Exclusive Psalmody FAQ
Or Ten Common Objections to Exclusive Psalmody
Answered
Copyright 1998 First Presbyterian Church Rowlett
Other Psalmody Resources (many links)
[From The True Psalmody, Anthology of Presbyterian & Reformed Literature, volume
4, 1991, Naphali Press. While the following was first published in the middle of
the nineteenth century, it is still very relevant to the subject.] The following
summary answers to arguments for the use of hymns, and to objections to the use
of the Psalms in worship, are taken from a condensed summary on the subject of
Psalmody annexed to Rev. R. J. Dodd’s Reply to Morton.
It is objected –
1. ‘That the singing of uninspired composition, in divine worship, is not
forbidden in the word of God.’
Answer. Neither are we forbidden to observe seven sacraments. In determining
whether or not this or that particular service should be made a part of God’s
worship, the absence of divine appointment, amounts, in all cases, to a
prohibition.
2. ‘That good men have composed hymns of human composure.’
Answer. (1.) The best of men are liable to do things which will dishonor God,
and injure the church. (2.) There are many good men who would not dare, either
to compose a song to be sung in divine worship, or to offer to God a song
composed by man.
3. ‘That those who use human psalmody, are more numerous than those who use only
the book of Psalms in singing God’s praises.’
Answer. (1.) It was not always so; and the time may yet come, when it will cease
to be so. (2.) The multitude are not always – nor have they hitherto commonly
been right, in matters of faith, and religious practice.
4. ‘That we are allowed to compose our own prayers, and, by parity of reason,
ought to be allowed to compose our own songs of praise.’
Answer. (1.) Right or wrong, it is a matter of fact, that most worshippers
neither do nor can compose their own songs of praise. (2.) God has given us, in
the Bible, a book of Psalms, but no book of Prayers; and promised to the church
a Spirit of prayer, but not a Spirit of psalmody. (3.) In prayer we express our
own wants; in praise we declare God’s glory. If we can frame a form of words,
suitable for the former purpose, it by no means follows that we are equally
competent to compose a form of words for the latter purpose. (4.) The ordinances
of prayer and praise differ in this, that in the former the thoughts suggest the
words; and we should therefore use the words which they do suggest; whereas, in
the latter the words are designed to suggest the thoughts, and therefore we
should use words, if such we can obtain, which can suggest none but appropriate
thoughts. (5.) Our wants are always changing; and therefore, our prayers should
vary: but the glory of God is ever the same; and therefore the same collection
of songs will serve for the expression of his praise, from age to age.
5. ‘That there is, in the New Testament, authority for singing songs composed by
men.’ First: we are referred to the fact that Christ and his disciples sung a
hymn, Matt. 26:50.
Answer. – (1.) Let it be proved that the hymn sung by our Savior and the
disciples was not one or more of the Psalms of David. It is supposed by the best
commentators to have been the great hallel, consisting of the Psalms from the
113th to the 118th inclusive. (2.) Our Savior was better qualified, and had a
better right to compose hymns than Dr. Watts, John Wesley, Philip Doddridge,
etc. Second: It is argued that Paul enjoins the use of uninspired psalmody when
he says, Col. 3:16, `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 to the Lord.’ Some argue from the first clause
of the verse, `Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom;’
explaining the phrase, `the word of Christ,’ to mean either the whole Bible, or
the New Testament; and alleging that the apostle enjoins the use of songs drawn
from the whole word of God, or from the New Testament in particular. Answer. –
(1.) Let it be proved that this expression means either the whole Bible, or the
New Testament, and not simply, the principle of the gospel. (2.) Let it be
proved that the Apostle enjoins upon the Church to compose songs, drawing the
matter of them from what he denominates `the word of Christ.’
Others reason from the use of the three terms, `psalms, and hymns, and spiritual
songs’ in the latter clause of the verse. Answer. – (1.) No good reason can be
assigned, why any one of the psalms of inspiration might not, in reference to
different aspects under which it may be viewed, be denominated a `psalm, hymn,
and spiritual song.’ Such a use of language is not uncommon. God says, Ex. 34:7,
`forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin.’ (2.) If these three terms
designate three distinct kinds of devotional poetry, let it be proved that the
Book of Psalms does not comprise songs of these three different kinds. (3.) The
Jews applied the terms psalms, hymns, and songs, indiscriminately to the Book of
Psalms. – See Josephus, Philo, etc.; and the same may have been done by Paul and
the primitive Christians. (4.) In the Septuagint, which was the translation of
the Old Testament in use in the days of Paul, some of the psalms are, in their
titles, designated psalmos – a psalm; others, ode – a song; and others,
alleluia; which last is a word borrowed from the Hebrew, and when used as a noun
in the Greek language, is equivalent to hymnos – a hymn. Why may we not suppose
the Apostle has allusion, in this verse, to these three terms used in the
Septuagint version, as titles of different psalms?
