The substance of "The Puritan Principle of Worship" was delivered on December 18, 1957 at the Puritan Conference, London. The article was published serially in Blue Banner Faith and Life, vols. 14-16 (1959-61), edited by Johannes G. Vos. We have extensively reorganized the material for greater clarity of presentation. Editorial revisions by Sherman Isbell of this article and of its footnotes are not to be distributed to other web locations for retrieval, published in other media, or mirrored at other sites without written permission of Sherman Isbell.

Puritan Teaching Regarding the Content of Sung Praise

A consideration of authentic Puritan teaching with respect to the content of sung praise will now be in order. First of all, mention may be made of the witness of the Puritans at the Westminster Assembly of Divines. In the Westminster Confession of Faith, the singing of Psalms is named among the authorized elements of worship. The Assembly also concerned itself with a metrical Psalter which would provide a faithful rendering of the text of the Psalms.

In his work, Singing of Psalms a Gospel Ordinance (1647), John Cotton, pastor of the church at Boston in New England, finds it first necessary to justify vocal singing in the worship of God. He gives the following proofs in justification of the practice. The first proof is taken from the commandment of the Lord by Paul, Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, I Cor. 14:15-16. Cotton urges, "That singing of Psalms in the New Testament, is to be dispensed in Christian churches, not only with inward grace in the heart, making melody to the Lord, but also with outward audible lively voice."(76) Cotton replies to various objections raised against the appeal to the Pauline texts. One objection is to the effect that no spiritual gift is exercised in the singing of the letter of the Psalms. Cotton answers that "Singing of Psalms is accompanied and blessed of God (by his grace) with many gracious effects, above nature or art."(77) "Singing of a spiritual song, prepareth to prophecy, by ministering the Spirit, II Kings 3:15. . . . The minstrel's playing, if it had not been accompanied with a spiritual song, it could not have conveyed such a spiritual blessing." Cotton reasons in like manner from I Sam. 10:5-6: "For prophecy is an utterance only of the Word of God, and of the things of God contained in it; which instruments without voice cannot do. Nor had their playing with instruments been a means of conveying the Spirit to Saul, had not their voices concurred and sung with their instruments."(78)

Singing of Psalms honors God with our glory, i.e. our tongue, Pss. 108:1, 57:7-8. To the objection that "These gracious effects and fruits of singing Psalms, do plead as much for singing and playing with instruments, as for singing with voices," Cotton gives several answers, the third of which is of particular interest, as providing a main ground for the Puritans' rejection of instrumental music in worship: "Singing with instruments, was typical, and so a ceremonial worship, and therefore is ceased. But singing with heart and voice is moral worship, such as is written in the hearts of all men by nature: As to pray in distress, so when we are merry, and have cause of solemn thanksgiving unto God, then to sing Psalms, which the Holy Ghost by the Apostle James approveth and sanctifieth, James 5:13. Or suppose singing with instruments were not typical, but only an external solemnity of worship, fitted to the solace of the outward senses of children under age, (such as the Israelites were under the Old Testament, Gal. 4:1-3) yet now in the grown age of the heirs of the New Testament, such external pompous solemnities are ceased, and no external worship reserved, but such as holdeth forth simplicity, and gravity; nor is any voice now to be heard in the Church of Christ, but such as is significant and edifying by signification (I Cor. 14:10-11, 26) which the voice of instruments is not."(79)

"The second proof is taken from the examples of Christ himself, and of his saints and disciples in the New Testament. Christ himself with his disciples sung a Psalm or an Hymn together, in the end of the administration of the Lord's Supper, Matt. 26:30. And Paul and Silas are said to have sung a Psalm in the prison, so as the prisoners heard them, Acts 16:25. Now if in singing they had only spiritually rejoiced, and not expressed their joy and their song in audible and lively voice, the prisoners could not have heard them. The stranger doth not know nor meddle with the spiritual joy of the heart, Prov. 14:10."(80) In reply to the objection that Matt. 26:30 could as well be translated "They praised God" as "They sung an Hymn," Cotton observes: "It is more probable, than any reason can wave, that Christ and his disciples did shut up the Lord's Supper with singing one of their Hebrew Psalms; as the Jews were wont to shut up their celebration of the Passover (as their own records tell us) with singing Psalm 111 with the five other Psalms next following together."(81)

