Brotherly Love

WHEN the Apostle was reminding the Hebrews of the passing away of many things to which they had been accustomed and which they had deeply cherished he calls their attention to certain things which remain, and among these is “brotherly love”—”let brotherly love continue,” he says. This Christian grace is often referred to and inculcated in the Scriptures. The Lord Himself, in the ever memorable address to His disciples on the eve of leaving them says to them: “This is my commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you” (John xv. 12). In the circumstances of their case—cast down and sorrowful at the thought of the departure of their beloved Lord and Master—the words must have fallen on their troubled spirits like the peace of heaven. In after days we find echoes of this commandment in the writings of John, the disciple whom Jesus loved—”Little children love one another.” In the Pauline Epistles there are many references to this Christian grace. In view of the prominence given to it, especially in the New Testament, it is well that some consideration should be given to this subject and all the more so in view of a very common but erroneous view of what brotherly love really is.

1. This love is of a heavenly origin and spiritual in its nature.
   It is therefore to be distinguished from natural human love, however beautiful and pure it may be. It is a love that has its origin in the implanting of divine life in the soul in the day of regeneration. The believer loves God because God first loved him, and from this day the believer loves those that are begotten of God, being members of one family with Christ as their Elder Brother. Such a view of this love rules out of court all that natural kindness, considerateness, and disinterestedness that is such a beautiful characteristic of some dispositions, but which is only natural and not heavenly and spiritual in its origin. The loudly proclaimed brotherhood of man which occupies such a prominent place in the creeds of to-day written and unwritten is not to be confused with the brotherly love of the New Testament—they are as wide asunder as nature and grace. This love is deeper and purer than a mother’s love. It is more enduring than the love of a husband to a wife or a wife to a husband.

2. This love is attracted not by natural gifts and endowments, however fascinating these may be.
   It triumphs over nature in going forth to individuals whose natural dispositions may be anything but attractive, nay, in some cases repellent. It looks not on the old nature in its outgoing, but on that new nature begotten by the Holy Spirit which is stamped with the fair image of Christ and which is ever attractive to the believer when grace is in the ascendancy. The fairness it sees and loves is the beauty of Christ, and wherever that is seen it draws out this love in spite of all natural features, however repellent they may be. It is a love which none but one believer can feel to another.

3. This love is such as the Lord showed to His disciples—”This is my commandment that ye love one another, as I have loved you.”
   These words are a sufficient guide if our minds are enlightened by the Holy Spirit as to the nature and the mode of manifesting this love. (1) Christ’s love viewed nothing that would be for the good of His people too great on the one hand or too insignificant on the other. It made sacrifices even unto death itself, and it did not overlook as beneath its notice some of the very insignificant incidents of daily life. Christ’s love was intensely practical, and it did not rest content with beautifully expressed sentiments but showed itself in deeds of enduring love. It was also quick to recognise the outgoing of responsive love in others, and was willing to recognise what men would regard as acts so trivial as not worthy of any notice. There is a way of showing kindness which makes the recipient painfully conscious that the bestower has no doubt as to the favour he is bestowing. There is a fussiness and display that is disconcerting to the recipient. Not so with Him who loved as never man loved—a cup of cold water given to a disciple in His name was to be fully recognised before assembled millions amidst the most solemn transactions to which the human race has ever been called. On the other hand, there is a kindness so quiet and undemonstrative that its voice is never heard, and it is quite unconscious of doing anything worthy to be remembered. Such was the case with those who gave the cup of cold water. They had forgotten they had ever done it, but Christ never forgot the motive that prompted them, and it is by the motives we shall be judged at last by Him who looketh not on the outward appearance, but who judgeth according to the heart. (2) Christ’s love was not incompatible with administering very severe rebukes to those whom He loved. To Peter, “the other disciple whom Jesus loved” (John xx. 2), He said—”Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men” (Matt. xvi. 23). There is a growing idea owing to the spurious love that is abroad that faithfulness to a brother in rebuking him for his shortcomings is inconsistent with true brotherly love. This is not so. There never was purer brotherly love in the heart of any than was in the heart of the Elder Brother to His brethren, but that did not keep Him from rebuking them when occasion demanded it. It is true it requires much love to give a rebuke as well as much love to receive it in the right spirit. Some give a rebuke in such a way that one feels it is their own depraved, carnal nature that is the driving force behind the stern denunciation that falls all too unfeelingly from lips not softened by this love. Others again in administering rebuke do so with a weight and authority that covers the offender with confusion and leaves him speechless. The wrath of man, we are informed, on the best authority, worketh not the righteousness of God, and the history of Christ’s Church in the world gives abundant evidence of this. But the fact that men, even the best, err in this direction is not to be made the rule when we have Christ’s own example in administering rebuke prompted by a love holy as the love of heaven is holy and pure as the love of God is pure. When love administers rebuke then love in the heart of the person receiving it when in exercise will take it lovingly in a meek and chastened spirit. Paul rebuked Peter to the face at Antioch because he was to be blamed, but that faithful and stern rebuke did not make Peter a life-long enemy of Paul, for we find him later on referring to him as “our beloved brother Paul.” (3) Christ’s love to His people is never to end. So the love of the brethren is to endure. In what Ralph Erskine termed the dark valley of this world, where there are different degrees of light, the brethren may not see eye to eye, but where the real work of God is it has an attractiveness for the child of God, and the love begun on earth is to remain until it attains perfection in heaven. When Ralph Erskine heard that Willison, of Dundee, was dying, he wrote him a letter full of brotherly love, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical controversies that had divided them in the Church below. “I thought it proper,” he says, “to show my sympathy with one for whom I have always had a great regard, whatever differences have taken place anent some things, by reason of different degrees of light in the dark valley of the world, yet it never lessened my esteem of you as one, that I was persuaded, desired to be faithful to the truth and interest of our Lord Jesus Christ, and whom I hope the Lord will now ripen to make ready for the full enjoyment of Himself.” The dying man was comforted by the message, and replied—”I thank you for your most Christian, sympathising letter . . . to a poor dying man, who am still drawing nearer to my change; and I thank you for the particular regard you express to me, notwithstanding the different degrees of light in the dark valley of this world. May the back-view of these make us long to be ripened for the world of light where divisions have no place.” There is something very touching at the sight of these renowned ecclesiastical warriors saluting each other as they put off their armour in sight of that City where they are to dwell in happy concord for ever. It is told of these eminent servants of Christ that being in company they were discoursing on this great theme of the unity and peace of the saints in heaven, when a woman of the belligerent type of Christians who had not left the Church of Scotland interjected the remark—”Ay, sir, there will be no Secession in heaven.” “Madam,” came the quick reply from Ralph Erskine, “you are under a complete mistake; for in heaven there will be complete secession from all sin and sorrow.” “With pleasure do I adopt that view of Secession,” added Mr Willison. Brotherly love, then, owing “to the different degrees of light in the dark valley of the world” is imperfect here, but that does not say that it is to end here. Its exercise may be interrupted by one cause or another, just as in families brothers may be separated. But how often has it been the case that the unwelcome messenger of death has been the instrument in bringing separated brethren to meet, so will it be at last. God will gather all His saints together, and after death their love will be perfected, and in that day shall they be able to sing as they never sung before:—

