Do the Westminster Stds teach Exclusive Psalmody?

Status
Not open for further replies.

PresReformed

Puritan Board Freshman
Casey,

Could you make a quick list of all the books you've read in your studies on EP and the RPW because reading through your posts it doesn't seem to me like you understand either. Many of your misunderstandings are addressed in almost anything out there on either subject
 

PresReformed

Puritan Board Freshman
Col 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
 

PresReformed

Puritan Board Freshman
Here is John Gill on Ephesians 5:19
Speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs,.... By psalms are meant the Psalms of David, and others which compose the book that goes by that name, for other psalms there are none; and by "hymns" we are to understand, not such as are made by good men, without the inspiration of the Spirit of God; since they are placed between psalms and spiritual songs, made by men inspired by the Holy Ghost; and are put upon a level with them, and to be sung along with them, to the edification of churches; but these are only another name for the Book of Psalms, the running title of which may as well be the Book of Hymns, as it is rendered by Ainsworth; and the psalm which our Lord sung with his disciples after the supper, is called an hymn; and so are the psalms in general called hymns, by Philo the Jew (n); and songs and hymns by Josephus (o); and שירות ותושבחות, "songs and praises", or "hymns", in the Talmud (p): and by "spiritual songs" are meant the same Psalms of David, Asaph, &c. and the titles of many of them are songs, and sometimes a psalm and song, and song and psalm, a song of degrees; together with all other Scriptural songs, written by inspired men; and which are called "spiritual", because they are indited by the Spirit of God, consist of spiritual matter, and are designed for spiritual edification; and are opposed to all profane, loose, and wanton songs: these three words answer to תהלים שירים מזמורים the several titles of David's Psalms; from whence it seems to be the intention of the apostle, that these should be sung in Gospel churches; for so he explains speaking to themselves in them, in the next clause:
 

gravertom

Inactive User
Murray's minority report was instrumental in my arriving at the EP position myself. However, I'll admit I was a bit troubled by his use of the septuagint to establish that the Greek in the texts in Ephesians and Colossians corresponded to the various titles of the songs in the Psalter.

Certainly the Greek in the NT is inspired, and the Hebrew of the OT is inspired, but the septuagint is not inspired, it is a translation, correct?

The difficulty as I see it is this; we have an uninspired source linking the terms of two inspired sources. How can this be definitive? While the Greek terms could be equivalent to the Hebrew in the Psalter, does the Greek usage in the septuagint validate that? How?

A possibility or even a likelihood is not a certainty. The Greek terms Paul used could refer to something other than the subdivisions of the Psalter.

Any help would be appreciated!

Thanks!
 

Dan....

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally Posted by StaunchPresbyterian
Well that's my very point. Nothing in the text suggests that the Song of Deborah was an inspired song, and yet she sung it! In no place is she chastised for singing this uninspired song, or looked unfavorably upon by the narrator -- and, indeed, her entire song is recorded in Scripture (which seems to suggest a favorable opinion towards her uninspired composition)! And so, there is nothing in Scripture anywhere to suggest that the RPW leads to the exclusion of uninspired songs in the public worship of God. "Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" does not exclusively limit our singing to the Psalter, much less to inspired songs in general. We may sing anything in accord with God's Word.
You are leaping from an individual's worship to a corporate context.
The RPW does not apply only to the corporate context. All of worship is regulated by the Word of God. Hence, if you argue for Exclusion Psalmody in Corporate worship, then should you not argue for Exclusion Psalmody in family and private worship?
 

gravertom

Inactive User
BTW, the best argument against EP I have heard lately concerned the phrase "The word of Christ", the thought being that the NT contains part of the word of Christ, and that therefore the words and doctrines of the NT should be put to song. Since there is no NT songbook provided, the Church must compose such songs herself.

An interesting argument.

In light of I Corinthians 14 however, it occurs to me that perhaps what was intended was for individuals to offer up such songs, and then they could be evaluated just as sermons and other doctrines would be. In that case, no other person is bound to utter it, if they find it objectionable. It would be analogous to the case with respect to the preaching of the word. We are obligated to hear it, and to evaluate it, and our consciences are not bound in so doing. We are not obligated to affirm or reiterate any part of a sermon we find disagreeable to scripture.

Any thoughts?
 

Dan....

Puritan Board Sophomore
You are leaping from an individual's worship to a corporate context.

The RPW does not apply only to the corporate context. All of worship is regulated by the Word of God. Hence, if you argue for Exclusion Psalmody in Corporate worship, then should you not argue for Exclusion Psalmody in family and private worship?
 

PresReformed

Puritan Board Freshman
BTW, the best argument against EP I have heard lately concerned the phrase "The word of Christ", the thought being that the NT contains part of the word of Christ, and that therefore the words and doctrines of the NT should be put to song. Since there is no NT songbook provided, the Church must compose such songs herself.

An interesting argument.

In light of I Corinthians 14 however, it occurs to me that perhaps what was intended was for individuals to offer up such songs, and then they could be evaluated just as sermons and other doctrines would be. In that case, no other person is bound to utter it, if they find it objectionable. It would be analogous to the case with respect to the preaching of the word. We are obligated to hear it, and to evaluate it, and our consciences are not bound in so doing. We are not obligated to affirm or reiterate any part of a sermon we find disagreeable to scripture.

Any thoughts?
The "word of Christ" is synonymous with "the word of God". The psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs Paul speaks of are the "word of Christ", therefore they are inspired. If a man composes a NT songbook it is not the "word of Christ" it is the uninspired "word of man".
 