"A third proof of this truth, is taken from the prophecies of the Old Testament, foretelling and persuading such a duty in the New, Isa. 52:8, 'with the voice together shall they sing.' And that is foretold of the times, when the feet of the messengers of glad tidings shall be beautiful, who shall say unto Zion, Thy God reigneth. Which Paul explaineth of the times of the gospel, Rom. 10:14."(82) Cotton also adds references to Pss. 100:1-2 and 95:1-2, and shows that both of these Psalms relate to the worship of the New Testament church.

Against this appeal to Old Testament texts, the objection was raised that since singing in the Old Testament is associated with the use of instrumental music, these texts do not refer to singing in the New Testament church. Cotton replies, referring to Ps. 95:1-2: "Here is now no mention of making a joyful noise with instruments, but with Psalms. And therefore the making a joyful noise with Psalms doth still continue, even on our Lord's Days: when making a joyful noise with instruments continueth not, but is laid down in silence: save only so far as it is kept alive in the antitype, the affections of our hearts (our Praecordia) making melody with the songs and professions of our lips, and with the gracious and peaceable conversation of our lives."(83)

Following upon his elaborate argument in support of vocal singing in the worship of God, Cotton proceeds to the heart of the matter, the content of sung praise in worship, or, as he expresses it, "the matter of the Psalms to be sung."(84) He refers to "some who do not scruple singing with the voice . . . but singing of the Psalms of David now in these days of the New Testament," and summarizes their opinion: "As conceiving David's Psalms were penned for temple worship, during the pedagogy of the Old Testament. But now in the days of the New Testament, when God hath promised to pour out his Spirit upon all flesh, now the whole worship of God should be carried on, not by set forms of Psalms, (no more than by set forms of prayer) but by personal spiritual gifts, whereby some one or other of the members of the church, having received a Psalm by the inditement of the Spirit, he singeth it openly in the public assembly of the church, and the rest of the brethren say Amen to it in the close."(85)

Ignoring at the present stage of discussion the question as to who should sing, Cotton states his view as to the matter to be sung: "1. That not only the Psalms of David, but any other spiritual songs recorded in Scripture, may lawfully be sung in Christian churches, as the song of Moses, and Asaph, Heman and Ethan, Solomon and Hezekiah, Habakkuk, and Zacharias, Hannah, and Deborah, Mary and Elizabeth, and the like. 2. We grant also, that any private Christian, who hath a gift to frame a spiritual song, may both frame it, and sing it privately, for his own private comfort, and remembrance of some special benefit, or deliverance: Nor do we forbid the private use of an instrument of music therewithal; so that attention to the instrument, do not divert the heart from attention to the matter of the song. Neither do we deny, but that in the public thanksgivings of the church, if the Lord should furnish any of the members of the church with a spiritual gift to compose a Psalm upon any special occasion, he may lawfully be allowed to sing it before the church, and the rest hearing it, and approving it, may go along with him in Spirit, and say Amen to it."(86)