Behold how good a thing it is and how becoming well,
Together such as brethren are in unity to dwell !
Like precious ointment on the head, that down the beard
did flow,
Ev’n Aaron’s beard, and to the skirts did of his garments go.
As Hermon’s dew, the dew that doth on Sion hills descend :
For there the blessing God commands, life that shall never
end.

Ps. cxxxiii. (Metrical Version).

Is the Use of Uninspired Songs in the Worship of God Authorised ?

BY REV. PROFESSOR R. J. GEORGE, D.D., ALLEGHENY,
PA., U.S.A.

“Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom ;
teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and
hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your
hearts unto the Lord.”—Col. iii. 16.

WHEN there are differences of view among Christians on any subject, it is always helpful to inquire how far they agree, and thus ascertain the exact point at which opinions begin to diverge. In regard to the songs to be employed in the praise of God there are several points of general agreement.

1. It is agreed that the Psalms were given by Divine inspiration, and are the very Word of God.
   “David the Son of Jesse said and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said, The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word was in my tongue” (II. Sam. xxiii. 1, 2). “Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus” (Acts i. 16). (See also Acts iv. 25; Heb. iii. 7, et al.) Men should be careful how they speak against the Book of Psalms. The Holy Ghost is its author. This is the first point of agreement.

2. It is agreed that these inspired Psalms were appointed by God to be used in His worship.
   “Sing unto Him, sing psalms unto Him” (I. Chron. xvi. 9). “Moreover, Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer” (II. Chron. xxix. 30). “Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving, and make a joyful noise unto Him with psalms” (Ps. xcv. 2). Bible expositors and Church historians alike agree that the inspired Psalms were exclusively used in the worship of the Old Testament. God appointed them to be so used, and no one but God could change the appointment. This is the second point of agreement.

3. It is agreed that so far as the record goes our Lord Jesus Christ used the Psalms exclusively in worship.
   Only on one occasion is our Lord referred to as singing. This was in connection with the observance of the passover. It is said, “And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives” (Matt. xxvi. 30; Mark xiv. 26). Biblical scholars are not misled by the use of the word “hymn” in our translation of this verse. The original simply states the fact that they sang praises to God. In the margin it reads, “When they had sung a psalm.” It is a well-known fact that the Jews were accustomed to sing at the passover the great Hallel, which consisted of Psalms 113th to 118th inclusive. Certainly our Lord and His apostles did not depart from this usage. Strange indeed it would have been if the Lord Jesus, who always exalted and honoured the Holy Spirit, had put aside the sacred songs which He indited for this very purpose. But He did not. Those who would follow closely in the footsteps of Jesus should sing Psalms. This is the third point of agreement.

4. It is agreed that we have express authority for the use of the Old Testament Psalms in the New Testament Church.
   “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto the Lord” (Col. iii. 16). Whatever differences of view there may be as to the “hymns and spiritual songs,” all agree that the Psalms here spoken of are the inspired Psalms of Scripture. The passage therefore contains an express warrant for the continued use of the Psalter in the New Testament Church. This is not denied by any one. This is the fourth point of agreement.

