Psalmody

Front matter

FRED LOCKLEY

RARE WESTERN BOOKS

4227 S. E. Stark St.

Chapter I

PRINCIPLES PECULIAR TO THE ORDINANCE OF PRAYER EXAM- INED, AS PRELIMINARY TO THE QUESTION INVOLVING THE ANALOGY OF PRAYER, PREACHING AND PRAISE.

What are the essential elements of prayer ? — Human inability to pray — The spirit of prayer a grace of the Holy Spirit — This grace a promised blessing — Acceptable prayer is inspired — This inspiration explained and distinguished 17

Chapter II

AN EXAMINATION OF THE ASSUMED ANALOGY AND PARALLEL- ISM BETWEEN PRAYER, PREACHING AND PRAISE.

The assumption stated and questions examined — Scriptural elements of the ordinance of preaching the gospel — Principles of analogy applied — Scriptural elements of the ordinance of praise — Important distinctions applied — Parallelism found wanting 23

Chapter III

REVIEW OF THE DOCTRINE OF UNINSPIRED PRAYER, PRAISE AND PREACHING, AND THEIR ASSUMED PARALLELISM.

Review of a reviewer — Inspired and uninspired men placed in the same category — Divine inspiration and poetic genius in the same category — Authority of Divine inspiration weakened — Illogical comparisons — Mistranslations, paraphrases, etc., examined — Fallacy exposed — Absurd claims of Church prerogative — The Church passing on translations, or versions, not analogous to passing on

Hymn-Books 48

D CONTENTS.

Chapter IV

EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY CLAIMED FOR MAKING AND USING, IN THE FORMAL WORSHIP OF GOD, UNINSPIRED

SONGS.

In what we agree — In what we differ — Demand of negative proof unreasonable — In the true issue our brethren affirm — Five affirmative Proof-Texts for the Presbyterian system of Psalmody — Our friends argue both sides of the true issue — Irrelevant verbal criticism — Appeal to reason and argument from the "stronghold" texts — Authority from command — A representative paragraph examined — The leading point of assumption, its identities and deductions therefrom — The argument from Scripture example — Entrance into Jerusalem, Luke xix. 38 — "Pattern" for Presbyterian hymn-making — The second "pattern" case for so making, Acts iv. 24 — Impromptu Prayer-meeting, or Committee on Revision of Bible Psalms — Commentators — Barnes and Jacobus — Reflections 81

Chapter V

THE SCOTTISH VERSION OF THE BOOK OF PSALMS VINDICATED AS A TRANSLATION.

Importance attached to the question of translation — No other version subjected to such extreme criticism — Mistranslation defined — Charges of gross mistranslations examined — The First, the Sixteenth, and the Sixty-ninth Psalms vindicated from charges of gross mistranslation — Mistranslations in the prose Bible compared with the worst examples in Rouse — Charges of patchwork and paraphrase of Rouse examined — Manufactured patches charged to the account of Rouse — Specimens of similar and greater patches in our English version — Various classes of specimens — Use of Divine names, when not in the original, charged as a prejudice against Rouse — Superabundance of similar instances in our prose Bible 112

CHAPTER VI. THE SCOTTISH VERSION COMPARED WITH TnE SEPTUAGINT

Why this comparison — Its importance in this discussion — The established opinion and decision of the Churches in regard to the Septuagint as a translation — Its defects compared with those of the

CONTENTS. 7

Scottish version — The claims of the Scottish version sustained by such comparison — Luther's translation incidentally noticed — Inferences 147

Conclusion

The argument from history — Very briefly noticed — Of comparatively little importance in this controversy — Yet some facts of history with consideration — The Palatinate Churches — History not the rule of faith and worship — The mistake and its fatal consequences — Appeal to our readers — Address to brethren in the ministry — Appeal to the friends of union 157

Introduction

VX7E have endeavored to explore the field of controversy, on the subject of psalmody, and to ascertain what are the true issues involved. The Presbyterian churches practically differ upon a vital question in relation to the matter of divinely instituted worship. This practical difference is the legitimate fruit of a difference, somewhere, in some fundamental principle ; or there must be want of integrity to principle somewhere. The latter would be uncharitable, if directly charged, and must not be entertained. We misunderstand the subject, or we misunderone another. Perhaps there is misunderstanding in regard to both.

