Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
Scott, since this thread is not about debating EP, I'll respectfully decline to engage. This has been hashed out time without number in other threads.
Puritans on Exclusive Psalmody
- Thread starter deyvid.vilela
- Start date
- Status
Re the OP: It is difficult to find Puritan and early Reformed writers who were totally exclusive Psalmists in the modern sense.
It should be noted that most of the early Reformers sang only Psalms and “Other Songs”. For example Calvin sang the Psalms plus Apostles Creed, Ten Commandments, Song of Simeon. (Genevan Psalter). The Scottish Metrical Psalter (1635) includes the Ten Commandments, Lord’s Prayer, Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis, Song of Simeon, Apostles Creed, Veni Creator. The early Dutch Psalter “The Psalms of David and Other Songs” by Datheen contains the Lord’s Prayer, The Song of Zacharias, the Ten Commandments, Song of Mary, Song of Simeon, O God Who is Our Father (Utenhove). Notice the similarity of these song choices.
The existence of these songs extra to the Psalms in these psalm books along with other comments has caused some to propose that the Reformers were all in favour of hymn-singing. A closer look shows that they were generally opposed to hymn-singing and went to some lengths to exclude them from public worship which is why they are hard to find in old Psalters. Although this might sound somewhat confusing to us moderns, it seems that for them there were three classes of song, Psalms, Canticles and Hymns. The Canticles or “Other Songs” were reserved for special places in the liturgy or special days. Utenhove’s prayer/song was always sung in the Dutch Reformed churches before the sermon but nowhere else. The Song of Simeon was sung at the Lord’s Supper but nowhere else. What they meant by “hymns” were songs of human composition for non-specific placement in the liturgy, and these were disapproved of for public worship in the main. So it is not unusual to find Puritans conceding that it is permissible in principle to sing songs other than the Psalms of David, but they will usually add a comment to say that the Psalms of David are to be preferred. This results in an almost exclusive use of Psalms in public worship. If you look at the writings of Thomas Ford and others they argue strenuously for hymns to be excluded because they will displace Psalms, and in addition they say Psalm-singing is a duty.
So when Rev Mark Jones in his article writes, “..many notable Reformed writers positively argued for the inclusion of hymns,” it sounds like they were keen on introducing hymns, but history shows that this was far from the case. The phrase,”positively argued” as applied to Thomas Ford (whom he quotes) would be better replaced with something like “grudgingly acknowledged”.
It should be noted that most of the early Reformers sang only Psalms and “Other Songs”. For example Calvin sang the Psalms plus Apostles Creed, Ten Commandments, Song of Simeon. (Genevan Psalter). The Scottish Metrical Psalter (1635) includes the Ten Commandments, Lord’s Prayer, Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis, Song of Simeon, Apostles Creed, Veni Creator. The early Dutch Psalter “The Psalms of David and Other Songs” by Datheen contains the Lord’s Prayer, The Song of Zacharias, the Ten Commandments, Song of Mary, Song of Simeon, O God Who is Our Father (Utenhove). Notice the similarity of these song choices.
The existence of these songs extra to the Psalms in these psalm books along with other comments has caused some to propose that the Reformers were all in favour of hymn-singing. A closer look shows that they were generally opposed to hymn-singing and went to some lengths to exclude them from public worship which is why they are hard to find in old Psalters. Although this might sound somewhat confusing to us moderns, it seems that for them there were three classes of song, Psalms, Canticles and Hymns. The Canticles or “Other Songs” were reserved for special places in the liturgy or special days. Utenhove’s prayer/song was always sung in the Dutch Reformed churches before the sermon but nowhere else. The Song of Simeon was sung at the Lord’s Supper but nowhere else. What they meant by “hymns” were songs of human composition for non-specific placement in the liturgy, and these were disapproved of for public worship in the main. So it is not unusual to find Puritans conceding that it is permissible in principle to sing songs other than the Psalms of David, but they will usually add a comment to say that the Psalms of David are to be preferred. This results in an almost exclusive use of Psalms in public worship. If you look at the writings of Thomas Ford and others they argue strenuously for hymns to be excluded because they will displace Psalms, and in addition they say Psalm-singing is a duty.
