# "spiritual songs of mere human composure"



## Peairtach (Apr 20, 2013)

The 1673 Preface to the Psalms of David in Metre, says, among other things: "Now though spiritual songs of mere human composure may have their use, yet our devotion is best secured, where the matter and words are of immediately Divine inspiration; and to us David's Psalms seem plainly intended by those terms of Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs, which the Apostle useth, Ephes. 5.19, Col. 3.16."

http://www.puritanboard.com/local_links.php?catid=16&linkid=78

Does anyone know what the reasoning of these divines was on allowing for "spiritual songs of mere human composure"?


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 20, 2013)

A number of songs with Christian themes -- even some hymns -- are more like testimony songs than worship songs. They are reflections on the work of Christ, but not necessarily "praise songs" as such. Examples of this include "In Christ Alone" and "Before the Throne of God Above". I would suppose the divines would not object to Christians writing and singing such songs to describe their personal experiences or reflections on divine truth, and thus granted that they may have their use. That's my uneducated guess.


----------



## One Little Nail (Apr 20, 2013)

Sorry can't say what there reasoning is though they do use a lower case s to differentiate the 2.
Unfortunately it is a mistake to call songs of mere human composition spiritual songs,
because the term spiritual in the Ephesians & Colossian passages denotes that they 
are God Breathed & qualifies the preceding Psalms,Hymns & Songs as being Inspired
of The Spirit of God,therefore a "spiritual" song of mere human composition is an
oxymoron & a contradiction of terminology, a better phrase would have been to have
simply just called them religious songs.


----------



## Cymro (Apr 21, 2013)

I am ignorant of a source explaining the allowance of uninspired material, but the subsequent practice rules out any idea 
of it being permissible in public worship. Therefore I would suggest it was allowable in personal spiritual enjoyment, and
poetical exercises. To think that men of such insight would countenance the Psalter being of a temporary nature and needed
either to be supplanted by error strewn compositions, or being mixed with the offerings of mans imagination, is tantamount
to offering "strange fire." Exchanging inspiration for illumination! Supplanting that which was forged under the superintendence
of the Spirit of the living God, for the weak and beggarly elements of poetic licence. 
But it would be interesting if any of the Lord's people could come up with a source.
"The word that cometh from Thy Mouth
is better unto me
Than many thousands and great sums
of gold and silver be."


----------



## MW (Apr 21, 2013)

I believe they were regarded for their usefulness in spreading Christian doctrine and devotion outside of public worship. One example is found in Wodrow's Life of David Dickson: "he wrote ... some short poems on pious and serious subjects, which I am told have been very useful when printed and spread among country people and servants, such as, The Christian Sacrifice; O Mother dear Jerusalem! and one somewhat larger, 8vo, 1649, entitled, True Christian Love, to be sung with the common tunes of the Psalms."


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 28, 2013)

> I believe they were regarded for their usefulness in spreading Christian doctrine and devotion outside of public worship. One example is found in Wodrow's Life of David Dickson: "he wrote ... some short poems on pious and serious subjects, which I am told have been very useful when printed and spread among country people and servants, such as, The Christian Sacrifice; O Mother dear Jerusalem! and one somewhat larger, 8vo, 1649, entitled, True Christian Love, to be sung with the common tunes of the Psalms."



Thanks for that, Matthew.

These are things that I should really know and understand by now, and I would have my own points that I would make about them, but

(a) How would the Puritans argue for a difference in what songs could be sung in public worship, as opposed to other times.

(b) What Scriptural arguments would they give for the use of other songs?

Or maybe, we don't, currently, have enough information on what the Puritans reasons were (?)

It seems to me not an unimportant aspect of EP.


----------



## Peairtach (May 7, 2013)

Bump.

It would be interesting to know the reasoning of these eminent divines on why they had a place for "spiritual songs of mere human composure", but maybe we no longer have access to their biblical reasoning on this subject, or possibly it was unformed and inchoate.

There are didactic Scripture songs outwith the Psalms of David, like the Song of Moses. I wonder of this would have been one reason for their openness to other songs than the Psalms.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MW (May 7, 2013)

Sorry I missed this, Richard.

