Articles


Home Standards Sermons Articles Events Links Contact Us	A Review of the Pamphlet Psalter - The Only Hymnal? by Iain H Murray, Banner of Truth Trust By Rev. John W. Keddie In this article Rev. John W. Keddie answers the questions raised by Iain H. Murray in his pamphlet The Psalter - The Only Hymnal? Mr. Keddie has also written a booklet on the subject, Sing the Lord’s Song! - Biblical Psalms in Worship. Iain Murray in his recent pamphlet, The Psalter - the only Hymnal? speaks of the inadequacy or insufficiency of the Psalter for praise in the Christian Church. He emphasises the implications of this in one notably ill-conceived remark: “The present writer acknowledges that a few of the finest Christians he has known have been exclusive Psalm-singers: their lives and testimonies rose above the limitations of the language of their customary praise” (p. 28). But surely this could be applied to Peter and Paul, the other apostles, John Calvin, John Owen, Samuel Rutherford, and almost all other Reformers, Puritans and Covenanters? It could apply also to the likes of William Cunningham, George Smeaton (who, incidentally, resigned from the eldership in Grange Free Church over the introduction there of the Free Church Hymn Book in 1884), Hugh Martin, and other Free Church fathers, as well as twentieth century worthies like John Murray and Kenneth Macrae. After all, none of these customarily sang from any modern, or ancient, hymnbook, apart from the Psalms! Are the Psalms insufficient? The burden of Murray’s booklet is to provide arguments against the exclusive use of canonical song and for the use of human compositions in congregational praise. He seeks to do this with reference to two main points: (1) The analogy with prayer and preaching. The argument here is that if we are ‘free’ to adopt our own words in these, such ‘liberty’ should be allowed in the hymnody also (p. 8ff); and, (2) The requirements of reflecting distinctive New Testament teaching in the songs sung in Christian Churches (p. 23ff). It has to be said that his arguments are not strong theologically or exegetically, and his quotations are selective. Murray himself does not like the displacement of Psalms in worship (p. 30), and yet he does not appear to appreciate that the ‘shift’ involved in adopting human compositions in worship has always tended to the early displacement of the Psalms. It comes as no surprise, also, that once the church has claimed for itself the right to adopt its own material in the songs the congregations sing, it invariably takes the liberty to adopt other practices which appear to promote gospel truth, such as dance, drama, orchestration and the like. That is a simple lesson of history. Iain Murray wishes to have a regulative principle in relation to singing (p.11ff). But once men are allowed to add to worship what is simply thought good to them for advancing the gospel, it becomes difficult to establish where the lines are to be drawn. Is there a divine sanction for hymns? The question of divine sanction is clearly important. There is no problem in recognising divine sanction for the songs of the Psalter. They were given by direct divine inspiration. They were provided for praise in the worship of the Church. They cannot but have the approval of Christ. There can be no qualms of conscience in singing the Psalms. There may be some ignorance on the part of the singer in understanding precisely what the meaning, or application of the Psalms may be, but they represent timeless truth. We see this in the case of the disciples on the road to Emmaus. They were rebuked as “foolish” for not grasping that their Scriptures clearly taught the events that had caused them such sadness. Jesus “expounded to them in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself” and “that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms, concerning me” (Luk. 24:27-44). The question is. What warrant is there for human compositions? The answer is, that there is none. As Professor James Macgregor put it in 1869: “There is no visible case in which with the sanction of God any congregation ever sang a song of merely human inspiration”. Do some passages disprove “exclusive psalmody”? Reference is made to the passage in Ephesians 5:19 (see also Col. 3:16) in which Paul enjoins the singing of “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (pp. 10-11). These passages are among the few references in the New Testament to the singing of praise. For this reason they assume a central importance in the argument for hymn singing. Some appear to think that if it can be demonstrated that the terms psalms, hymns and songs do not just refer to the Psalter, then you are well on your way to establishing the use of non-canonical materials, or at least debunking “exclusive psalmody”, Iain Murray quotes John Eadie who suggests what the psalms, hymns and songs “might be”. Other commentators use similar conjectural language. The fact is that these terms are variously used in the Psalter with reference to Psalms and the safest interpretation of these passages is to take them as referring to the various songs of the Psalter. Though this does not prove “exclusive psalmody”, it is clear that such verses cannot be taken as any warrant for the use of non-canonical song in worship. Is psalm-singing not like praying and preaching? It is maintained that if prayer or preaching involve ‘freedom’, then the same should be true also for the songs sung (p. 9). But the requirements for these different elements of worship services are not identical. It is clear that prayer and preaching are not to be by form or book. These are expected to be, and warranted to be, in the words of the preacher or praying person. Praise is different. In singing the congregation is required collectively to join together in the use of songs, which can be sung only in a particular form of words. One would expect divine sanction of the materials used. In that sense the singing of praise is analogous to the reading of the Scriptures rather than to the exercise of prayer or preaching. Who decides what hymns are acceptable? An important consideration here is the question of selection. Murray maintains that some hymns can express truth better than the Psalms, especially in relation to the themes of the gospel (p. 24ff). But the question arises: By what authority will non-inspired human compositions be adopted in divine worship? In principle