Part 11

[2.] As to that part of the objection, which respects the congregation’s joining in the heart, with one that sings with the voice, in like manner as we do in prayer; let it be considered, that though he that joins with the heart, with another that prays, may be said to perform the duty of prayer, though he does not express his desires with his own voice; yet joining with the heart, while one only sings, cannot properly speaking, be called singing; much less singing with the voice, or singing with a loud voice, as it is often expressed in scripture. The apostle, indeed, speaks of _singing and making melody in our hearts, to the Lord_, Eph. v. 19. which, in some measure, seems to favour the objection. And it is inferred from hence, that, if one sings with the voice, others may make melody in the heart. But I take the meaning of that scripture to be this; the apostle is pressing the church to sing, that is, to make melody to the Lord; and, that this ordinance may be performed in a right manner, the heart ought to go along with the voice; hereby intimating, that there ought not only to be a melodious sound, by which the praises of God are sung, but, together with this, suitable acts of faith ought to be put forth, whereby we worship him with our hearts, as well as our voices. This does not therefore prove, that the melody here spoken of, only respects the frame of spirit, as excluding the use of the voice in singing.

[3.] As to what is objected against the inexpediency of joining in singing, with a mixed multitude, in which, some must be supposed to want two necessary qualifications for singing, namely, the Spirit and understanding; this is to join in the external ordinance, where there is no harmony, as to the internal frame of spirit, or the exercise of faith, which alone makes it pleasing to God.

To this it may be replied; that, if a mixed multitude may join together in prayer, and particularly the Psalms of David, may be read in the public congregation; though, perhaps, there are many present who do not understand the meaning of every particular phrase used therein: yet it does not follow, that because we do not fully understand the Psalms of David, therefore they ought not to be sung by us. We have before observed, that there is no essential difference, especially as to what concerns the frame of our spirit, between singing and reading[24]. Therefore it follows, that whatever psalm may be read, may be sung. He that is not qualified for the latter is not qualified for the former. The apostle, indeed, speaks of his _praying_ and _singing with the Spirit_, as well as _with the understanding_; but the meaning of that is, that we ought to desire the efficacious influences of the Spirit, and press after the knowledge of the meaning of the words we use, either in prayer or singing; yet the defect of our understanding, or having a less degree thereof than others, or, than we ought to have, does not exempt us from a right to engage in this ordinance. Therefore, we are not to refuse to join with those in singing the praises of God, whom we would not exclude from our society, if we were reading any of the Psalms of David in public.

(5.) We are now to consider the matter to be sung. There are very few who allow singing to be an ordinance, that will deny it to be our duty to sing the Psalms of David, and other spiritual songs, which we frequently meet with in scripture. Some, indeed, have contested the expediency of a Christian assembly’s making use of several Old Testament-phrases, that are contained therein. And others have alleged, that the phrase ought to be altered in many instances, (especially in those which have a peculiar reference to the Psalmist’s personal circumstances,) and others substituted in their room, which are matter of universal experience. But, if what has been said under the last head, be true, this argument will appear to have less weight in it; inasmuch as all the arguments that are brought in defence of making these alterations in the Psalms, as they are to be sung by us, will equally hold good, as applicable to the ordinance of reading them, and, it may be, will as much evince the necessity of altering the phrase of scripture, in several other parts thereof, as well as in these, if what has been said under the second head be allowed of. For it will follow from thence, that if some psalms are not to be sung by a Christian assembly, in the words in which they were at first delivered, and consequently are not to be read by them; because the phrase thereof is not agreeable to the state of the Christian church; and therefore it is to be altered, when applied to our present use; the same may be said concerning other parts of scripture; and then the word of God, as it was at first given to us, is no more to be read, than to be sung by us[25].

As to what is objected concerning the inexpediency of our making use of those words, and applying them to our case, in our devotions, that David used in his, with a peculiar view to his own condition. What has been said under the fourth head, relating to the frame of spirit with which the psalms are to be sung, will very much weaken the force of it; and this is what, in a great measure, determines my sentiments as to the ordinance of conjoint singing, as well as the matter of it; for, I am well persuaded, that if the words were to be considered as our own, (as they ought to be, when joining with another, who is our mouth, to God in prayer,) there are very few psalms, or hymns of human composure, that can be sung by a mixed assembly. But as a divine veneration ought to be paid to the psalms, and they are to be read with those acts of faith which are the main ingredients in our devotions; we are to sing them with the same view, only with this difference; as making use of the tone of the voice, as a farther help to the raising our affections therein, as has been before observed.