These are certainly very plain first principles common to the organic faith of all true Presbyterians, which, if consistently applied, would bind us all together in one practice in the formal worship of God. Here is a fundamental principle, regulating the Divine worship, to which we are all pledged, occupying a prominent place in the organic law common to us all —

" 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 according to the imaginations and devices of men — or any other way not prescribed in the holy scripture." "But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

Losing sight of these first principles, we soon diverge from the common line, and fall out by the way. It is high time that we were all, in this controversy, brought back to principles in common, and that we shape our discussions accordingly.

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 Christians who feed on God's word. Yet they may not meet the main points in this issue on the psalmody question.

On the other hand, our friends, in pleading their cause of a human psalmody, are very careful to avoid the discussion of first principles, and their application here ; and the better to divert from the real question, demand of us authority for the exclusive use of insjnred songs. About the authority to use the inspired songs of the Bible, there is not the shadow of dispute. No sane Christian holds that it is wrong to sing the songs of the Bible in the worship of God. Who, unless a pagan, or a turk, or an infidel, will refuse to sing, living or dying, the twenty-third Psalm ? So far as inspired songs are concerned we all go together, by consent of all. "What have we to affirm in debate here ? What have we to prove ? Surely not what no one denies. The matter of difference, of debate and proof lies elsewhere.

Our brethren diverge from the common way in which we all travel together in God's worship. They make their new songs, they worship with them, ask us to join them, affirming their authority for that new, and different and peculiar way of worship. Now are we called to prove our divine right to worship in a way our brethren affirm with us to be divinely authorized — a way in which they and we actually worship together ? Or, is not the onus probandi theirs to carry, not ours ? It is certainly very convenient, in this controversial discussion, to repeat the euphonious phrases, " The exclusive system" and to demand authority for the " exclusive use of inspired songs."

As our brethren invite us to follow them in their new way of making their own matter of praise, we hear, and weigh their assumed authority — for they affirm they have authority to make their own denominational hymns. We deny. Here, in a nutshell comprehension, is the whole field of controversy. There is no other. They have brought upon the stand their witnesses. We have heard the testimony ; and have heard them sum up the evidence, and argue their case. Our work is to try their evidence in chief, cross-examine their witnesses, and review the whole argument. Nor are we to be diverted from this course by efforts to thrust upon us side issues, or false issues.

The friends of the Prayer-Book call on us to prove our authority for exclusive extempore prayer, and demand of us to show the wrong of reading prayers. Rome uses the wafer, calls on us to prove it wrong, and coolly demands the authority for the exclusive use of bread and wine, so of the hymn-book. Now we refuse to be decoyed by any such ambush. We have no text in our Bible that names either Wafer, Prayer-Book, or human Hymn-Book. Not one, saying they are wrong. Enough for us that their institution, as ways of worship, has no place in the Bible. It is their friends' business to find the institution there. Till that is done we shall be content to serve our Master in what we know to be his way, without wafer, prayer-book, or new hymnal.

The whole field of argument occupied by our brethren may be divided into the following sections :

1. The argument of assumption, of hypothesis and speculation, presented in the form of confident and complacent triumph, thus —

" If we may make our own prayers, and our own sermons, why may we not make the matter of our own praise ? "

So long as the assumption here passes without challenge and investigation, our friends will seem to hold vantage ground. Here is assumed the very thing which should have been proved, before such illogical stride had been made to a conclusion remote from the premises. Are these parallelisms ? Do the points of analogy warrant the assumption as true, the very matter to be proved ? The fact that with our brethren, everywhere, this assumption seems to be used as unquestioned and unquestionable, has induced us to give it more elaborate consideration. We ask from our readers here, a patient, persevering and thorough investigation of all the principles involved.

