A lecture given on New Year’s Day, 1997, at Struan Free Presbyterian Church
Part Two
Continued from page 77 of the last issue. In the last part, the regulative principle of worship, defined thus in the Westminster Confession of Faith, “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 the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture,” was given as the principal reason for using the Psalms only in praising God, and was enlarged upon. Then these reasons were given for exclusive Psalmody: 1. In the Psalms we have a portion of the divinely inspired Scriptures which is written poetically in order that the words and expressions would be used for singing praise to God. 2. The Book of Psalms is a perfect manual of praise and therefore fully sufficient for the purpose.
Editor
ANOTHER reason which we advance in defence of exclusive Psalmody is that the contents of the Book of Psalms are full of Christ, who is the very heart and substance of the church’s praise. If we go to John’s visions of the glorified church in the Book of The Revelation, we get a clear view of the saints in their purest state, engaged in singing the most perfect praise conceivable. What is the great theme of their praise? It is the blessed Saviour, and His work of redemption. That praise to Him begins on earth. May the great Teacher, who opened the eyes of His disciples on the road to Emmaus to see Himself in the Psalms, be opening our eyes to see Him more and more in the Psalms as the “chiefest among ten thousand,” and “the altogether lovely one.”
Let us also remember that God the Son, as the perfect man “made like unto His brethren”, used the Psalms as the godly Jews in His day used them in worshipping of God. He used them as a fit vehicle by which He could convey to His Father the innermost feelings of His soul, as a man. Can we believe for a moment, that the One who instituted certain necessary changes in the ordinances of the Church, in its transition from the Old Testament dispensation to the New Testament dispensation, would have failed in the course of His personal experiences in worship to detect any shortcoming in the manual of praise which He used, and not have remedied the matter? The fact is that the Saviour made use of the manual of praise which you and I use and never gave even the least suggestion that it needed replacing in whole or in part. Does the twentieth century believer think that he or she is more informed, more knowledgeable, more exercised in soul, more concerned about pleasing God in worship, than is Christ, the Head of the church; or that he or she needs, in worship, to express needs, feelings, or desires that the Saviour knew nothing about? Who could possibly imagine such a thing?
In referring to the matter of exclusive Psalmody, and of Christ in the Psalms, Dr. Henry Cooke, one of the most outstanding contenders in Ireland in the 19th century for the principles of the Reformed Faith, wrote in 1861: ‘I cannot fail to pity those who can find, as they assert, so little of Christ in the inspired psalmody of the Bible, that they must seek and employ an uninspired psalmody as exhibiting Him more fully. Our Lord Himself found Himself in the Psalms (Luke 24: 44, 45) and thereby “opened His disciples’ understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures.” Surely what was the clearest light to their eyes, should be light to ours. And, truly, I believe, there is one view of Christ — and that not the least important to the tried and troubled believer — that can be discovered only in the Book of Psalms: I mean His inward life. No eye-witness of the outward man, though an inspired evangelist, could penetrate the heart. But the Spirit who “searcheth the deep things of God,” has, in the Psalms, laid open the inmost thoughts, sorrows, and conflicts of our Lord. The Evangelists faithfully and intelligently depict the sinless Man; the Psalms alone lay open the heart of “the Man of sorrows.” The most pious productions of uninspired men are a shallow stream — the Psalms an unfathomable and shoreless ocean.’
There is what I consider to be another important point to note regarding the Saviour’s use of the Psalms. While it is true that the Book of Psalms is often referred to as the “Psalms of David,” it should be remembered that there were about twenty different authors involved, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the production of the Psalms. David was but one of these, although of course he, the “sweet psalmist of Israel,” penned the majority of them. In addition to these spiritual songs there are a number of other songs recorded in the Scriptures; for example, the Song of Moses, composed when the Israelites had passed safely through the Red Sea; the song of Deborah and Barak after the defeat of Sisera; and the song of Hannah when she came to present her son Samuel before the Lord at Shiloh, and others which we need not mention. What we mentioned is sufficient to prove that all the songs recorded in the Old Testament were not included in the divinely appointed manual of praise. Some of the divinely inspired songs in Scripture were included in the manual of praise but others were not; so it is natural to inquire why such a distinction should be made. The answer surely must be that the collection of the Psalms into one book, must have been the work of divine inspiration, as much as was their actual composition. The Saviour, by using the Psalms in their original form (which is, of course, their present form) sanctioned not only their use as the appointed manual of praise but approved their sufficiency.
Many of the opponents of exclusive Psalmody argue that the fact that there are other songs recorded in the Old Testament but not included in the Book of Psalms, establishes a precedent for the Church’s composing and using other songs in addition to the Psalms. We insist however that the Holy Spirit, by not including in the Book of Psalms all the songs recorded in Scripture, established the precedent for all time that the Church should make use only of those particular compositions which He sovereignly ordained to be included in that manual. God could have included in the Book of Psalms every song in Scripture, had it been His mind to do so, but He chose not to. By this act He established His authority in the selection of what was to be used by His people when they appear before Him to offer up praise.
Obviously then, the design for which the Psalms were collected into one Book of Psalms was not to preserve in it, for the use of the Church, all the songs composed by holy men as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, otherwise all of them would have been included. We must remember that the other songs recorded in the Bible were just as inspired as those which are in the Book of Psalms even though they are not included there. This is far from being an insignificant point. It focuses upon the fact that if God will not have all divinely inspired songs to be made use of in praising Him in public worship, how much less will He accept the interference of men who introduce their novel, uninspired productions into His worship.
