their suitableness for worship in New Testament times; or their superior excellence to all human songs. Most of these forms of discussion involve mere truisms — matter beyond legitimate debate among intelligent Christians. The Psalms of the Bible need no apology. They need no defence; since neither God, nor his works, nor his word need any defence. We make no attempt to show their fitness for the worship of God, or the authority for their use. God made them — fitted them for his praise, and commands us to sing. Treatises in the forms referred to are very well in their place. They are helpers of the faith of pious Chris- tians who feed on God's word. Yet they may not meet the main points in this issue on the psalm- ody question.' ' Psalmody. Johnston. Introduction, p. 10. THE BOOK OF PSALMS. 25 The one question at issue concerns their exclusive use in the worship of God. The issue is stated as follows by another of our brethren : "The question, then, is, Should not the Church in all instituted worship, private, social, and pub- lic, confine herself and her members in the mat- ter of praise wholly to as literal a version of the Book of Psalms as can be obtained, adapted to be sung?" (Capitals are the author^.) The Ordinance of Praise. By J. Claybaugh, D.D., p. 11. To this question most of our brethren say, yes. Some of them, as well as ourselves, say, no. Let us examine the reasons for their answers given by those who reply affirmatively. We will allow them to an- swer in their own way, and in their own words. We will, moreover, give their answers at such length as to give them fair presentation. "By whom these songs, which were evidently com- posed by different persons and on a great variety of occasions, were collected into a book and arranged in their present order, we are not able to determine with absolute certainty. There is, however, strong probability in support of the conclusion, that this service was performed by Ezra, This distinguished priest and scribe, who acted a conspicuous part in that important reformation which was effective in connection with the return of the Jews from Baby- lon, according to Jewish tradition, by divine direc- tion, collected and arranged the different portions of the sacred writings then extant, and digested them in that systematic order in which they have been handed down to us. But let this matter be decided as it may, it is sufficient for us to know, that whoever may have collected these songs together, it was done with divine 26 TEE PSALMODY QUESTION. approbation; for the writers of the New Testament refer to them by the title 'the Book of Psalms.' And to use the language of the celebrated writer already- referred to (Jonathan Edwards), 'it is manifest that the Book of Psalms was given of God for this end'; that is, that it might be used by the church in singing God's praise. 'It was used in the church of Israel by God's appointment. This is manifest by the title of many of the Psalms, in wiiich they are inscribed to the chief musician; that is, to the man that was ap- pointed to be the leader of divine songs in the temple, in the public worship of Israel.' In this conclusion, then, we rest. In the revelation which God has given to his church, we find a collection of divine songs, the matter of which, the titles by which they are desig- nated, and the use which was originally made of them with divine approbation, manifest that the specific end for which they were given was, that they should be employed in singing God 's praise ; and being com- municated to the church by her God and King, for this purpose, they should be used in this part of di- vine worship. . . . We have already had occasion to remark, that in ancient days, on various occasions, in- dividuals, under the influence of the spirit of inspira- tion, gave expression to the gratitude of their hearts in a song of praise. Such songs of praise are found in various parts of the Bible. But in process of time, a great variety of songs, composed by different men on various occasions, were collected together into one book, which not only has a place in the volume of in- spiration, but to which God himself has given a pe- culiar title, 'The Book of Psalms,' or songs of praise. The peculiar title of the book designates the end for which it was specially intended. And it is a fact which deserves particular notice, that some of the songs con- tained in the Book of Psalms are found likewise in other parts of the Bible. The eighteenth Psalm is found in the second book of Samuel, and the ninety- THE BOOK OF PSALMS. 27 sixth and parts of some other psalms are found in the second book of Chronicles. Other songs, such as the song of Moses at the Red Sea, the song of Deborah and Barak and others found in different parts of the Bible, are not transferred to the Book of Psalms. And the question naturally arises, Why is this distinction made ? Why are some of these songs, which are found in other parts of the Bible, introduced likewise into the Book of Psalms, while others have no place in that collection? I can conceive of no answer so satisfac- tory as this : that the Book of Psalms being designed for permanent use in the worship of God, those songs have a place in this book, which in the estimation of infinite wisdom were best adapted to the edification of the church in all ages. ' ' Dr. Pressly on Psalmody, pp. 80, 81, 87, 88. These passages, as well as nearly the entire chapters from which they are taken, are en- dorsed by the compilers of The True Psalmody; and are incorporated into their work. The True Psalm- ody, pp. 59, 60, 66, 67. 