2. The argument of high church prerogative — The Divine authority lodged in the Supreme Judicatory of the church, to make and authorize church creeds, and on the same principle to make and authorize the matter of the church's worship. While it is conceded that no man has the right to prepare songs of praise to be used in the worship of God, yet it is presumed to be lodged with the "church representative" By what authority does Rome declare the Pope infallible ? — What the principle ?

3. It is assumed that the command to sing Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs implies the authority to make the matter to be sung. The following three texts, it is assumed, furnish authority to make the songs : 1 Cor. xiv. 26; Eph. v. 17; Col. iii. 16. The two following texts furnish the example after which the making is to be performed : Luke xix. 38 ; Acts iv. 24. These are the ''strong hold authority" for uninspired hymns.

4. The Scottish version is denounced in the form of attack upon Rouse, as mere " patch-work, paraphrase — no version at all." Rouse tried by another version, and not by the original text, and summarily condemned, it becomes an item of some importance, in the vindication of the truth, to give some attention to the subject, and settle the question in regard to the claims of the Scottish version to a place among recognized translations. Do we, as charged, sing uninspired Psalms while professing to sing inspired matter exclusively? It is our right to review this charge.

Where churches differ, and where their differences are the cause of their separation, nothing can be more important — the parties being equally honest — than to understand precisely the questions at issue. Parties may beat the air, and so exhaust their strength, while strengthening mutual prejudices, and their discussions fail to bring them any nearer to an understanding of the truth, and of one another. On the other hand, while the charges are rung upon the "want of fetters in the matter of praise in worship, as in preaching," we shall remain in statu quo, or in retrogression in regard to union.

Rouse's paraphrase — Rouse's party — Rouse's version, have nothing to do with the question of union here, so far as honest and intelligent men are concerned. Nor is it anywhere near this, where the issue lies, involving the question of union. It lies deeper, and is broader than this silly thing. If Rouse's version were thrown into the sea, the barrier stands intact in all its mountain largeness, since the songs of the Bible remain intact, and the distinction between the ordinance of praise and preaching stands marked in palpable lines on the pages of the Bible.

Sermons, infallible by divine inspiration, never was God's divinely appointed ordinance of preaching ; but uninspired men, ordained and appointed to preach uninspired sermons, with specific directions to all hearers to bring them all to the test of the inspired standard — this is God's ordinance of preaching. God has given largely and abundantly inspired matter of praise — has commanded to sing, to sing only — and not one line in all his word suggestive of the thought, in regard to the duty or privilege of testing one line by the unerring standard of God's word, of all we may sing in his worship.

It is not a question in issue whether man, by divine ordination, may make and preach uninspired, fallible sermons. It is a question in issue whether it is God's work or man's to make the songs of praise with which God is to be worshipped. This is just the issue. To disabuse the mind of other issues, and bring to this, is the object of our feeble effort, in so far as this part of our work is concerned.

Believing that the divided worship of God, in all the churches, is the most decisive element now sundering evangelical departments of the household of faith, we have been induced to present this humble work for the consideration of union-loving Christians, whose creeds in regard to doctrine and order are substantially the same.

" Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." Zion's " watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing; for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion."

Chapter I

PRINCIPLES PECULIAR TO THE ORDINANCE OF PRAYER EXAMINED, AS PRELIMINARY TO THE QUESTION IN- VOLVING THE ANALOGY OF PRAYER, PREACHING AND PRAISE.

What are the essential elements of prayer ? — Human inability to pray — The spirit of prayer a grace of the Holy Spirit — This grace a promised blessing — Acceptable prayer is inspired — This inspiration explained and distinguished.

rpHE salient point, the defiant argument for the use of a

human psalmody, may be stated thus : As we make our

own prayers and sermons, so may we make our own praise.