the same question arises over paraphrases of Scripture passages. Those who argue for Psalms only would for the greater part at least not be opposed in principle to the singing of other songs found in Scripture. [This is why I use the term ‘canonical song’ here rather than the term ‘exclusive psalmody’, though warrant for using songs of Scripture other than Psalms is uncertain]. The matter of Paraphrases is different. The problem there is: Who decides which passages should be versified? This is accentuated in the case of hymns, for such compositions are not infallible. They may be written by born-again men or women. But who decides what is to be used, and why should I sing them? Iain Murray himself mentions a few well-known hymns which he considers to be superior to Psalms in speaking of the cross (p. 25). He mentions Cowper’s When I survey the wondrous cross. Yet we might ask: Where does the Bible speak of the cross as “wondrous”? Why did Cowper not rather write, ‘When I survey the cursed cross’ (in terms of Gal.3)? Paul Gerhardt’s 0 sacred Head! sore wounded is also mentioned. But why has it been thought necessary in some hymn books to change the title to, ‘0 sacred Head once wounded’? And again, in Charles Wesley’s And can it be, the imagery is luscious and the accompanying music may be moving. But we look at verse 3 and ask: Did Christ really empty Himself of all but love? What does that mean? Where did Wesley get that idea? My point here is not to deny that there are good hymns, nor to deny that there are many good thoughts and substantially correct sentiments in the hymns. The point is that to a lesser or greater degree we are dealing with the productions of fallible men. They may have been a blessing to many, as good books have been, but it is another thing to introduce them into the worship of God for congregational singing. What best preserves the unity of the Church? Murray conspicuously does not address the matter of unity through praise, except to suggest that it is those who insist on inspired materials of praise who cause most disharmony in the churches (p. 30). Perhaps we could illustrate the difficulty in this way: A leader of the worship announces a hymn (non-canonical variety). Am I bound to sing it? No. Is it a sin for me not to sing it? No, after all it is not the Word of God. But how can the unity of the congregation in its act of sung praise be preserved if all do not sing it? On the other hand, take a Psalm (canonical song). The leader gives this out. Am I obliged to sing this? Well, I would have no reason not to. Would it be a sin for me not to sing? If I were able to sing, the answer must be, yes. The praise of the sanctuary, especially where participation is involved (as in singing), is to be expressive of the unity of the Church (congregation). Using Psalms only cannot disrupt this. Only the Psalms of Scripture can always be truly ecumenical. Only the Psalms of Scripture can be sung without any possible qualms of conscience over the words, expressions, experiences, or theology used. Hugh Martin said this in 1872: “The Psalms are the grand Catholic hymnal: and the singing of them provides for Christian union and for perfect Catholicity.... If Christ Jesus were bodily present as at the Synagogue in Nazareth would you give Him other than His own Psalms to lead you in singing?—His own Psalms in that they are composed by Himself: and His own Psalms, in that His soul sang them, with grace in His heart unto the Lord, in the days of His flesh. You maintain communion with Him, and He with you, when in the praises of the sanctuary you sing His Psalms. You may think your hymns are in accordance with His Word: but the Psalms are His very Word itself”. Some concluding remarks Whatever else may be said of the Psalter, it is a divinely inspired and sanctioned collection of songs of praise. There are serious problems with non-inspired praise materials: (1) Where is the divine sanction for non-inspired productions to be used in congregational worship? (2) What are the criteria to be adopted for accepting this or that hymn, that all would accept without any difficulties of conscience? (3) How will true unity among the people of God be maintained or fostered when the materials of praise cannot be universally accepted? Iain Murray is a fine writer, especially on historical and biographical themes. He has been very influential over the years in encouraging a rediscovery of the Puritans and the great Reformed divines of the past. It was inevitable that Psalm-singing should be rediscovered as in effect that was the milieu of so many of the writers whose books have been republished largely through Murray’s influence in the past 40 years. It is obvious that once the regulative principle is stretched to allow uninspired materials of praise, it becomes difficult to see how on the one hand a check can ever be made on diversification in the area of praise materials or practices, or, on the other hand, how a return can be made to divinely sanctioned, God-breathed materials. In our estimation this is precisely at the heart of a crisis in Christian worship today. The argument is not about whether or not it is a sin to write religious poetry, nor whether it is wrong to sing human spiritual songs in contexts outside of congregational worship. The issue is: What right does man have to introduce his own songs for use in congregational singing? Notwithstanding that the majority of churches have done this, the fact is that they have done so only by way of human tradition. A church can only use arguments from tradition for the adoption of non-inspired hymns. There are differences amongst Christians on this issue, and we would not unchurch any on account of praise materials adopted. One thing at least: In the New Jerusalem there will be a new song, and no disputes. There will be nothing but inspired song—of Moses and of the Lamb (Rev.15:3). Till then we should sing the songs the Lord Himself has given to the Church, recognising in them Christ in His experiences and His work, and that they reflect a balance of revealed truth perfectly sufficient for the praises of the Church in the Last Days. It goes without saying that this booklet of Iain Murray’s, notwithstanding our admiration of the author, is not recommended as a sound guide as to the question of appropriate materials for praise in Christian worship. Copyright © 2004, Rev. John W. Keddie. All rights reserved.