Basically, there was a reforming movement within "Puritanism" which comes to the fore at what we call the second reformation. It would not be historically accurate to speak of an unified "Puritan" position, but it is safe to say that the second reformation, through the Westminster Assembly, committed itself to exclusive psalmody in congregational worship.

As for what happens outside of public worship, WCF 20.2 teaches a difference between matters of "faith and worship" and other areas of life. Outside of worship there would be no requirement of positive prescription, and this would leave open a place for songs of "mere human composure."


----------



## Afterthought (May 7, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> As for what happens outside of public worship, WCF 20.2 teaches a difference between matters of "faith and worship" and other areas of life. Outside of worship there would be no requirement of positive prescription, and this would leave open a place for songs of "mere human composure."


My apologies if I'm still not grasping these distinctions properly. This would then put these songs (and presmuably, devotional readings) in the category of generic worship, correct? If so, how are they then included in private worship (whether by an individual or individuals not related by family) or family worship (e.g., in the parallel case of reading rather than singing or speaking material, perhaps reading a devotional commentary, or someone's devotional writings on Scripture)? And also, if they are generic worship, when do they become an uncommanded act of specific worship (is it merely a matter of intent?)?


----------



## MW (May 7, 2013)

Afterthought said:


> If so, how are they then included in private worship



"Private worship" would need to be properly defined. Its use has come about by way of analogy with public worship but I don't think it is a very clear term.


----------



## Afterthought (May 7, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> "Private worship" would need to be properly defined. Its use has come about by way of analogy with public worship but I don't think it is a very clear term.


It seems I had more than one situation in mind, perhaps owing to the unclarity of the term. There is the situation of (1) the set time an individual sets aside to worship God (traditionally consisting of Scripture reading, prayer, and psalm singing, but often including other things too, such as reading devotional literature, meditation on Scripture, and who knows, perhaps other songs too? I think this is sometimes called "secret worship"?), (2) several individuals setting aside time for one or more of Bible study, prayer, singing (sometimes these things take place at conferences), which may or may not include reading or singing other (non-psalmodic) materials too, (3) family worship, as we see an example of in the Directory for Family worship, (4) an individual or individuals participating in some sort of "religious recreation" (like singing songs with religious lyrics, listening to a recorded sermon or theological lecture, discussing Scripture), which they may or may not have set aside time to do (if they didn't initially plan on setting aside time, these things can be spontaneously started and/or accompanied by other actions, e.g., traveling in a vehicle, playing an instrument), but there is no intent of having a "Bible study" or "worshipping God" together.

I hope this makes things more clear. If not, I'll try again!


----------



## Cymro (May 8, 2013)

A question arises whether there is a difference between public worship and private worship?
Who do we worship in both instances, is it not the same God? Therefore should not the form 
of praise worship remain the same? I know this does not really address the original question,
but it springs from it.


----------



## MW (May 8, 2013)

I find little information concerning the idea of "private worship" in Scripture. I can accept it as a kind of analogy for what is done in public, but there are so many differences that it can end up being a confusing rather than clarifying term. Personally, I sing the Psalms. For me that is a matter not only of duty but of delight. But there is no imposition of human authority in a situation which calls itself "private worship," so it is left up to the individual's conscience to impose on himself.


----------



## Afterthought (May 8, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> I find little information concerning the idea of "private worship" in Scripture. I can accept it as a kind of analogy for what is done in public, but there are so many differences that it can end up being a confusing rather than clarifying term. Personally, I sing the Psalms. For me that is a matter not only of duty but of delight. But there is no imposition of human authority in a situation which calls itself "private worship," so it is left up to the individual's conscience to impose on himself.


And just when I thought I had understood what was going on, I'm confused again! Perhaps though, I'll finally get it this time around for this sort of exchange. In a previous thread, I had asked about the applicability to "private worship" of the Second Commandment, and thus, the principle that we only offer to God in worship what He has appointed for that purpose. In there, it was agreed that the Second Commandment does apply to "private worship" because of the universality of the Second Commandment and that Scripture commands both private and public worship and because of the analogy between private and public worship. And besides, I don't think anyone would support a duality in which they feel free to worship God by images in "private worship" (whether that be with an individual or several individuals agreeing together) or however else they wish while they are forbidden in public worship and restricted to God's will. How does this thought raised in that thread relate to what you are saying here in this thread? (Perhaps it has to do with the ambiguity of "private worship" again?)