The next thing to be considered is, what version of the Psalms is to have the preference in our esteem, as it is subservient to the design of this ordinance. It is not my business, under this head, to criticise on the various versions of the Psalms; nor can it be supposed, that I have a regard to those poetical beauties in which one version exceeds another; for then I should be inclined to think some of them, which I do not make use of in the ordinance of singing, much preferable to others, for the exactness of their style and composure. But when I am singing the praises of God, in, or as near as I can to, the words of David, or any other inspired writer; that which I principally regard is, the agreeableness of the version to the original; and then they may be sung with the same frame of spirit with which they are to be read; and I am not obliged in singing, to consider the words as expressive of my own frame of spirit, any more than I am in reading them. But if the composure cannot properly be called a version, but an imitation of David’s Psalms, then I make use of it in the ordinance of singing, with the same view as I would an hymn; of which, more hereafter[26].

The versions which, I think, come nearest to the original, are the New-England and the Scots; the latter of which, I think, much preferable to the former; inasmuch as the sentences are not so transposed in this, as in the other, and the lines are much more smooth and pleasant to be read. I should be very glad to see a version more perfect, that comes as near the sense of the original, and excels it in the beauty or elegancy of style. And it would be a very great advantage if some marginal notes were added, as a comment upon it; which would be a help to our right understanding thereof.

I shall now give my thoughts concerning the singing of hymns. These, according to the common acceptation of the word, are distinguished from psalms, and they generally denote a human composure, fitted for singing; the matter whereof, contains some divine subjects, in words agreeable to, or deduced from scripture. The arguments that are generally brought in defence thereof, are, that though scripture be a rule of faith, from whence all the knowledge of divine things is primarily deduced; and therefore it has the preference, as to the excellency and authority thereof, to any other composure; yet it is not only lawful, but necessary to express our faith in the doctrines contained therein, in other words, as we do in prayer or preaching. Therefore, if it be a duty to praise God with the voice, it is not unlawful to praise him in words agreeable to scripture, as well as in the express words thereof; accordingly it is argued, that both may be proved to be a duty, _viz._ praising God in the words of David, and by other songs contained in scripture, and praising him in words agreeable thereunto, though of human composure. This is the best method of reasoning that I have met with in defence of the lawfulness of singing hymns, not as opposed to, or excluding David’s Psalms, but as used occasionally, as providence directs us; that so our acknowledgments of benefits received, may be insisted on with greater enlargement than they are in the book of Psalms; wherein, though it may be, there is something adapted to every case, yet the particular occasion of our praise is not so largely contained in the same section or paragraph; and therefore an hymn may be composed on that occasion, in order to our praising God thereby. But, when on the other hand, persons seem to prefer hymns to David’s Psalms, and substitute them in the room thereof, I cannot but disapprove of their practice.

A late writer[27] speaks on this subject with a great deal of moderation; when, though he proves that scripture psalms should be preferred before all others, and more ordinarily sung; yet he thinks that hymns of human composure, ought not wholly to be excluded, provided they be exactly agreeable to, and as much as may be, the words of holy scripture. There are other writers whom I pay equal deference to, who have concisely, though with a considerable degree of judgment, proved singing to be a gospel-ordinance[28], who argue against singing of _hymns_: and, indeed, what they say in opposition to those who defend the practice thereof from Eph. v. 19. and Col. iii. 16. wherein _hymns_ are supposed to be distinct from _psalms and spiritual songs_; and, consequently, that we are to understand thereby human composures, agreeable to scripture, as by psalms and spiritual songs, we are to understand those which are contained in the very words of scripture, seems very just. And herein they speak agreeably to the mind of several judicious and learned men, who assert that these three words signify nothing else but those psalms or songs that are contained in scripture[29]. The question in debate with me, is not whether the psalms, hymns, or spiritual songs, that are contained in scripture, are designed to be a directory for gospel-worship; for that, I think, all ought to allow; but, whether it be lawful to sing a human composure that is agreeable to scripture, either as to the words or sense thereof; especially when the subject-matter of our praise is not laid down so largely in one particular section of scripture, as we desire to express it. In this case, if we were to connect several parts of scripture together, so that the design of enlarging on a particular subject might be answered thereby; it would render it less necessary to compose an hymn in other words. But, inasmuch as the occasions of praise are very large and extensive, and therefore it may be thought expedient, to adore the divine perfections, in our own words in singing, in like manner as we do in prayer, considering the one to be a moral duty as well as the other; I will not pretend to maintain the unlawfulness of singing hymns of human composure, though some of much superior learning and judgment have done it.