A Review of the Pamphlet
Psalter - The Only Hymnal?
by Iain H Murray, Banner of Truth Trust

In this article Rev. John W. Keddie answers the questions raised by Iain H. Murray in his pamphlet The Psalter - The Only Hymnal? Mr. Keddie has also written a booklet on the subject, Sing the Lord’s Song! - Biblical Psalms in Worship.

Iain Murray in his recent pamphlet, The Psalter - the only Hymnal? speaks of the inadequacy or insufficiency of the Psalter for praise in the Christian Church. He emphasises the implications of this in one notably ill-conceived remark: “The present writer acknowledges that a few of the finest Christians he has known have been exclusive Psalm-singers: their lives and testimonies rose above the limitations of the language of their customary praise” (p. 28). But surely this could be applied to Peter and Paul, the other apostles, John Calvin, John Owen, Samuel Rutherford, and almost all other Reformers, Puritans and Covenanters? It could apply also to the likes of William Cunningham, George Smeaton (who, incidentally, resigned from the eldership in Grange Free Church over the introduction there of the Free Church Hymn Book in 1884), Hugh Martin, and other Free Church fathers, as well as twentieth century worthies like John Murray and Kenneth Macrae. After all, none of these customarily sang from any modern, or ancient, hymnbook, apart from the Psalms!

Are the Psalms insufficient?

The burden of Murray’s booklet is to provide arguments against the exclusive use of canonical song and for the use of human compositions in congregational praise. He seeks to do this with reference to two main points:

(1) The analogy with prayer and preaching. The argument here is that if we are ‘free’ to adopt our own words in these, such ‘liberty’ should be allowed in the hymnody also (p. 8ff); and,

(2) The requirements of reflecting distinctive New Testament teaching in the songs sung in Christian Churches (p. 23ff).