It is not affirmed that there are no opinions contrary to one or another of these four points, held by individuals, but there is a general agreement among all classes of evangelical Christians on these points.

We have now reached the exact point of divergence. While all agree that the “psalms” referred to in Col. iii. 16, are the Bible Psalms, there are many who maintain that the “hymns and spiritual songs” are mere human compositions; and that the New Testament Church is hereby authorised and instructed to add to her book of praises the writings of uninspired men. This is the crucial text on this subject. If this text contains a clear warrant for the use of uninspired hymns, other passages may lend it support; but if that warrant is not found here it is not found anywhere. The advocates of hymn-singing will admit the truth of this statement. It is now undertaken to show that not only does this passage not authorise the use of uninspired songs in worship, but that it enjoins the exclusive use of the Psalms of the Bible.

I. No warrant can be found for the use of uninspired songs, in the words “hymns and spiritual songs.”
At first view these words seem to be conclusive in favour of the advocates of hymn-singing. In the Greek text it is “psalmois, humnois, odais, pneumatikais”—i.e., “Psalms, hymns, songs, spiritual.” Now these three Greek names are all found in the titles to the Psalms in the Greek translation of the Old Testament which was in use among the people to whom Paul wrote this epistle. They occur many times in the titles to the various Psalms. The word “psalmois” about sixty-three times; the word “humnois” six times, and another word, “aleluia,” which has precisely the same import, about twenty times; and the word “odais” (mostly in the singular form) thirty-four times. With the fact before us that these three words are all actually found many times in the titles to the inspired Psalms—and when we all agree that the word “psalmois” does refer to inspired songs—is it not most unreasonable to insist that “humnois and odais” mean uninspired songs? As if to remove all possible doubt, the word “spiritual” is used to qualify the words. Thayer, in his Lexicon of the New Testament, referring to this passage and the similar one—Eph. v. 19—defines the word “spiritual” as “divinely inspired and so redolent of the Holy Spirit.” Dr Albert Barnes, in his commentary on I. Cor. x. 3, “And did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink”; says, “The word ‘spiritual’ is evidently used to denote that which is given by the Spirit, by God; that which was the result of His miraculous gift; that which was not produced in the ordinary way.” Again, “The word ‘spiritual’ must be used in the sense of supernatural, or that which is immediately given by God.” Hence “spiritual songs” are songs produced in a supernatural manner, those given immediately by the Spirit of God. It is just as if it read, “Teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and songs, given by the Holy Spirit.” What songs are these? The sweet psalmist of Israel answers, “The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word was in my tongue.” These very names, therefore, which have been relied upon as furnishing a warrant for the use of uninspired songs, we find to be well-known titles for the Psalms of the Bible, and that as qualified by the word “spiritual” they cannot be used to designate uninspired songs, but furnish a warrant for the exclusive use of the songs of the Spirit.

II. The Psalms are in an eminent sense “the word of Christ.”
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom.” This is the condition of being able to teach and admonish. How are the Psalms “the word of Christ”?

1. Christ by His Spirit is the Author of them.
   This has been fully shown above.

2. Christ is the speaker in many of them.
   For instance, “I will declare the decree: the Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee” (Ps. ii. 7). “Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me” (Ps. xl. 6). “My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?” (Ps. xxii. 1). Such Psalms as these are “the word of Christ” in the same sense that the Sermon on the Mount is His word. He and no one else is the speaker in them.

3. Christ alone is the subject of many of them.
   The most ignorant and senseless objection ever made to the Psalms is the charge that they are “Christless.” The truth is that no book in the Bible reveals Christ with such fulness as is done in “the book of Psalms,” not excepting the Gospel according to John or the Epistle to the Hebrews.

What may we learn of Christ in this wonderful book?

1. His Divinity.
   Ps. xlv. 6, “Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” (Compared with Heb. i. 8). Ps. cx. 1, “The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” (Compared with Matt. xxii. 42-45).

2. His eternal sonship.
   Ps. ii. 7, “I will declare the decree: the Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” (Compared with Heb. i. 5).

3. His incarnation.
   Ps. viii. 5, “For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.” (Compared with Heb. ii. 9). Ps. xl. 7, “Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me.” (Compared with Heb. x. 5-7).

4. His mediatorial offices.
   (a) His prophetic office. Ps. xi. 9, 10, “I have preached righteousness in the great congregation,” etc. Ps. xxii. 22, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren.” (Compared with Heb. ii. 12). (b) His priestly office. Ps. cx. 4, “The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent; Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec.” (Compared with Heb. vii. 17). (c) His kingly office. Ps. xlv. 6, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.” (Compared with Heb. i. 8). Ps. cx. 1, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” (Compared with Matt. xxii. 42-45; Heb. i. 13). See also Ps. xxii. 28, and Ps. lxxii. throughout.

5. His betrayal.
   Ps. xli. 9, “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.” (Compared with John xiii. 18).

6. His agony in the garden.
   Ps. xxii. 2, “O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.” (Compared with Heb. v. 7).

7. His trial.
   Ps. xxxv. 11, “False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.” (Compared with Matt. xxvi. 59, 60).