An important reservation accompanies this concession, namely that such spiritual gifts as "Psalms and tongues" received by sundry members of the Corinthian Church "now are not ordinarily bestowed": "So we would not call upon men now, to prefer their ordinary common gift as more fit for the public edifying of the church, before the extraordinary gifts of the holy men of God in Scripture, who by the Spirit were guided to prepare spiritual songs, suitable to all the conditions and affections and temptations of the church and people of God in all ages."(87) Cotton then formulates the issue in a form that is as pertinent to the situation of the Reformed churches of the twentieth century as it was to the Puritans of the seventeenth: "So then the question is, whether the Psalms of David, and Asaph, and such other Hymns and spiritual Songs indited by the Prophets, and recorded in Scripture, be appointed by God, to be ordinarily sung in Christian churches, or whether laying aside Scripture-songs, we are to sing only such spiritual songs, as shall be indited by the personal (but ordinary) gifts of any ordinary officer or member of the church? The former we hold to be the truth, others the latter."(88)

As a first reason for this restriction of sung praise in worship to inspired songs, Cotton adduces texts which might on a superficial reading seem to support the contrary view, namely Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16: "In both which places, as the apostle exhorteth us to singing, so he instructeth us what the matter of our song should be, to wit, Psalms, Hymns, and spiritual Songs; Now those three be the very titles of the songs of David, as they are delivered to us by the Holy Ghost himself: some of them are called mizmorim, that is Psalms; some tehillim, that is Hymns; some shirim, that is Songs, spiritual Songs. Now what reason can be given why the apostle should direct us in our singing to the very titles of David's Psalms, if it were not his meaning that we should sing them? Yea, either we must exclude the Psalms of David, from the name of Psalms, and Hymns, and spiritual Songs; or else we must be forced to acknowledge, that we are exhorted to sing them, as well as any other."(89)

Observe that Cotton rests his argument on the regulative principle. He takes his reasons for faith and practice "from the commandment, or exhortation of the apostle."(90) The songs that are approved for use in worship are those appointed by God. Even the fact that the Psalms are inspired by God, significant as it is in indicating the content and character of songs that may be sung in worship, is secondary in relation to the fact that these are the songs which God has appointed or authorized for use in his worship. Sung praise is to be restricted in its content to divinely-inspired songs, not simply because inspired songs are superior in quality to the best of uninspired compositions, but more basically because inspired Psalms and Songs are warranted by express command and approved example, while uninspired compositions lack such warrant.

Cotton devotes an entire chapter of nineteen pages to clearing objections against his appeal to Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16. He remarks: "The objections are many, and some of them seem more weighty, and some more light: let us unpartially and evenly (by the Lord's guidance) weigh them all in the balance of the sanctuary."(91) Within the limits of the present paper, protracted as it is, the whole range of arguments cannot be considered. A selection of arguments will be made, with a view to illuminating some points that have been raised in contemporary discussions about the use of inspired or uninspired songs in the worship of God.

One sometimes hears it argued, "If Paul meant to enjoin the exclusive use of Bible Psalms, why does he write 'Psalms, Hymns, Spiritual songs,' which would then mean 'Psalms, Psalms, Psalms'?" Cotton disposes of a similar objection: "If Paul had meant David's Psalms, or Scripture songs, it had been an easy matter to have named David's Psalms, or Scripture-songs, as David himself named his songs, the Psalms or Songs of David, when he delivered them to the chief musician, and to his company to be sung." Cotton answers, first, that it could be as well argued that Paul might have used language explicitly excluding David's Psalms and enjoining "such Psalms and Songs, as the Spirit should suggest unto their hearts." Secondly Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual songs are the very express titles of the Psalms in the Book of Psalms, and thirdly, David's name was appropriately set to the Psalms at their first publication, but need not be mentioned in every subsequent reference to the Psalms (Luke 24:44 and Acts 13:33).(92)

To the objection that the expression the word of Christ is "properly the gospel, by way of eminency, in way of opposition to the law, given by Moses," Cotton gives a brief but apt reply: "Though the words of Christ be the gospel, yet the words of David are not to be shut out of the gospel; for the gospel was preached to Israel, when David and the other Prophets were preached, yea and some parts of Moses also, Heb. 4:2, John 5:46."(93)