It has to be said that his arguments are not strong theologically or exegetically, and his quotations are selective. Murray himself does not like the displacement of Psalms in worship (p. 30), and yet he does not appear to appreciate that the ‘shift’ involved in adopting human compositions in worship has always tended to the early displacement of the Psalms. It comes as no surprise, also, that once the church has claimed for itself the right to adopt its own material in the songs the congregations sing, it invariably takes the liberty to adopt other practices which appear to promote gospel truth, such as dance, drama, orchestration and the like. That is a simple lesson of history. Iain Murray wishes to have a regulative principle in relation to singing (p.11ff). But once men are allowed to add to worship what is simply thought good to them for advancing the gospel, it becomes difficult to establish where the lines are to be drawn.

Is there a divine sanction for hymns?

The question of divine sanction is clearly important. There is no problem in recognising divine sanction for the songs of the Psalter. They were given by direct divine inspiration. They were provided for praise in the worship of the Church. They cannot but have the approval of Christ. There can be no qualms of conscience in singing the Psalms. There may be some ignorance on the part of the singer in understanding precisely what the meaning, or application of the Psalms may be, but they represent timeless truth. We see this in the case of the disciples on the road to Emmaus. They were rebuked as “foolish” for not grasping that their Scriptures clearly taught the events that had caused them such sadness. Jesus “expounded to them in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself” and “that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms, concerning me” (Luk. 24:27-44). The question is. What warrant is there for human compositions? The answer is, that there is none. As Professor James Macgregor put it in 1869: “There is no visible case in which with the sanction of God any congregation ever sang a song of merely human inspiration”.

Do some passages disprove “exclusive psalmody”?

Reference is made to the passage in Ephesians 5:19 (see also Col. 3:16) in which Paul enjoins the singing of “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (pp. 10-11). These passages are among the few references in the New Testament to the singing of praise. For this reason they assume a central importance in the argument for hymn singing. Some appear to think that if it can be demonstrated that the terms psalms, hymns and songs do not just refer to the Psalter, then you are well on your way to establishing the use of non-canonical materials, or at least debunking “exclusive psalmody”, Iain Murray quotes John Eadie who suggests what the psalms, hymns and songs “might be”. Other commentators use similar conjectural language. The fact is that these terms are variously used in the Psalter with reference to Psalms and the safest interpretation of these passages is to take them as referring to the various songs of the Psalter. Though this does not prove “exclusive psalmody”, it is clear that such verses cannot be taken as any warrant for the use of non-canonical song in worship.

Is psalm-singing not like praying and preaching?

It is maintained that if prayer or preaching involve ‘freedom’, then the same should be true also for the songs sung (p. 9). But the requirements for these different elements of worship services are not identical. It is clear that prayer and preaching are not to be by form or book. These are expected to be, and warranted to be, in the words of the preacher or praying person. Praise is different. In singing the congregation is required collectively to join together in the use of songs, which can be sung only in a particular form of words. One would expect divine sanction of the materials used. In that sense the singing of praise is analogous to the reading of the Scriptures rather than to the exercise of prayer or preaching.

Who decides what hymns are acceptable?

An important consideration here is the question of selection. Murray maintains that some hymns can express truth better than the Psalms, especially in relation to the themes of the gospel (p. 24ff). But the question arises: By what authority will non-inspired human compositions be adopted in divine worship? In principle the same question arises over paraphrases of Scripture passages. Those who argue for Psalms only would for the greater part at least not be opposed in principle to the singing of other songs found in Scripture. [This is why I use the term ‘canonical song’ here rather than the term ‘exclusive psalmody’, though warrant for using songs of Scripture other than Psalms is uncertain]. The matter of Paraphrases is different. The problem there is: Who decides which passages should be versified? This is accentuated in the case of hymns, for such compositions are not infallible. They may be written by born-again men or women. But who decides what is to be used, and why should I sing them? Iain Murray himself mentions a few well-known hymns which he considers to be superior to Psalms in speaking of the cross (p. 25). He mentions Cowper’s When I survey the wondrous cross. Yet we might ask: Where does the Bible speak of the cross as “wondrous”? Why did Cowper not rather write, ‘When I survey the cursed cross’ (in terms of Gal.3)? Paul Gerhardt’s 0 sacred Head! sore wounded is also mentioned. But why has it been thought necessary in some hymn books to change the title to, ‘0 sacred Head once wounded’? And again, in Charles Wesley’s And can it be, the imagery is luscious and the accompanying music may be moving. But we look at verse 3 and ask: Did Christ really empty Himself of all but love? What does that mean? Where did Wesley get that idea? My point here is not to deny that there are good hymns, nor to deny that there are many good thoughts and substantially correct sentiments in the hymns. The point is that to a lesser or greater degree we are dealing with the productions of fallible men. They may have been a blessing to many, as good books have been, but it is another thing to introduce them into the worship of God for congregational singing.