I would, however, always pay the greatest deference to those divine composures, which are given as the principal rule for our procedure herein. Nevertheless, I cannot but express my dislike of several hymns that I have often heard sung; in some of which the heads of the sermon have been comprised; and others, which are printed, are so very mean and injudicious, and, it may be, in some respects, not very agreeable to the analogy of faith, that I cannot, in the least, approve of them. But if we have ground to conclude the composure, as to the matter thereof, and mode of expression, unexceptionable, and adapted to raise the affections, as well as excite suitable acts of faith in extolling the praises of God, it gives me no more disgust, though it be not in scripture-words, than praying or preaching do when the matter is agreeable thereunto. Yet, inasmuch as when we confess sin, acknowledge mercies received, or desire those blessings that are suited to our case, we always suppose, that the words, which he, who is the mouth of the congregation, uses, ought to be such, in which all can join with him (and in this, the reading one of David’s prayers, and putting up a prayer in the congregation, differ as to a very considerable circumstance in each of them) the same ought to be observed in hymns. But, if an _hymn_ be so composed, as that all that sing it are represented as signifying their having experienced those things which belong not to them, or as blessing God for what they never received: this, I conceive, would be an unwarrantable method of singing hymns of human composure, as much as if the expressions were used in public prayer. There are, indeed, many hymns which have in them a great vein of piety and devotion, but are not adapted to the experience of the whole assembly that sings them; therefore, though they may join in signing some hymns, I do not think they can well join in singing all; notwithstanding the subject-matter of them may be agreeable to the analogy of faith; and this principally depends upon what we have before laid down, concerning the difference between making use of a divine and human composure, in the former of which, the words are not always to be considered as our own, or expressive of the frame of our own spirits; whereas this is universally true, with respect to the latter.

Thus concerning the ordinance of singing; which we cannot but think included among those whereby Christ communicates to his church, the benefits of his mediation. And this leads us to consider the other ordinances, which are particularly insisted on in the remaining part of this work. And that which next comes under our consideration, is the word read and preached.

Footnote 21:

I come now to say somewhat of the antiquity of Musical Instruments. But that these were not used in the Christian Church in the primitive times, is attested by all the ancient writers with one consent. Hence they figuratively explain all the places of the Old Testament, which speak of Musical Instruments; as I might easily shew by a thousand testimonies, out of _Clement_ of _Alexandria_, _Basil_, _Ambrose_, _Jerom_, _Augustine_, _Chrysostom_, and many others. I can hardly forbear laughing, when I meet with some of their allegorical interpretations. Thus an Instrument with ten strings, according to them, signifies the Ten Commandments, as the unknown author of the Commentary upon the _Psalms_, among _Jerom’s_ works, often explains it, _In_ Ps. xxxii. 2. xliii. 4, &c. But the pleasantest fancy is the explication of those words: _Praise him with stringed Instruments and Organs_. Ps. cl. 4. “That the guts being twisted by reason of abstinence from food, and so all carnal desires being subdued, men are found fit for the kingdom of God, to sing his praises.” But _Chrysostom_ talks more handsomly; “As the _Jews_ praised God with all kind of Instruments; so we are commanded to praise him with all the members of our bodies, our eyes, _&c._” _In_ Ps. cl. And _Clement_ of _Alexandria_ talks much to the same purpose. Pædag. _lib. ii. c. 4_.

Besides, the ancients thought it unlawful to use those Instruments in God’s worship. Thus the unknown author of a Treatise, among _Justin Martyr’s_ works: “_Q._ If songs were invented by unbelievers with a design of deceiving, and were appointed for those under the Law, because of the childishness of their minds; why do they, who have received the perfect instructions of grace, which are most contrary to the foresaid customs, nevertheless sing in the Churches, just as they did, who were children under the Law? _Answ._ Plain Singing is not childish, but only the Singing with lifeless Organs, with Dancing and Cym-bals, _&c._ Whence the use of such Instruments, and other things fit for children, is laid aside, and Plain Singing only retained.” Resp. ad Orthodox. _Q._ 107.

_Chrysostom_ seems to have been of the same mind, and to have thought, the use of such Instruments was rather allowed the _Jews_ in consideration of their weakness, than prescribed and commanded. _In_ Ps. cl. But that he was mistaken, and that Musical Instruments were not only allowed the _Jews_, as he thought, and _Isidorus_ of _Pelusium_, (whose testimony I shall mention presently) but were prescribed by God, may appear from the Texts of Scripture I have before referred to.

_Clement_, as I have mentioned already, thought these things fitter for beasts, than for men. And though _Basil_ highly commends, and stifly defends the way of Singing by turns; yet he thought musical Instruments unprofitable and hurtful. He calls them, _the inventions of_ Jubal _of the race of_ Cain. And a little after, he thus expresses himself: “_Laban_ was a lover of the harp, and of music, with which he would have sent away _Jacob_: _If thou hadst told me_, said he, _I would have sent thee away with mirth, and musical instruments, and an Harp_. But the Patriarch avoided that music, as being a thing that would hinder his regarding the works of the Lord, and his considering the works of his hands.” Comment. in Is. _c._ v. _p._ 956, 957. And a little before, he says thus “In such vain arts, as the playing upon the Harp, or Pipe, or dancing, as soon as the action ceases, the work itself vanishes. So that really, according to the Apostle’s expression, _The end of these things is destruction_.” _page_ 955.