8. His rejection.
   Ps. xxii. 6, “But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.” (Compared with Matt. xxvii. 21-23; Luke xxiii. 18-23). Ps. cxviii. 22, “The stone which the builders refused is become the headstone of the corner.” (Compared with Matt. xxi. 42; Acts iv. 11, 12).

9. His crucifixion.
   Ps. xxii. throughout, also Ps. lxxix. (Compared with the Gospels). The scenes attending the crucifixion are described to the minutest particulars. The mockery, the shaking of the head, the parting of the garments, the casting lots on the vesture, the thirst, the vinegar and gall, the pierced hands and feet, the cry of the forsaken, the committing of His Spirit to God, and the “It is finished,” as many read the last verse of Ps. xxii.

10. His burial and resurrection.
    Ps. xvi. 9-11, “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life,” etc. (Compared with Acts ii. 25-31).

11. His ascension.
    Ps. xlvii. 5, “God is gone up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet.” (Compared with Acts i. 11, and I. Thess. iv. 16). Ps. lxviii. 18, “Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them.” (Compared with Eph. iv. 8-10). Ps. xxiv. 7-10, “Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of Glory shall come in,” etc. (Compared with Rev. v. 6-14).

12. His second coming.
    Ps. 1, 3, 4, “Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence.” “He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people.” Ps. xcvi. 6, 9, “With trumpets and sound of cornet make a joyful noise before the Lord, the king.” “Before the Lord; for he cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity.” (Compared with Matt. xxiv. 31; I. Cor. xv. 52). Well, said Jesus, It is written “in the Psalms, concerning me.” “The sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow,” are here unfolded, and these “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” are replete with Christ. If anyone will examine and compare these passages, he will readily believe that when Paul wrote, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom,” it was as if he had said, “Memorise the Psalms.”

III. Uninspired songs could not be placed on a level with songs of inspiration as the rule for “teaching and admonishing.”
All agree that the “psalms” of the text are the inspired Psalms, the very word of God. “Teaching” refers to doctrine—what we are to believe. “Admonishing” refers to practice—how we are to live. It is not conceivable that Paul would place the writings of uninspired men on a level with the Psalms of the Bible as a standard of doctrine and practice. “The holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.”—Westminster Larger Catechism. Uninspired hymns abound in errors. Dr H. Cooke, of Belfast, said he never had found a compilation of hymns that he “could pronounce free from serious doctrinal errors.” In 1838, the old school Presbyterian General Assembly (U.S.) appointed a committee to revise their hymn-book. In their report they say:—”On a critical examination we found many hymns deficient in literary merit, some incorrect in doctrine, and many altogether unsuitable for the sanctuary.” What an indictment to bring against the book which their own Church had substituted for God’s book of praises! Does anyone suppose that Paul referred to such “hymns and spiritual songs” as these, and placed them on a level with the Psalms of the Bible for “teaching and admonishing?” Rev. Dr W. T. Meloy, in “Songs of the Ages,” uses an illustration which may be helpful here. In substance it is as follows:—He supposes a Union Service. The choir is made up of a Presbyterian who sings soprano, a Methodist who sings bass, a Disciple who sings alto, and a paid fellow, who does not belong to any place, who sings tenor. The Methodist announces hymn number 886—

Ah, Lord, with trembling I confess
A gracious soul may fall from grace,
The salt may lose its seasoning power
And never, never find it more.

The Presbyterian cannot accept this “totally and finally” falling from grace, so he is silent. They have a trio. The Disciple then announces number 378 of the Christian Hymnal—

The great Redeemer we adore
who came the lost to seek and save,
Went humbly down from Jordan’s shore
To find a tomb beneath its wave.
With thee into the watery grave,
Lord, ’tis our glory to descend,
‘Tis wondrous grace that gives us room
To share the grave with such a friend.
Yet as the yielding waves give way
To let him see the light again,
So in the resurrection day
The bands of death prove weak and vain.

Neither the Presbyterian nor the Methodist could praise God by singing of immersion, and it would have ended in a solo, only that the tenor is hired and has no religion, and does not care what he sings. So this is a duet. The Presbyterian now thinks it is his time to have his views sung, so he reads out—

Life, death and hell and worlds unknown
Hang on his firm decree;
He sits on no precarious throne,
Nor borrows leave to be.
Chained to his throne the volume lies
With all the fates of men,
With every angel’s form and size
Drawn by the eternal pen.

The Calvinism is too strong in this for the Methodist and the Disciple. The tenor has become disgusted and refuses to sing; and the Union service ends in a soprano solo. This imaginary sketch has as its basis of fact the sectarian character of uninspired hymnals. Can the Christian reader believe that Paul pointed to these as standards of doctrine and practice of equal authority with the Psalms for “teaching and admonishing”? No, no. Paul never played fast and loose with the doctrines of the gospel. He says, “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. i. 8). If there was no other argument to show that the “hymns and spiritual songs” in which Christians are to teach and admonish one another are not mere human compositions, this would be conclusive. Paul was not advising the propagation of error.