This assumes that prayer, preaching and praise are analogous, and present parallelisms. Now, if the assumption be true, the conclusion is logical, and the divine right of an uninspired psalmody is established.

We at once concede the divine appointment of extempore prayer without the book, and that we are not confined to the inspired prayers of Scripture. So, of the eermon. We concede the divine authority for uninspired extempore sermonizing. We are not confined in preaching to the inspired sermons of the Bible. Reading sermons from the Bible is not preaching at all, as Christ has commissioned an ordained gospel ministry.

To weigh fairly the argument of analogy here, we must distinctly define each of these ordinances, prayer, preaching and praise, and if their distinctions and discrepancies are more prominent than their analogies, then the argument fails. To this end we must have scriptural views of 2* 17 these ordinances, of their nature, their character and their essential elements.

Then, what is prayer f Not prayer in form merely ; but, what is the prayer of God's appointment, which he hears and answers always ? The prayer that God requires, that his promise recognizes and that he accepts, may be thus defined : Prayer is an offering up to God the desires of the heart, for things agreeable to his will, by faith in Christ, inspired and directed by the Holy Spirit. Such desires, offered thus to God, constitute prayer — not the prayer of the Pharisee, but of the publican.

To such prayer neither saint nor sinner is competent, without the special grace of the Divine Spirit implanting the desires offered. The sinner cannot be a fit subject of such desires. His unrenewed heart "is enmity against God, is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." " The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God ; for they are foolishness unto him ; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. ,, He can neither know nor feel spiritual want. He is spiritually dead. There is no breath in him.

The saint, by regenerating grace, is made the fit subject of spiritual desires. His new nature can entertain such desires. He is prepared to receive them, as the good heart to receive the seed of the word. Yet, this saint cannot pray without special grace — without the spirit of grace and supplication poured upon him by the Divine Spirit as the Author of prayer. " Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities ; for we know not what we should pray for as we ought ; but the Spirit, itself, maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God." Saints are taught to say,

PRAYER, PREACHING AND PRAISE. 19

in regard to prayer : " Teach us what we shall say unto him, for we cannot order our speech by reason of darkness." It is not in the power of a believer, even, to originate in his own heart an impulse producing a spiritual desire, and to breathe out that desire to God without the special influence of the Divine Spirit as the Author of prayer. That desire which constitutes prayer is the direct implantation of the Spirit, and beyond the originating power of the proper subject of such implantation, as Adam, when found a creature, was a proper subject for receiving and entertaining the breath of life, yet he could not breathe into himself that breath. The spiritual nature can receive and entertain the spiritual breathing, but the Spirit of God gives the breath the desire which is the essence of prayer.

THE SPIRIT, AS A SPIRIT OF GRACE AND SUPPLICATION, IS PROMISED TO MAKE SUCH PRAYER.

" I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and supplication." Zach. xii. 10. The Spirit helpeth our infirmities, making intercession for us with groanings — making intercession according to the will of God. The promises of the aid of the Spirit in making prayer are peculiar and distinguishing. In regard to aid in making hymns for the worship of God, there is no such promise. Dr Owen has w r ell remarked — " It cannot be denied that the assistance which the Holy Spirit gives us, in our prayers and supplications, is more frequently and expressly asserted in the Scriptures than any other operation of his whatever."

THE PRAYER OP FAITH, ACCEPTABLE TO GOD, IS INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Inspiration should be defined, and carefully distinguished here. The term is so variously used there should be an understanding as to its use in this discussion. It is applied to poetic genius. This is the highest idea the Chinese have of inspiration. It is used of intoxicating liquors, and of almost all kinds of brain stimulants. It is used of the passions, anger, rage, love, etc. Most of these uses of the term are very figurative. It is applied to mere intellectual endowments, as Job — "And the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding."