Another reason which we put forward in defence of “Psalms only” is that the Book of Psalms is the only book of praise to be found in the whole canon of Scripture. You may well say, This is so obvious to everyone; why bother to mention it? My reply is that because it is so obvious, it is altogether inexcusable for anyone to either fail or refuse to take cognizance of its significance. I think it is fair to say that those who consider themselves to be Evangelicals hold the view that the Bible is complete in itself. It is God’s full revelation of His will to men. This completeness must of course include the completeness of both Testaments in themselves. The Old Testament is complete in itself as a Testament, including its book of sacred songs. Likewise the New Testament is complete in itself as a Testament but without such a book of songs. Just as there are exhortations and encouragements in the Old Testament to sing and praise God, so we have the same in the New Testament. The Apostle James writes, “Is any merry? Let him sing psalms.” Paul, when writing to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians, chapter 14), to the Ephesians (in chapter 5), and to the Colossians (in chapter 3), makes reference to singing and praise, and yet there is no New Testament book of praise. The New Testament is complete, as God intended it to be, with its requirements and exhortations to sing and praise, yet without including a new book of praise. The only logical conclusion we can draw from this is that the Holy Spirit was of the mind, when inspiring the Apostles to write the contents of the New Testament, that the volume of praise already given to the Old Testament church was sufficient for the New Testament church, both churches of course being one.
There are those, as you know, who attempt to argue from Paul’s reference to “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,” (in Colossians 3:16), that he alludes to compositions additional to the book of Psalms. Even without a knowledge of the precise meaning, in the original language in which Paul wrote, of the three categories of song, the Apostle’s meaning is clear from the context. He is referring to, “the word of Christ,” which must dwell richly in believers and by which they may teach and admonish one another. The “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” are part of the “word of Christ”. What other source of information does anyone imagine Paul would direct the Colossians to, as suitable for such an exercise, but the word of God? And in speaking of that book of songs in the Scriptures he refers to it by the categories of “psalms”, “hymns” and “spiritual songs”. It is evident also that he applied the term “spiritual” not only to the “songs” but also to the “psalms” and “hymns”, and that he meant that they all are not only spiritual in their nature but also in their origin; that is, they are the product of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Should anyone insist that Paul was writing about other compositions which were known to the Colossians (in addition to the Psalms) but which are unknown to us, and that this sets a precedent for the Church to compose further songs, we draw their attention to a decisive point. In the Old Testament we are informed of several other literary works with which the Hebrews were obviously familiar, but which never had a place in the Scriptures. We read of the “Books of the wars of the Lord” (Numbers 21:14), the “Book of Jasher” (Joshua 10:13), the “Book of Nathan” (1 Chronicles 29:29 and 2 Chronicles 9:29), the “Book of Gad” (1 Chronicles 29:29), and the “Book of Jehu the son of Hanani” (2 Chronicles 20:34) to name some of them. In addition to these books there were 1005 songs by Solomon. We read this about him in 1 Kings 4:29-32, “God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore. And Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about. And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five.”
The fact is that God would have us know that other books were written but that He would not have them preserved within His inscripturated word. He would have us understand that He gave Solomon wisdom far exceeding that of other men — and I think we may assume that it exceeded, in a sense, even that of other writers of books and songs in the Bible. By drawing our attention to these facts, He is emphasizing to us that the only books included in the Scriptures are those which He purposed to include. It is not difficult to imagine how interesting and edifying these one thousand and five songs of Solomon might have been even for ourselves but the fact is that God did not include them in His Word or in the church’s praise, even though He gave Solomon the wisdom to compose them. The point we make is that under the New Testament, if the Apostles or any other believers had written hymns or songs, these would have no more authority or place in the worship of the Lord than Solomon’s one thousand and five songs had in the Book of Psalms. God decided what books were to be included in the canon of Scripture and God decided what songs were to be permanently used by Christians in singing His praise.
Nowhere in the Scriptures can we find any evidence to support the opinion that the Church is at liberty to compose or select her own songs of praise. Why, may I ask, should anyone expect to discover any? The sufficiency of the Psalms has been amply proven throughout the history of the Church and in the experiences of the saints. John Calvin, as he expressed his personal appreciation of the Psalms, wrote that which a multitude of godly souls throughout history would have subscribed to: “I may truly call this book an anatomy of all the parts of the soul, for no one can feel a movement of the spirit which is not reflected in this mirror. All the sorrows, troubles, fears, doubts, hopes, pains, perplexities, stormy outbreaks by which the hearts of men are tossed, have been here depicted by the Holy Spirit to the very life.”
Where would the Church be today, we may ask, had it not been for the Psalms? Out of the Psalms, the Reformers drew encouragement in the face of relentless persecution, the Covenanters acquired boldness to contend against their fierce foes for the Crown Rights of the Redeemer, the martyrs received strength to endure imprisonment, banishment, torture, the gallows and the stake for the cause of Truth. Men today have their great singing rallies; churches profess liveliness in their praise; while the young are impressed with the frivolous compositions from the carnal minds of vain glory-seekers. This suffices as long as the world and the church walk hand in hand, but in days when the church bore the reproach of her Lord, in the path of duty, such trifles would have failed her. Bearing the heat and toil of the day, something more substantial was needed and God in divine mercy had provided it. The Psalms were the anchor that held fast in the fiercest of storms: and how many a soul was preserved because of them, only eternity will reveal. If we go to the suffering church in the past and enquire, Why Psalms only? we will hear the French Huguenots, the persecuted Waldenses of the Alps, the suffering Covenanters from Scotland and Ireland, and many others, give their unhesitating answer with one voice, as David said to Ahimelech concerning the sword of Goliath; “There is none like that; give it me.” Why Psalms only? The answer is clear. There is no substitute.