IV. The inspired Psalms alone are adapted to be vehicles of grace to the heart, and of praise to the Lord.
“Singing with grace in your hearts unto the Lord.” Here we have the end to be reached. It is twofold: (1) The awakening of gracious affections in the heart, and (2) the uplifting of the soul to God. Two characteristics of the inspired Psalms mark their adaptation to this two-fold purpose. viz.: (a) their objective nature, and then (b) their devotional spirit. Hymns are subjective. Men sing about themselves, their states and experiences, their high resolves. Hymns are introspective. They are self-centred. The Psalms are objective. They are God-centred. The soul looks outward and upward. They lead the soul reverently to adore God “in the beauty of holiness,” as the object of praise, and devoutly to bow before Him on His throne, as the hearer of prayer. This is true devotion. “Worship God.” The devotional character of the book is manifest to all. This is in a pre-eminent sense the devotional book of the Bible. It is sometimes asserted that the Psalms are not adapted to be the vehicles of grace to the heart, and, therefore, they cannot be successfully employed in religious revivals! Such a view is utterly mistaken. Think for a moment of the contents of the book:—Its views of God, its views of man, its views of law, its views of sin; its views of Christ, its views of repentance, its views of pardon, its views of covenant-relationship, its views of the new life, its views of judgment, its views of heaven, its views of hell. What is there that is needed for revival that it does not contain? And what book is more likely to be honoured by the Holy Spirit than His own book? As Dr J. W. Bain has said, The Psalms “will be found suitable for any revival that comes down; those revivals that are ‘gotten up’ may need something less divine.” The fact is that the greatest revivals of religion the world has ever seen have been connected with the exclusive use of the Psalms. They were used exclusively in the great revivals in the days of Hezekiah, Josiah, Ezra, Nehemiah. The same was true in the revival at Pentecost, when 3000 were converted in one day. The period of the Reformation was a grand revival period, and it was a glorious revival of Psalm-singing. The Calvinistic Reformers used the Psalms exclusively. All France was thrilled with their music in the days of the Huguenots. They alone were used in the Scottish Church on that wonderful day at the Kirk of Shotts, when under Livingston 500 were converted by one sermon. In the times of Robert M’Cheyne, when the disciples of Christ continued their meetings until near midnight, they made the seasons of the night glad singing the songs of Zion. President Edwards bears testimony as to their use in the great Northampton revivals in New England in his days. “One of the most observable features of the work was the singular delight which all the awakened appeared to take in singing Psalms. In houses, in the fields, in the woods, alone and together, they spake forth the praises of their King; and even little children and aged persons who had never before learned to sing, came to sing praises with solemnity and sweetness.” It thus appears that the Psalms of the Bible are eminently adapted to be the vehicles of grace to the heart and of praise to the Lord, “Singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”

We conclude, therefore, that this passage, which has always been relied upon by the advocates of hymn-singing as containing a warrant for their practices, has no such meaning. The titles, “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,” belong to the inspired Psalms, and as qualified by the word “spiritual” are not true of any other. The Psalms are “the word of Christ”; uninspired songs are not His word: the Psalms are a true standard for “teaching and admonishing”; uninspired songs are not: the Psalms are adapted to be the vehicles of grace to the heart and of praise to the Lord; uninspired songs are not. The passage furnishes no warrant for the use of uninspired songs in worship, but is an explicit apostolic injunction that in the praise service of the New Testament Church the divinely authorised Psalmody should be continued.

We cannot close without an earnest appeal to the Christian heart in behalf of two things.

1. The restoration of God’s own Psalter to a place in the Hymnals of all the Churches.
   The present movement in this direction should have the hearty co-operation of every Christian. Its rejection has been in disregard of the divine appointment, and of the example of our blessed Lord, and of the apostolic authority contained in this passage. It should be restored to its place by the united voice of all Christendom and the joyous acclaim of all Christians. It would be the bringing back of the ark of God.

2. When the Psalter is restored to its place in the hymnals of the Churches it should be used exclusively in the worship of God.
   A place may be found for the use of uninspired songs, but not in worship. God must be served with His own. “But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the Lord of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen” (Mal. i 14).