In all the instances noticed, the term inspiration is used in a loose, and improper sense. As the works of creation and providence differ materially, and yet are Divine works, so all these operations, which are called inspiration, present very different operations of the Divine Spirit. Creation brings from nothing into being. Providence sustains and controls what exists. Regeneration brings into being a new spiritual creature by creative power. Sanctification produces its appropriate changes upon its subject. There are inspirations which breathe into the mind new creations, as the breath of life was breathed into Adam. These are inspirations in the proper sense.

This sense of the term inspiration, which breathes new creations into the mind, by the Spirit, is its use applied to prayer and the Holy Scriptures. The one is the inspiration of desires. The other is the inspiration of words. The words of the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. This makes them the veritable word of God, on the principle of authorship.

The question of the " verbal inspiration " of the Bible we will not here discuss. The reader may consult, for the defence of this cardinal truth, such standard works as Buck's Theo. Die; Brown, of Had., Die. and Theo. ; Dr. Scott's Com.; Prof. Dick's Theo.; Basis Union U. P. Church ; Gaussen, of Geneva, etc.

The Scriptures state the doctrine of inspired prayer,

PRAYER, PREACHING AND PRAISE. 21

almost in explicit terms. " I called upon thy name, O Lord, out of the low dungeon. Thou hast heard my voice ; hide not thine ear at my breathing, my cry." Lam. iii. 55, 56. Here Jeremiah calls his prayer, his breathing. " My breathing, my cry." A breathing organism is chosen as the figure by which the Spirit illustrates prayer. A breathing organic frame is a proper subject of respiration. It breathes. It inhales breath. In this spiritual respiration of prayer, the only question around which a doubt can be thrown is this, viz. : By what power is the breath of prayer breathed into the soul, and the respiration sustained.

Then, whence the first impulse, in the heart, given to a gracious, spiritual and acceptable desire offered up to God, which he will answer as the prayer of faith ? There can be but one of two answers properly entertained. Either, the desire in question receives its first impulse from the sinner himself, and so is self-willed and self-made ; or, it is from the Spirit of God, and by him indited. Can there be any other conclusion? What other? Christ says, "Without me ye can do nothing." Without his power and providence, absolutely and universally, nothing. Without his Spirit and grace, spiritually and acceptably, nothing ; each spiritual thing according to its kind, and according to the character of the grace promised — " grace for grace ; " grace according to need ; strength as the day is ; for prayer according to our need, and the promise to supply that need. Is the breathing — the originating of acceptable desires in the heart an exception ? Then, why the promises of the Spirit to do for us that very thing, without which the prayer of faith cannot be? To "pour out a Spirit of grace and supplication."

And here, let it be borne in mind that there are no promises in the Bible, warranting aid in any other duty, like the promises in regard to prayer. None similar for making songs ; none similar for making sermons, for teaching, for exhortation, for argument in defending truth. Here the promise secures groanings that we may not be able to utter — feelings of need, and desires we cannot express. How wonderfully strange — how distinguishing and peculiar the promises in regard to prayer !

Prayer, we conclude, is, therefore, inspired. It is not made by the will and power of the human heart. The Divine Spirit, according to his office and work, makes, by inspiration, the desires of the heart in prayer. Of these desires he is the Author, as he is the Author of the words in the inspired Scriptures.

Chapter II

AN EXAMINATION OF THE ASSUMED ANALOGY AND PARAL- LELISM BETWEEN PRAYER, PREACHING AND PRAISE.

The assumptions stated and questions examined — Scriptural elements of the ordinance of preaching the gospel — Principles of analogy applied — Scriptural elements of the ordinance of praise — Important distinctions applied — Parallelism found wanting.