----------



## MW (May 8, 2013)

Afterthought said:


> In a previous thread, I had asked about the applicability to "private worship" of the Second Commandment,



I prefer what I said in that thread, but there I am assuming the validity of "private worship" because it falls under a moral commandment which is not to be transgressed at any time. If we call something "worship" and it is performed in "private" it is effectively "private worship" and the second commandment applies. But the term itself will require some work in order to understand it properly. It becomes dubious where liberty of conscience has been raised, as when I referenced chapter 20 of the Confession, because there is no imposition of human authority. Others can advise but should not impose on conscience. If we start multiplying rules for different scenarios we will fall into the legalist trap, which I am eager to avoid.


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 8, 2013)

Whenever I see these kind of threads and I read about "_mere_ human composure," I shake my head at the misguided thoughts behind the words.


----------



## MW (May 8, 2013)

SolaScriptura said:


> Whenever I see these kind of threads and I read about "_mere_ human composure," I shake my head at the misguided thoughts behind the words.



And it is likely the folk who use the term shake their head at your misguided judgements on their thoughts. Merely passing judgment without entering into discussion of reasons is not very helpful!


----------



## irresistible_grace (May 8, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> The 1673 Preface to the Psalms of David in Metre, says, among other things: "Now though spiritual songs of mere human composure may have their use, yet our devotion is best secured, where the matter and words are of immediately Divine inspiration; and to us David's Psalms seem plainly intended by those terms of Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs, which the Apostle useth, Ephes. 5.19, Col. 3.16."
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/local_links.php?catid=16&linkid=78
> 
> Does anyone know what the reasoning of these divines was on allowing for "spiritual songs of mere human composure"?



The fact that these divines say, "though spiritual songs of mere human compose MAY have their use YET..." seems to imply that they may or MAY NOT have their use but if in fact they do "have their use" it isn't in worship (be it corporate or family worship). When I read "may have their use," I immediately think of a good theological book (perhaps one of the many books written by the Puritans), these books are good at teaching us truths found in God's Word but they are not God's inspired Word. Spiritual songs of mere human composure MAY teach Bible doctrine or truths found in God's Word but unlike the Psalms they are not God's inspired Word.

During our school day we sing through Westminster Shorter Catechism but we don't call it worship. We are singing the WSC in order to learn it. When it comes to "devotion," we sing God's Word (mainly the Psalms).


----------



## Peairtach (May 9, 2013)

I think it's instructive as part of the fullness of data in Scripture on sung worship that although the Apostle in Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 is clearly referring to the Psalms of David, there are other songs in Scripture, like the Song of Moses. Are we to take the position that these are never to be sung? 

Re corporate and other types of worship e.g. family worship and personal worship, we know that what is appropriate to one context is not to another e.g. celebrating the Lord's Supper. 

Issues of liberty of conscience and uniformity of worship also play a role in the limitation of sung corporate worship being EP. 

Re worshipping idols, even if we take the position that "spiritual" songs outwith the Psalter should not be sung under any circumstances whatsoever, are we really saying that our brothers on e.g. the PB who sing hymns are "putting the branch to the nose" as regards the Lord, in the way the Israelites did at Horeb with the Golden Calf?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## au5t1n (May 9, 2013)

SolaScriptura said:


> Whenever I see these kind of threads and I read about "_mere_ human composure," I shake my head at the misguided thoughts behind the words.



"Mere human composure" as opposed to "human composure under direct, verbal plenary inspiration of the Holy Spirit" is all that is meant by the phrase. Drawing any more out of it is reading what is not there.