Rev. W. D. Ralston, in “Talks on Psalmody,” relates the following story:—”As I trudged homewards, I stopped at an uncle’s, and spent the night there. In the evening I brought out my hymn-book and had some singing with my cousins. After I laid it down, my uncle took it up, put on his glasses, and spent some time in looking through it. He was a firm believer in the exclusive use of the Psalms, and my book was the hymn-book of another denomination. It gave the hymns, and the music, with the names of the composers of each as far as known. Uncle read a hymn, and, naming the author, said, ‘I know nothing of him.’ He read another, and said, ‘I have read about the author of this one. He was a Roman Catholic priest.’ He read another, and said, ‘I have often read of this author. He was a good man and an earnest Christian minister.’ He then said, ‘Now, John, if I were going to use one of these hymns in the worship of God to-night, which do you think I had best choose, the one about whose author I know nothing, the one by the Roman Catholic priest, or the one by the earnest Christian minister?’ I replied, ‘The one by the minister.’ ‘True,’ said he, ‘we should select the one written by the best man; and I see by looking through your book that it contains many hymns written by good men; but if I should find in it one composed by God Himself, would it not be better to sing that than one composed by any good man?’ I replied, ‘It surely would.’ After a little he said, ‘I have now carefully looked through your book, and I do not find one hymn in it marked—Composed by God; but I have here a little hymn-book, and God by His Holy Spirit has composed every hymn in it; for Peter says—’Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.’ As he spoke, he handed me one of our Psalm-books, and the manner in which he presented his argument made an impression upon my mind that I never forgot.’ How conclusive the argument is. We ought to serve God with the best. God’s own book is the best. When Ingersoll said that he “could write a better book than the Bible,” Christians were shocked, and denounced him as an “infidel blasphemer.” How, then, can we say that we can write a better book of praises than God’s Psalter? If it be true that hymn-books are better than the Psalm-book, it marks the highest achievement of the race; for then man has transcended God in His own field!! If it be not true, then the displacing of the God-made Psalter by the man-made hymn-books in God’s worship is an act of most daring presumption. At a meeting of ministers of various denominations in an eastern city, a paper had been read on church hymnology. General discussion followed the reading. An advocate of the exclusive use of the inspired Psalms employed the following illustration with great effect:—’If I had an important message to send to one living in the upper districts of the city, I might summon a messenger boy and say to him—’Can you carry this message for me to such a person, living in such a part of the city? And the boy would answer doubtfully, ‘I think I can. It is true, I have never been in that part of the city. I was born near here. I have heard of the person to whom you wish to send the message, but I am not acquainted with him; but I think I can find him. I am willing to try.’ My message is a very important one, and while satisfied of the good intentions of this boy, I am not quite assured of his ability to fulfil the trust. So I call up another boy, and ask him the same question. At once his face glows with intelligence as he answers, ‘Oh yes, I can carry your message directly to his home. I know all about that part of the city. I was born there. I came from there here. In fact, your friend sent me down here to find you and bear up any message you might desire to send him.’ It would not be difficult to decide which of these messengers I should employ. This is an allegory. If I had a message of praise to send up to God, and I employed a hymn to carry it, I would feel uncertain about it: it might reach Him, and it might not. But if I employed a Psalm to carry it, I know that it would ascend to heaven. The Psalm was born there. It came from God to me: and indeed God sent it to me to bear any message of praise I might wish to send up to Him.”—Reprinted from “The Covenanter.”

The Nature of the Universalism in the Gospel preached by Paul

BY PROF. B. B. WARFIELD.

IN WRITING to the Corinthians the Apostle says:—”For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge that if one died for all then were all dead and that He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again (II. Cor. v. 14-15). You cannot exaggerate, therefore, the significance to his Gospel of Paul’s universalism. In important respects this universalism was his Gospel. But unfortunately it is very possible to misconceive and to misrepresent this universalism; and unhappily, it is commonly very gravely misconceived and misrepresented. After all, Paul’s universalism was Paul’s universalism; and Paul’s universalism stood in opposition, not to the particularism of divine grace, but to the exclusiveness of Jewish nationalism. What he gave his life to, what he directed all his teaching toward, was not a passionate assertion of absolute indiscrimination on God’s part in His dealings with sinners of the human race, but the vindication of the Gospel of God’s grace in Christ Jesus of a world wide reference. If he argues at one time that “there is no difference” between men, he makes it plain that he means in point of claim upon God for His mercy; and so soon as he comes to speak of the distribution of the divine gifts, he makes it equally plain that there is a great difference and that this difference depends on the will of the Divine Giver. When Paul nailed to his mast-head the great declaration: “One died for all; therefore were all dead” (literally “all died”), he was as far as possible from intimating that Jesus’ death was equally and without distinction in behalf of every individual of the human race, and that, therefore, every individual of the human race, past, present, and to come died with Christ on the cross. This crass distributive universalism of redemption apparently never once entered his mind. And equally, when he inscribed upon his banner, “God was in Christ reconciling the world with Himself,” he thought of nothing so little as teaching that this reconciliation concerned itself equally with each and every individual who has ever lived in the world, lives in it now, or ever shall live in it. Such a conception is quite alien to his entire thought. What he means is just that God, who is the God not of the Jews only but also of the Gentiles, has given His Son to die not for the Jews only but for the world. His eye has caught this great vision; and, his mouth being open and his heart enlarged, he cries, Not one people only, but the world for Christ. . . . “The world for Christ”—not one nation, not one class, not one race, or condition of men, but the world and nothing less than the world for Christ! It would certainly be exceedingly unfortunate in any event to eviscerate Paul’s whole Gospel for the sake of gratuitously imposing on his language an inoperative universalism of redemption which does not actually save. That men could perish for whom Christ died, Paul never imagined that human minds could conceive. The very nerve of his great declaration, that “Christ died for all; therefore were all dead or all died,” is that participation in the death of Christ is salvation. Therefore he goes on to declare that those who thus die with Christ live, live with the Christ, who not only died for them but also rose again for them. So little was it possible for him to admit a distinction between dying with Christ, which is the unconscious lot of all, and living with Christ, which is the conscious attainment of only some, that he even founds elsewhere an a fortiori argument on participation in Christ’s death as removing all doubt of participation in His life. “But God commendeth His own Son towards us,” he reasons, “in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood, shall we be saved from wrath through Him. For, if while we were sinners, we were reconciled with God through the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life.” “But if we died with Christ,” he reasons again, “we believe that we shall also live with Him”; and again, “For if we have become united with Him by the likeness of His death, we shall be also by the likeness of His resurrection.” Paul therefore will have nothing to do with a distinction between men who have only died and those who also live with Him. With Paul, to die with Christ means to live together with Him; to be reconciled with God through the death of Christ means to enter into the full inheritance of life. . . How impossible it is to read Paul as teaching here a purely potential universalism in the death of Christ, to be made effective in each instance by the individual’s own act of appropriation, is rendered clear by another prime characteristic of his Gospel as here enunciated. This is what we may perhaps call, for lack of a better phrase, its high supernaturalism. By this we mean to refer to the emphasis and persistence with which he ascribes the whole saving process—in its initiation and outworking alike—to God. This, too, we should have expected of Paul. There is no more marked feature of his total thought than the vision of God which informs it; and no matter from what point of departure his argument takes its start, it can find its point of rest only when it arrives at “the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” It can cause us no surprise, therefore, when we find him in our present passage insisting, of the new life which he discovers in those—in all those—who have died with Christ, that is all of God; and representing the whole tremendous transaction by which we sinners are transformed into the likeness of Christ as inaugurated and carried through by God alone.