_Isidore_ of _Pelusium_, who lived since _Basil_, held, music was allowed the _Jews_ by God, in a way of condescension to their childishness: “If God” _says he_, “bore with bloody sacrifices, because of men’s childishness at that time; why should you wonder, he bore with the music of an harp and a psaltery?” Epist. lib. 2. _ep._ 176.

Nay, there are some ecclesiastical officers in the Church of _England_, who, for their very profession and employment, would have been kept from the communion of the Church, except they desisted from it. So we are informed by the _Apostolical Constitutions_: “If any come to the mystery of godliness, being a player upon a pipe, a lute, or an harp; let him leave it off, or be rejected.” _Lib._ viii. _c._ 32.

From what has been said, it appears, no musical instruments were used in the pure times of the Church. It became Antichristian, before they were received. _Bellarmine_ himself does not deny, they were late brought into the Church. “The second ceremony,” _says he_, “are the Musical Instruments, which began to be used in the service of the Church, in the time of Pope _Vitalian_, about the year 660, as _Platina_ relates out of the _Pontifical_; or, as _Aimonius_ rather thinks, _lib._ iv. _De gestis Francorum_, _c._ 114. after the year 820, in the time or _Lewis_ the Pious.” De Missa, _lib._ ii. _c._ 15. Item, De bon. Oper. _lib._ i. c. 17.

Dr. _N._ would hardly have denied, the Church of _Rome_ was become Antichristian, when they were first brought in; even though we should allow _Bellarmine’s_ first date of them to be the true one. But a Reformed Divine may well be ashamed of that antiquity, that does not exceed the rise of Antichrist. But I am fully satisfied both _Bellarmine’s_ dates are false, and that instrumental music, in the worship of God, is much later than either of those accounts allow. For as to _Platina_, he seems to suspect the truth of what he wrote: “_Vitalian_,” _says he_, “being careful about the worship of God, made an ecclesiastical rule, and ordered the singing, with the addition (as some think) of organs.” In Vital. Again, _Bellarmine’s Aimonius_ is not the true _Aimonius_. For (as Dr. _Cave_ says) _Aimonius of Fleury_, who wrote, _De gestis Francorum_, flourished about the year 1000; and his History, which begins at the destruction of _Troy_, is brought down as far as the coronation of King _Pipin_, or to the year 752. For what comes after that, and makes up the fifth book, and the latter part of the fourth, is the continuation of another hand. Hist. Liter. _p._ 597.

Farther, that these instruments were not used in God’s worship, in _Thomas Aquinas’s_ time, that is, about the year 1250, he himself is witness. “In the old Law,” _says he_, “God was praised both with musical instruments and human voices, and according to that _Psalm_ xxxiii. _Praise the Lord with harp, sing unto him with the psaltery, and an instrument of ten strings._ But the Church does not use musical instruments to praise God, lest she should seem to judaize. Therefore, by parity of reason, she should not use singing.” Secunda secundæ Questio 91, _art._ 4. & _conclus._ 4. The like objection is made by our author. But _Thomas_ answers: “As to this objection, we must say, as the philosopher, _Lib._ viii. _Polit._ that Pipes are not to be used for teaching, nor any artificial instruments, as the harp, or the like: but whatever will make the hearers good men. For these musical instruments rather delight the mind, than form it to any good disposition. But under the Old Testament such instruments were used, partly because the people were harder and more carnal; upon which account they were to be stirred up by these instruments, as likewise by earthly promises; and partly because these bodily instruments were typical of something.” Upon which place Cardinal _Cajetan_ gives us this Comment: “’Tis to be observed, the Church did not use organs in _Thomas’s_ time. Whence, even to this day, the Church of _Rome_ does not use them in the Pope’s presence. And truly it will appear, that musical instruments are not to be suffered in the ecclesiastical offices we meet together to perform, for the sake of receiving internal instruction from God; and so much the rather are they to be excluded, because God’s internal discipline exceeds all human disciplines, which rejected these kind of instruments.” _Cit._ Hoffm. Lex. voce _Musica_.

If any one objects the practice of some foreign churches, I answer with Mr. _Hickman_: “They are laid aside by most of the reformed churches; nor would they be retained among the _Lutherans_, unless they had forsaken their own _Luther_; who, by the confession of Eckard, reckoned _organs among the ensigns of Baal_. That they still continue in some of the _Dutch_ churches, is against the minds of the Pastors. For in the National Synod at _Middleburg_, in the year 1581, and in the Synod of _Holland_ and _Zealand_, in the year 1594, it was resolved, _That they would endeavour to obtain of the magistrate the laying aside of organs, and the singing with them in the churches, even out of the time of worship, either before or after sermons_: so far are those Synods from bearing with them in the worship itself.” _Apol. p._ 139.