----------



## Cymro (May 9, 2013)

The song of Moses (Ex 15; Deut 32) is included in the psalter in various psalms, and indeed
is sung in heaven whether literally or its sentiments,(Rev 15). If then its excerpts are sung
in glory and also in the OT, why then should those psalms not be sung in the NT?
Re the Lord's supper, it can be argued that because there is no oversight present in private
devotions or family worship, or there is no preaching, then they should not be held. The supper
is a strengthening ordinance and held when the church comes together, and baptism only once
administered equally is ruled out.
If one believes that EP has the warrant of scripture then respecting that, there can be 
no liberty of conscience particularly in corporate worship. 
Without being contentious, it logically follows from an EP position, that if God given psalms are the only
permissible worship songs to be used, then the stricture applies to "private worship". The worship of the
Divine requires Divine worship. Then also the use of uninspired material is a corruption of worship, but not 
to be equated with the example of Horeb and the golden calf. For there it is written, " they have made them
a molten calf and have WORSHIPPED IT, and have SACRIFICED TO IT, and said, These be thy GODS,O Israel."
Idolatry and another god are totally different.
The use of other songs or material as mentioned in my previous post, and others have posited, can
be of a literary, edifying or poetic usage.
As for me and my house, the regulated form for corporate sung worship, is our practice in the home.
"God's mercies I will ever sing;
and with my mouth I shall
Thy faithfulness make to be known
to generations all."


----------



## Afterthought (May 9, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> I prefer what I said in that thread, but there I am assuming the validity of "private worship" because it falls under a moral commandment which is not to be transgressed at any time. If we call something "worship" and it is performed in "private" it is effectively "private worship" and the second commandment applies. But the term itself will require some work in order to understand it properly. It becomes dubious where liberty of conscience has been raised, as when I referenced chapter 20 of the Confession, because there is no imposition of human authority. Others can advise but should not impose on conscience. If we start multiplying rules for different scenarios we will fall into the legalist trap, which I am eager to avoid.


To make sure I understand... Practically, whatever we call "worship" that is not done in the public, church-setting but has an analogy to what is done there, we should treat as worship that is regulated by the 2nd Commandment. So then, what is done in private depends on the intent of the person: whether one or more intends on singing other songs as worship to God or as something else decides whether such persons are under the restrictive principle of the 2nd commandment. Since there is no outside authority when there is a sole individual though, there cannot be any true binding of the conscience, so it is up to the individual to figure out what one is comfortable doing and cannot be forced to do one thing or another by other people.

In theoretical terms, outside of the public worship service, we are under a normative principle. And here is where I'm not entirely sure. One of those rules of the normative principle is the 2nd Commandment, which is not to be transgressed at any time. So any actions intended as specific "worship" towards God must be regulated by the 2nd Commandment accordingly. Since those specific actions of "worship" have an analogy to actions done in the public worship, we can call such "private worship", but because of various differences, and especially because there is no other person to impose on the conscience when there is only a sole individual involved, the term "private worship" breaks down for describing those actions.

Perhaps "specific acts of devotion towards God" would be better than "private worship"?




Peairtach said:


> Re worshipping idols, even if we take the position that "spiritual" songs outwith the Psalter should not be sung under any circumstances whatsoever, are we really saying that our brothers on e.g. the PB who sing hymns are "putting the branch to the nose" as regards the Lord, in the way the Israelites did at Horeb with the Golden Calf?


Since this was probably directed towards my post, allow me to clarify by answering: No, because the point of comparison in my post was not the actions but the principles behind actions; I mentioned the specific action that I did--which is an application of a general principle--as a "reductio" of sorts.




irresistible_grace said:


> When I read "may have their use," I immediately think of a good theological book (perhaps one of the many books written by the Puritans), these books are good at teaching us truths found in God's Word but they are not God's inspired Word. Spiritual songs of mere human composure MAY teach Bible doctrine or truths found in God's Word but unlike the Psalms they are not God's inspired Word.


Thank you. I like the way that was put.


----------



## Peairtach (May 10, 2013)

Clearly the men who signed the Preface had a place for these "songs" in their system.

Presumably they either believed they weren't engaging in worship when they used them, or it was a kind of worship where they were acceptable because liberty of conscience and uniformity weren't being undermined by their use. 

There may well be clear reasoning - or clearer reasoning than this brief mention - from Scripture by the Puritans on this subject somewhere in their extant writings.

John Murray speaks of specific and generic worship, but there is maybe sometimes an "overlap" of the former into the latter, as when one is reading a good book.


----------