Dr Moffatt’s Tampering with the Hebrew Text.

WE give the following quotation from Dr Keyser’s “Doctrines of Modernism,” which was noticed in our last issue. It will show our readers how daring Dr Moffatt has been. “No man,” says Dr Keyser, “has a right to advertise a version of the Bible as a translation if he tampers with the sacred text. Where the Hebrew is somewhat obscure or imperfect, he should make it as clear as possible. In such cases he should frankly admit that he has done the best he could to clarify the difficulty, but that he by no means offers his suggestions in a dogmatic way. That is something very different, however, from manipulating the text where it is lucid in the original, and doing it in the interest of his own subjective views. Sincerely do we interrogate the ethics of such a procedure. The text should be dealt with as it is. Let it speak for itself. Let the people judge for themselves whether or not it furnishes grounds for belief in the documentary and critical theories. Why not let the reader be the judge? . . . How does the Hebrew text of the Bible begin its narrative? With the majestic statement—”In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (which is the literal translation of the Hebrew text). How does Dr Moffatt begin his so-called translation? Thus—”This is the story of how the universe was formed. When God began to form the universe, the world was void and vacant.” Compare the two statements, kindly reader. Do they agree? Do they express the same thought? Do they convey the same meaning? They surely do not. Let us analyze. Dr Moffatt goes to Gen. ii. 4, for his opening statement, wrenches it from its historic place, and transfers it to a position before Gen. i. 1, actually making it the initial statement of the Bible! How can he do such violence to the Biblical text? There is not in the world to-day an authoritative Hebrew Bible that places Gen. ii. 4, at its beginning, and as far as anyone knows, there never has been such a Hebrew Bible. More than that, every authentic Hebrew text inserts this verse in its well-known place in our common Bibles (Gen. ii. 4). It would seem to us that the divisive critics are assuming a great responsibility in handling the Bible in the manner above indicated. Suppose, however, we employ a little reasoning, Dr Moffat assigns Gen. ii. 4a to the writer E; while Gen. ii. 4b, and what follows, he assigns to J. Now, how did E ever commit such a blunder as to let ii. 4a, slip from its place of primacy at the beginning of the creative narrative into the fourth verse of chapter ii? How could he have been so stupid? Oh! perhaps it was a redactor. Well, then, why did he commit that stupid blunder? If its logical place was before Gen. i. 1, why did he not keep it there? But more and worse follows. In the Hebrew text, Gen. ii. 4a, reads: ‘These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created’ (literally translated) But note how Moffatt puts it: ‘This is the story of how the universe was formed.’ Compare the two. ‘These’ (plural) he translates ‘this’ (singular). ‘Generations’ (toledoth) he turns into ‘story’ (singular). The verb for ‘created’ (Hebrew, bara) he translates ‘formed,’ which would require an entirely different Hebrew verb (yatzar). Is not that tampering with the text? Can it be characterised by a milder term? The word ‘generations’ surely does not mean ‘story.’ Nor is the first chapter of Genesis a story. Nowhere in the Bible is it translated as a ‘story.’ It is treated as a historical narrative. But Dr Moffatt styles it a ‘story.’ Why? Because that idea comports with his Graf-Wellhausen theories. In other words, he does not accept the historicity of Gen. i. and ii. but regards them only as myth or legend; hence a ‘story.’ We cannot think that any man is justified in treating the Bible in that way. It would not be right so to handle even a secular composition.