So when Rev Mark Jones in his article writes, “..many notable Reformed writers positively argued for the inclusion of hymns,” it sounds like they were keen on introducing hymns, but history shows that this was far from the case. The phrase,”positively argued” as applied to Thomas Ford (whom he quotes) would be better replaced with something like “grudgingly acknowledged”.
I don't know reformed practice, but there is no evidence the extras in the Scottish metrical psalter versions prior to the 1650, were made use of in the services of the church, according to the work of David Hay Fleming. All the evidence is that the printers added extras on their own. This explains in my opinion why there was no problem for the Scottish to agree with the Westminster Assembly that the new psalter which would become the 1650 should only contain the 150 Psalms. See his Hymnology of the Scottish Reformation in his shorter writings. http://www.lulu.com/shop/david-hay-fleming/shorter-writings-volume-1/paperback/product-4705939.html
Fleming’s “Hymnology of the Scottish Reformation” contains much valuable information on early Reformation psalmody, but some significant conclusions he draws leave much to be desired. He admits that early psalters contained canticles or “extras”, but he believes that these crept into the Scottish psalters without the approval of the churches, and on the initiative of the printers.. In tracing the beginnings of Scottish psalmody under Knox he fails to mention the obvious connection between these psalters and Calvin’s psalters. We know that Calvin used sung versions of the Decalogue, the Apostles Creed (The Belief), the Song of Simeon (Nunc Dimittis), and the Lord’s Prayer in the worship service, so when we see a psalter like Knox’s Liturgy of 1561 which included the Decalogue, Lord’s Prayer and Song of Simeon it is obvious that these extras (and only these extras) are included because he was following Calvin’s lead. In the 1587 Scottish Psalter printed by Vautrollier there are more extras, and amongst them is The Belief. Was this a printer’s novelty? Fleming himself argues against this very idea by referring to the occasion of a printer, Bassandyne, printing a bawdy song in the Psalter of 1568 and incurred the ire of the General Assembly and had to withdraw the song. It is fair to say that the churches did not directly control the content of the Psalter, but if the printers wanted to sell psalters they had to be careful what they included and needed the tacit approval of the churches. Printing “strange fire” was bad for business, but the inclusion of The Belief would be good for those who wanted to follow a Calvinist liturgy.
In the light of this evidence how does Fleming evaluate the inclusion of these extras in the early Scottish psalters? He simply says that there is no evidence that they were used in the worship services. Having made this bold claim he is then obliged to explain why they were included in the Psalter at all. He has to somehow show that although Calvin and Knox included them for use in worship services these printers printed them for a completely different reason! He then quotes Livingston who speculates that they were for private use. He does not have any evidence for this, but once he and Fleming have ruled out their use in public worship they do not have any alternative.
Fleming makes no attempt at explaining why these extras were so few, and why the printers selected these songs in particular. He quotes Livingston who says that maybe the Lord’s Prayer, Apostles Creed and Ten Commandments were used for instructing children, but leaves out explaining why the Song of Simeon and other songs might be so useful for this purpose. Fleming has no credible explanation for the inclusion of the extras and does not want to admit the obvious.
I can appreciate Fleming’s opposition to Andrew Bonar’s open door to hymn-singing, but not his attempts at rewriting history.
In the light of this evidence how does Fleming evaluate the inclusion of these extras in the early Scottish psalters? He simply says that there is no evidence that they were used in the worship services. Having made this bold claim he is then obliged to explain why they were included in the Psalter at all. He has to somehow show that although Calvin and Knox included them for use in worship services these printers printed them for a completely different reason! He then quotes Livingston who speculates that they were for private use. He does not have any evidence for this, but once he and Fleming have ruled out their use in public worship they do not have any alternative.
Fleming makes no attempt at explaining why these extras were so few, and why the printers selected these songs in particular. He quotes Livingston who says that maybe the Lord’s Prayer, Apostles Creed and Ten Commandments were used for instructing children, but leaves out explaining why the Song of Simeon and other songs might be so useful for this purpose. Fleming has no credible explanation for the inclusion of the extras and does not want to admit the obvious.
I can appreciate Fleming’s opposition to Andrew Bonar’s open door to hymn-singing, but not his attempts at rewriting history.
- Status