To the somewhat curious argument that "Paul biddeth the Ephesians, to be filled with the Spirit, in singing the spiritual songs of the New Testament, as drunkards are filled with wine, and in the strength and spirits of their wine, invent and sing their wanton sonnets," Cotton gives the following instructive reply: "Paul did exhort them to be filled with the Spirit, as drunkards be with wine, not that they might invent, and sing spiritual songs as drunkards do wanton sonnets; for neither do drunkards filled with wine, usually invent sonnets, but sing such as they learned before, when they were sober; nor doth the apostle speak of inventing songs at all, either wanton songs by drunkards, or spiritual songs by the faithful; but only to be filled with the Spirit, as drunkards be with wine, that so they might avoid the riotous and excessive mirth of drunkards, and employ and improve their holy mirth and joy, to the singing of Psalms and Hymns and spiritual Songs, for their own mutual edification and consolation, and for holy thanksgiving and praise unto the Lord."(94)

Cotton's interpretation of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs as referring exclusively to the inspired compositions found in Holy Scripture is standard Puritan exegesis. This is evident from the Exposition Upon the Epistle to the Colossians by Nicholas Byfield. Writing on Col. 3:16, Byfield observes: "The matter is here three ways to be considered: First, in the ground, foundation, or authority of the Psalms we use, viz. they must be the word of Christ, that is contained in the Scriptures. Secondly in the kinds of Psalms there are many sorts of Psalms in Scripture. The Psalms of Moses, David, Solomon, and other prophets: but all are here referred to three heads; they are either Psalms, specially so called, or Hymns, or Songs, great ado there is among interpreters, to find a difference in these; some would have Psalms to be the songs of men, and Hymns of angels: some think they differ especially, in the manner of music. Some are sung by voice, some played upon instruments; but the plausiblest opinion is not to distinguish them, by the persons that use them, or by the kind of music, but by the matter, and so they say Psalms contain exhortation to manners or holy life. Hymns contain praises to God in the commemoration of his benefits. Songs contain doctrine of the chief good, or man's eternal felicity. But I think there needs not any curious distinction: it may suffice us that there is variety of Psalms in Scripture, and God allows us the use of every kind. Thirdly, the property of the Psalms, they are Spiritual, both because they are indited by the Spirit, and because they make us more spiritual in the due use of them."(95) Byfield draws two uses from this text: "First for instruction, when we are merry to sing Psalms. . . . Secondly, for reproof of such as set their delight in fleshly lusts and sports, in dancing, gaming, etc. in singing of carols, ballads, filthy rhymes, etc."(96) Byfield's metaphrase of Col. 3:16 runs, "And in special be careful of the Psalms, remembering that they also are the word of Christ, and the rather considering the exquisite variety of sweet matter in them. . . ."(97)

Notes

(76) John Cotton, Singing of Psalmes a Gospel-Ordinance (London: M. S. for Hannah Allen, 1647), p. 3.
(77) Ibid., p. 4.
(78) Ibid., p. 5.
(79) Ibid., pp. 5-6.
(80) Ibid., pp. 7-8.
(81) Ibid., p. 8.
(82) Ibid., p. 10.
(83) Ibid., p. 12.
(84) Ibid., p. 14.
(85) Ibid., pp. 14-15.
(86) Ibid., p. 15.
(87) Ibid., p. 16.
(88) Ibid.
(89) Ibid., pp. 16-17.
(90) Ibid., p. 16.
(91) Ibid., p. 17.
(92) Ibid.
(93) Ibid., pp. 18-19.
(94) Ibid., pp. 19-20.
(95) Nicholas Byfield, exposition of chap. 3, p. 101 (fol. Ll3 recto), An Exposition Upon the Epistle to the Colossians (London: William Stansby for Nathaniel Butter, 1628).
(96) Ibid., p. 102 (fol. Ll3 verso).
(97) Byfield, Epistle to the Colossians, fol. Bb6 verso.

Go to the next installment:
The Puritan Principle of Worship: Part IX