Third: it is inferred from 1 Cor. 14:26 that the Corinthians brought to their
assemblies psalms composed by themselves, under a supernatural impulse of the
Spirit, and of course not contained in the book of Psalms. Answer. – Let it be
proved that the Psalms, by the unseasonable utterance of which they disturbed
their assemblies, were composed by themselves under an impulse of the Spirit,
and not selected from the Book of Psalms.
6. ‘That the Book of Psalms is hard to understand.’
Answer. – (1.) If there are some passages in the Psalms hard to understand, so
are there in the other scriptures, 2 Pet. 3:16. (2.) It is no harder to
understand the psalms when we sing them than when we read them. (3.) The more we
use them, the better will we understand them. (4.) We have a better opportunity
of understanding them than Old Testament worshippers had; and we are sure the
Book of Psalms was their psalmody. (5.) If we are unable to understand the
Psalms, much less are we able to compose songs which will supply their place.
(6.) If any man does not understand the Psalms, let him, under the direction of
their divine Author, endeavor to ascertain their meaning. (7.) The psalms are
not, in general, hard to understand. There is, indeed, an unfathomable depth of
meaning in them; but no man finds fault with a well on account of its depth, if
the water rises to the surface. There can be more divine truth, and true
devotional sentiment found on the very face of the inspired Psalms, than can be
obtained from those which are uninspired, when they are worn threadbare.
7. ‘That the Psalms are not adapted to New Testament worship.’
Answer. – (1.) God never changes, and of course his praise is always the same.
(2.) The Spirit of God was better able, in the days of David, to prepare songs
suited to New Testament worship, than men are now. (3.) The Psalms everywhere
speak most clearly of Christ and his mediatorial work, kingdom and glory; and
are, by the Apostles, copiously quoted in illustration of the way of salvation.
(4.) They make less reference to the peculiarities of the old dispensation, than
some books of the New Testament do. (5.) We have no Book of Psalms in the New
Testament, and no command to prepare one.
8. ‘That the Psalms contain sentiments adverse to the spirit of the Gospel;
abounding with sharp invectives against personal enemies, and being, in many
instances, expressive of revenge, etc.’
Answer. – It is blasphemy.
9. ‘That the Psalms are not sufficiently copious to furnish a complete system of
psalmody.’
Answer. – (1.) God is no more glorious now than he was in Old Testament times;
and if the Psalms were sufficient then for the expression of his praise, they
are still sufficient. (2.) It is too much for any man to take upon himself to
decide how copious a system of psalmody ought to be. (3.) The Book of Psalms
actually contains an incomparably greater abundance and variety of matter than
all the hymns which were ever composed by men.
10. ‘That we have no good metrical translation of the Psalms.’
Answer. – (1.) Let those who think we have no good metrical translation of the
Psalms, improve some of the versions in use, or make a better. It is surely
easier to make a good translation of God’s Psalms, than to compose songs better
than those which He has made. (2.) It is better to sing, in divine worship, an
imperfect translation of those songs which God has composed, than to sing the
best songs which men can make. (3.) We have a good metrical translation of the
Psalms. There are, in the Scottish version of the Psalms, it is true, some
blemishes. It contains some uncouth forms of expression, and some words which
are now obsolete; and its versification in many instances is far from being
smooth. But, for the most part, both the phraseology and the versification are
very good; and it must be allowed by those who have examined it, that its
fidelity to the original Hebrew is not much, if at all, inferior to that of the
prose translation of the Psalms, in our English Bible.
These few observations are submitted to the judgment of the candid and
intelligent reader. Though they may not be blessed as a means of reclaiming any
from the practice of using human psalmody, yet if they serve to establish some
in their attachment to the Psalms of inspiration, the writer will not consider
his labor lost. Christian worshippers will one day see eye to eye, on this, as
on all other important points. In the meantime, all the fearers of God can, with
confidence, commit the interests of Christ’s truth, so far as they are involved
in this controversy, to the management of Him who brings order out of confusion,
and light out of darkness; and praying, `Thy will be done on earth as it is in
heaven,’ rest assured that very soon, in songs appointed by Jehovah’s own high
authority, the devout worshipper will everywhere `give to the LORD the glory due
unto his name.’
`Praise ye the Lord; unto him sing
a new song; and his praise,
In the assembly of his saints,
in sweet Psalms do ye raise.
Let Isr’el in his Maker joy,
and to Him praises sing;
Let all that Zion’s children are,
be joyful in their KING.’