1 ' God has given the church a whole book of divine songs, inscribed by himself, The Book of Psalms, or more literally, The Book of Hymns. This title ob- viously denotes the design for which this book has been given ; that it should be employed in the solemn service of praising God, to the exclusion of everything that can only boast a human origin. The idea of exclusion is certainly conveyed by the emphatic lan- guage, The Psalms, The Book of Psalms/' Preface to the Psalms. Dr. Martin, p. 19. 1 'The very title of the Book of Psalms, and the fact that it contains some songs in other parts of Scripture and leaves out others, proves that it was given to be the exclusive anthology of the Church of Israel. Psalm 18 is found 2 Sam. 22, and Psalm 96 and Psalm 105 : 1-15 are found 1 Chron. 21, while several odes, such as the song at the Ked Sea, the song of Deborah and Barak, etc., are not taken into the collec- tion of the Book of Psalms, Now, why is this ? Can 28 TEE PSALMODY QUESTION. any other reason be assigned than the obvious one that the Holy Spirit designed in the Book of Psalms to furnish the Church with a collection of songs which should be both sufficient, and exclusively the subject matter of the Church's praise !" The Ordinance of Praise. By J. Claybaugh, D.D., p. 21. ' '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 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 men- tion is made of any others having been used in the regular and permanent worship of God ; and 2. What- ever 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." An Authorized Psalmody. By J. G. Carson, D.D., pp. 24, 25. ' ' This conclusion is confirmed from the matter and structure of the Psalms. They are full of praises to God for what he is himself, and for his wonderful works in creation, providence, and redemption. They are written in the peculiar style of Hebrew poetry, so that they could be sung or chanted. And this con- clusion is still further confirmed by the acknowledged fact that the Psalms were used by the Jewish Church in the worship of God. No mention is made, by either inspired or uninspired writers, of any other. In the temple and in the synagogue, down to the time of the incarnation and ever since, they have been chanted by the children of faithful Abraham. ' ' The Inspired Psalmody. By William J. Reid, p. 6. TEE BOOK OF PSALMS. 29 Analyzing these various statements we find that they contain two, and only two, arguments in behalf of the position for which they are submitted. These arguments may be succinctly stated as follows : 1. God, having provided a book of praise, has thereby indi- cated that it is his will that it be used exclusively in the ordinance of praise. 2. Judged by the use made of it, such was evidently the light in which the later eJewish and early Christian church regarded it. These are plausible arguments, and rest upon assumption of principles of conceded validity. But at once the ques- tions arise: Was this book divinely given as an ex- clusive manual of praise? As a matter of fact, did the later Jewish and early Christian church so re- gard it ? It is manifest that these are questions which cannot be answered by appeal exclusively to the canonical Scriptures. They cannot for the reason that the compilation of the Psalter and the completion of the Old Testament canon were practically syn- chronous events. This is true whatever may be the facts as to the date of those accomplishments, or as to the person, or persons, effecting them. And yet data for a conclusive answer are not wanting: 1. As all the above quotations from the writings of our brethren indicate, previous to the compilation of the Psalter worshippers were not restricted in their songs of praise to those now found within it. As all recognize, songs other than those contained therein were acceptably used in worship. And yet the Psalter, as we have it, is simply a combination of a number of Psalters previously existing. It is a fact, brought to the attention of the ordinary English 30 THE PSALMODY QUESTION. reader only by the recent revisions of the Bible, that the Psalter is itself composed of five books. It is out- side our purpose to go into details with regard to these. It is enough to note the fact that our present Psalter, like some of our modern Gospel hymn books, is Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 combined. 1 During the Old Testament period the existent Psalter was used, but not exclusively. When, in the very beginning of his reign, Hezekiah sought to restore his kingdom to its normal condition, he "commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer. ' ' 2 Chron. 29 : 30. He then probably had Nos. 1 and 2 and possibly uncollected portions of No. 3 of our Psalter. But he did not always confine himself to these. After his restoration to health he himself composed songs for use in the temple worship. Isa. 38:20. 2 And still later, probably in the days of 1