What best preserves the unity of the Church?

Murray conspicuously does not address the matter of unity through praise, except to suggest that it is those who insist on inspired materials of praise who cause most disharmony in the churches (p. 30). Perhaps we could illustrate the difficulty in this way: A leader of the worship announces a hymn (non-canonical variety). Am I bound to sing it? No. Is it a sin for me not to sing it? No, after all it is not the Word of God. But how can the unity of the congregation in its act of sung praise be preserved if all do not sing it? On the other hand, take a Psalm (canonical song). The leader gives this out. Am I obliged to sing this? Well, I would have no reason not to. Would it be a sin for me not to sing? If I were able to sing, the answer must be, yes. The praise of the sanctuary, especially where participation is involved (as in singing), is to be expressive of the unity of the Church (congregation). Using Psalms only cannot disrupt this. Only the Psalms of Scripture can always be truly ecumenical. Only the Psalms of Scripture can be sung without any possible qualms of conscience over the words, expressions, experiences, or theology used. Hugh Martin said this in 1872: “The Psalms are the grand Catholic hymnal: and the singing of them provides for Christian union and for perfect Catholicity.... If Christ Jesus were bodily present as at the Synagogue in Nazareth would you give Him other than His own Psalms to lead you in singing?—His own Psalms in that they are composed by Himself: and His own Psalms, in that His soul sang them, with grace in His heart unto the Lord, in the days of His flesh. You maintain communion with Him, and He with you, when in the praises of the sanctuary you sing His Psalms. You may think your hymns are in accordance with His Word: but the Psalms are His very Word itself”.

Some concluding remarks

Whatever else may be said of the Psalter, it is a divinely inspired and sanctioned collection of songs of praise. There are serious problems with non-inspired praise materials:

(1) Where is the divine sanction for non-inspired productions to be used in congregational worship?

(2) What are the criteria to be adopted for accepting this or that hymn, that all would accept without any difficulties of conscience?

(3) How will true unity among the people of God be maintained or fostered when the materials of praise cannot be universally accepted?

Iain Murray is a fine writer, especially on historical and biographical themes. He has been very influential over the years in encouraging a rediscovery of the Puritans and the great Reformed divines of the past. It was inevitable that Psalm-singing should be rediscovered as in effect that was the milieu of so many of the writers whose books have been republished largely through Murray’s influence in the past 40 years. It is obvious that once the regulative principle is stretched to allow uninspired materials of praise, it becomes difficult to see how on the one hand a check can ever be made on diversification in the area of praise materials or practices, or, on the other hand, how a return can be made to divinely sanctioned, God-breathed materials. In our estimation this is precisely at the heart of a crisis in Christian worship today.

The argument is not about whether or not it is a sin to write religious poetry, nor whether it is wrong to sing human spiritual songs in contexts outside of congregational worship.

The issue is: What right does man have to introduce his own songs for use in congregational singing? Notwithstanding that the majority of churches have done this, the fact is that they have done so only by way of human tradition. A church can only use arguments from tradition for the adoption of non-inspired hymns.

There are differences amongst Christians on this issue, and we would not unchurch any on account of praise materials adopted. One thing at least: In the New Jerusalem there will be a new song, and no disputes. There will be nothing but inspired song—of Moses and of the Lamb (Rev.15:3). Till then we should sing the songs the Lord Himself has given to the Church, recognising in them Christ in His experiences and His work, and that they reflect a balance of revealed truth perfectly sufficient for the praises of the Church in the Last Days.

It goes without saying that this booklet of Iain Murray’s, notwithstanding our admiration of the author, is not recommended as a sound guide as to the question of appropriate materials for praise in Christian worship.

A Review of the Pamphlet Psalter - The Only Hymnal? by Iain H Murray, Banner of Truth Trust