We maintain that Gen. ii. 4a, occurs in its precise logical place in the Hebrew text. The whole verse indicates the beginning of a new series of events, namely, those that took place subsequent to the creation of the heavens and the earth. If the first chapter of our modern versions of the Bible would end with verse 3 of the second chapter, and the second chapter would begin with verse 4, the sense of the narrative would be much clearer. Then it would be seen that a new theme begins. At this point, the Authorised Version begins a new verse: so does Luther’s German translation. The Hebrew Bible, lying before us as we write, also makes a new paragraph at the beginning of verse 4. In spite of all this consensus of scholarship, Dr Moffatt wrests verse 4a from its historical position, and puts it at the very beginning of the Bible! Here we quote pertinently from that great Hebrew scholar and exegete, Dr C. F. Keil (page 71 of his commentary on Genesis)—‘Just as the toledoth of Noah, for example, does not mention his birth, but contains his history and the birth of his sons; so the toledoth of the heavens and the earth do not describe the origin of the universe, but what happened to the heavens and the earth after their creation.’ Why did not Dr Moffatt give heed to this great Hebraist, who supports his position by many cogent arguments? It pains us to have to say that our author misuses the Hebrew text in dealing with the doctrine of creation. Taking such liberties with the Bible is certainly serious. The Hebrew text says plainly (Gen. i. 1)—‘In the beginning God created (bara) the heavens and the earth.’ Here we have a complete sentence and a positive declaration. It surely must mean just what it says. But Dr Moffatt changes this positive declarative sentence into a greatly weakened subordinate clause. This is his professed translation of the first sentence of the Holy Bible—‘When God began to form the universe.’ Compare it with what the Bible actually says (Hebrew text literally translated)—‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Yet the author had the Hebrew text right before him, for he contends in his preface that he always went back to the original. Why did he change the first sentence of the Bible into a subordinate clause? And why did he excise from it all idea of creation?

It is an error to translate the Hebrew verb bara (to create) by the English word ‘form.’ It does not mean merely to form or fashion. There are other Hebrew words to express that thought. The verb bara means to bring something new into existence. In such contexts as Gen. i. 1 and 27, it means to produce something ex nihilo. In almost every Biblical passage where it occurs it means either the outright creation of a new entity or the injection of a new force or quality that can be attributed only to God. It was wrong, therefore, for Dr Moffatt to empty the word of its true meaning, which is ‘to create.’ If Dr Moffatt is correct, the Bible teaches nothing about the origin of the universe; nothing as to how its primordial material came into existence. The clause, ‘When God began to form the universe,’ does not go back to a real beginning. It assumes that the material was already in existence, and that God only began to fashion it. Then whence came the primordial material? You see, this perversion of the Holy Scriptures robs mankind of the doctrine of creation, and leaves the question of origins in fogland. And why this mishandling of the Word of God? The reason is plain. The author does not believe in the doctrine of divine creation. He thinks that matter is eternal, evidently holding to the old doctrine of Plato and Aristotle and the ancient heresy of the Gnostics and Manicheans, who taught that God was not the Creator, but only an artificer. So he twisted the language of the Bible in the interest of his own unscriptural philosophy. In Gen. i. 27, he also translates the verb bara (create) by the weak verb ‘form.’ Note his handling of this classical passage of the Christian ages—’So God formed man in his own likeness, in the likeness of God he formed him, male and female he formed both (black type ours). Thus, according to Dr Moffatt, man was not created in the divine image; he was only formed, Out of what was he formed? Obviously this wresting of the Hebrew text was done to make it agree with the theory of Evolution. This is another example of what men will resort to when they become obsessed with that theory. Is it right? Even Dr Charles Foster Kent, the author of ‘The Shorter Bible,’ and a most decided liberalist, did not have the temerity to tamper with the verb bara, but translated it ‘create’ in Gen. i. 1 and 27.

The Genetical account of the creation makes it plain that God created the various species of plants and animals to reproduce ‘after their kind.’ This phrase occurs in Gen. i. 11, 12, 21, 24, 25. In several of these verses it occurs twice, and in verse 25 three times. But note Dr Moffatt’s paraphrase (verse 12)—’The earth brought forth verdure, plants bearing seed of every kind and trees yielding fruit of every kind, fruit with seed in it.’ Verse 21—’So God formed the great sea-monster and every kind of living creature that moves, with which the waters teem, and every kind of winged bird.’ Verse 25—’God make every kind of wild beast, every kind of animal, and every kind of reptile; and God saw that it was good.’ Now, we must beg to protest that the recurring phrase, ‘every kind,’ is a mistranslation of the Hebrew text. Let us translate verse 12 as literally as possible—’And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its (his) kind; and God saw that it was good.’ . . . Now, what is the difference between ‘of every kind’ and ‘after its kind’? The former simply means that in some way the earth brought forth all the various kinds of plants and animals, and therefore the phrase may readily be interpreted in favour of the theory of Evolution; whereas the correct translation, ‘after its kind,’ refers to the fixity of type in the organic world. Mull it over and see whether the two phrases do not convey different meanings. If God made each species ‘after its kind,’ then He determined the species at the very start—a view that does not agree with the Evolutionary speculations. In verse 12 the Bible even says the herb yielded ‘seed after its kind.’ This can mean nothing but that each plant was so constituted as to reproduce true to its original type. Whatever our preconceived notions may be, we should let the Bible speak honestly for itself” (“The Doctrines of Modernism,” pp. 59-66).