Even though it is unlikely that uninspired songs, outside of those God provided for his people (and possibly still inspired outside of the Psalms), were ever sung in public ecclesiastical services; that they may have very sporadically appeared at times of declension and apostasy is no argument for their lawful use -- much less an argument for writing and singing *uninspired* songs today.
This is not to mention that most (or possibly even all) of the modern uninspired hymns are unbalanced and full (to a greater or lesser degree) of heretical statements.
But this is not surprising, because the hymn writers often held to various heresies themselves -- from Wesley's Arminianism to Watts' denial of the Trinity (and many hymns written by Papists, Universalists and sundry other malignants).
When Isaac Watts was subverting Reformation exclusive Psalmody with his "Imitations of David's Psalms" his stated purpose was to make David a Christian.
He also said that there are words in the Psalms which ought never to be found on the lips of a Christian (information on Watts gleaned from a letter by Jim Dodson).
Our modern hymn-mongers fear not to compose their own ditties for public worship, while the Apostles and the Lord Himself, while He walked the earth, saw no need to add to God's already existing hymnal (i.
e.
the Psalter).
Why is it that heretics, from Bardesanes (a Syrian Gnostic in the third century), Arius (d.
336 A.
D.
), the Donatists (of Augustine's day), the Anabaptists (during the Reformation), Wesley, Watts, and the "Frame's" of our day, always want to add to God's finished Psalter? Why is it that the Council of Laodicea (about 360 A.
D.
), the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.
D.
), the Calvinistic Reformers (and their creeds) all opposed the introduction of uninspired hymns? Were the most orthodox defenders of the church *always* wrong on this question and the heretics and the compromised *always* right?