TX7E have, perhaps, said enough in the former chapter, in regard to how and by whom the matter of acceptable prayer is to be provided. Here, we think the Bible way is plain. The standing office and work of the Holy Spirit should remove all difficulty in the mind of every believing sinner. His office and work is to prepare prayers for all the saints as they are needed.

Doubtless, too, to the sincere Christian it is important to know the mind of the Spirit revealed in the word, in regard to the ordinance of praise. Not so much, however, in regard to the nature and duty of singing praise, simply. This is plain to all. About this there cannot well be any dispute whatever. He that runs may read. But how, and by whom, the songs of praise to be sung, are to be provided, that is not quite so plain to all. Indeed, here is the whole field of difficulty.

The following question is ever pressed as if sufficient to settle all doubts involved — "If we may make our own prayers, may we not make our own songs of praise, and offer them to God V We answer — certainly, " if;" If we may make our prayers. But we see from the word of God we neither may nor can make our own prayers. That

2'6 work belongs to the office of the Holy Spirit. He is engaged to do that work for us ; and we think, that we poor sinners had better trust Him with it. And farther, as if it were the same — it is asked — " If we are not confined to the words of scripture in our prayers, why should we be confined to them in our praises ?" So far from admitting the analogy assumed, we are bound by consistency to eject the idea of being confined in our prayers to any written words whatever. We are not confined to any written words, because the Spirit is promised to give us a knowledge and sense of our need, and inspire for us desires for supply. " Prayer is offering up our desires to God." Prayers read are unnatural — Prayers extemporized are the natural form of expressing the inspired feelings and desires and wants of the soul. The use of written words in praise is perfectly natural. Where, as an act of religious worship, was ever God praised by singing, without words written or recited ? The use of extemporized songs in social praise is more unnatural than written prayers. The latter, alas ! too often occurs. Where, when, how or by whom the former ?

Still farther, on the assumed principle of analogy and parallelism, it is asked — " if, in the ordinance of preaching, we are not confined to the inspired words of the sermons recorded in the Bible, why, in the ordinance of social praise in the worship of God, confine ourselves to the use of the inspired songs of the Bible ? Or, if we may make our own sermons — if we may use our own uninspired words in expounding the law and word of God, and in all our ministerial offers of Christ and his salvation to sinners, and in all our labors to persuade men to come to the Saviour, why not the same liberty in composing, penning and preparing hymns for the social praise of the church ? These questions seem to be frank, and doubtless are deemed pertinent. Those who propound them seem also to believe them like mighty scales on whose equipoise hang very grave issues. Then let these questions be faithfully adjusted. In their adjustment we must bring them to the balances of the sanctuary. " To the law and to the testimony ; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Doubtless it is important to understand all the principles involved in these test questions. We should know wherefore we preach. We should know the relation in which preaching stands to the Bible. Whether preaching the gospel by the ordained ministry, according to Christ's commission, be expounding or reciting the words of the Bible. We should know the extent of the commission to preach, as commanded and as illustrated by the preaching of Christ and his Apostles. So, doubtless, we should know wherefore we praise and wherefore we pray ; and more — how we may secure, according to the will of God, the acceptable matter of all these. " How shall we order our speech before God," is the concern of every good man.

Now, in regard to preaching and praising, let us give a little attention — let us see just where we are. As for preaching, what is the rule ? Are our sermons required to be inspired and infallible ? Are the words of the sermon of Christ on the Mount, and the words of the sermons of any other, as recorded in the Bible, inspired and infallible? And may we search the Scriptures, as did the commended Bereans, to see whether those things spoken by Christ in that sermon on the Mount be so ? May we try any of the sermons recorded in the Bible as the noble Bereans tried some sermons they heard preached ? May we try the sermons written in the Bible as we may try with the Bible the sermons of Spurgeon, or any other preacher? Were those sermons heard by the Bereans, and by them brought 3 to the test of the scriptures, of equal authority with the sermons recorded in the Bible, whether preached by Christ, or any other preacher ? What were those sermons ? And where are they now ?