PresReformed

Puritan Board Freshman
Murray's minority report was instrumental in my arriving at the EP position myself. However, I'll admit I was a bit troubled by his use of the septuagint to establish that the Greek in the texts in Ephesians and Colossians corresponded to the various titles of the songs in the Psalter.

Certainly the Greek in the NT is inspired, and the Hebrew of the OT is inspired, but the septuagint is not inspired, it is a translation, correct?

The difficulty as I see it is this; we have an uninspired source linking the terms of two inspired sources. How can this be definitive? While the Greek terms could be equivalent to the Hebrew in the Psalter, does the Greek usage in the septuagint validate that? How?

A possibility or even a likelihood is not a certainty. The Greek terms Paul used could refer to something other than the subdivisions of the Psalter.

Any help would be appreciated!

Thanks!
See Gill above, he argues from the Hebrew.
 

PresReformed

Puritan Board Freshman
The RPW does not apply only to the corporate context. All of worship is regulated by the Word of God. Hence, if you argue for Exclusion Psalmody in Corporate worship, then should you not argue for Exclusion Psalmody in family and private worship?
I can't speak for Matthew, but I believe that a consistent application of the RPW is EP in any worship setting. After all, it isn't the regulative principle of corporate worship, but the RPW. In other words it wouldn't have been okay for Nadab and Abihu to offer strange fire at home either.
 

PresReformed

Puritan Board Freshman
.
An interesting argument.

In light of I Corinthians 14 however, it occurs to me that perhaps what was intended was for individuals to offer up such songs, and then they could be evaluated just as sermons and other doctrines would be. In that case, no other person is bound to utter it, if they find it objectionable. It would be analogous to the case with respect to the preaching of the word. We are obligated to hear it, and to evaluate it, and our consciences are not bound in so doing. We are not obligated to affirm or reiterate any part of a sermon we find disagreeable to scripture.

Any thoughts?
1Co 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
To interpret this verse within the context of the passage, at most these psalms were composed by an extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit. They would be inspired as tongues or revelations were. There is nothing in the verse that would suggest that these psalms were composed though. It could just as easily been that these psalms were psalms that were requested by the Congregation to be sung out of 150 psalms of David, and that these requests were to be handled, "...decently and in order." ver. 40.
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Chris Mangum:

OK, here's my answer to your post.

There's three things I want to say first. First, I summarized your questions for the sake of post lengths. Second, I'm not going to exegete texts. I'm not forwarding any new teaching; I'm not proposing my own views; I'm only trying to stick with the teachings and example of the WA. Third, I don't have as much time as I would like to address everything that I want to. Nor do I need to. All I have wanted to do, and what others like Casey and Anthony have done, is to stand opposed to the pretext of the proposition in the first post.

Here are the givens: The WCF says "psalms" in the article presented about worship. They cited the Eph. 5 and Col. 3 texts, where it says "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs". The suggestion is that they omitted the "hymns and spiritual songs" part because they understood these terms to refer to the Psalms just as the term "psalms" refer to the Psalms. So here's your questions:

Does this strike anyone here as a bit odd? What on earth could this mean? To my mind there are a few logical possibilities:
1) The Divines forgot to add the "hymns, and spiritual songs" part of the scripture to the confession
2) They only have "psalms" listed in the Confession because they recognize in the footnotes that "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" meant the Psalms of the Bible.
I propose that there is a third possibility. I don't have to prove the third position, all I have to do is show that it is a viable possibility. But first,

Do not attribute to the WCF what is not clearly there. Remember that those who do not support a legalistic EP are also wholly in agreement with the article, and have less difficulty with the wording than the EP-ers do.

How do we determe the meaning of the article in question? Do we go back to the writings and personal opinions of the men who were commissioners of the WA? Do we look at subsequent works, such as the Directory of Public Worship? What is the proper thing to do? Do we look at traditions of the Church?

The WCF must depend upon Scripture alone. Only Scripture interprets Scripture, and only Scripture is the rule for life and doctrine. Scripture is not merely a set of true propositions, but is also a teacher, a guide. As we put its teachings into practice we grow and mature in their applications and meanings. For example, turning the other cheek is a teaching that you learn more and more the meaning of the more you apply it. After some time you learn to differentiate between being merely passive and pacific and turning the other cheek according to Scripture. You can oppose evil and injustice, and oppose it strongly, and also know when to turn the other cheek. It isn't merely a proposition.

So also the WCF has many centuries of maturing behind it, of learning what the Scriptures mean. Many struggles lay in behind, leaving a matured understanding of the Scripture's teachings. It reflects the history of the Church, what she has always believed. Nothing has changed, no new teaching introduced; the Church has grown in maturity in understanding of what was first delivered, what the Apostles first taught as Jesus' own disciples.

Scripture alone interprets Scripture. Thus the WCF is subject only to the Scriptures. Nothing else. Other confessions, such as the Belgic Confession, hold the same position as authoritative summaries of the Bible's teachings, but every article in these confessions may be subject to your and my scrutiny and study for their integrity and subjection to Scripture. An elder may state an exception to an article (as long it is not an article which states a doctrine which if denied also denies the faith), because his conscience does not approve of something; this is allowed. But it is always judged for its purity of Scriptural doctrine. That's why exceptions have to be allowed, for true doctrine will always win out.

No doctrine may depend upon man or the writings of man or tradition. Even the writings of the Church depend only upon Scripture and the leading of the Spirit in times of a trial of a teaching. And the Spirit always agrees with Scripture, and opens it to us through these trials as we submit willingly to Christ. The men of Westminster, I would assume, would rather cast out a doctrine than have it depend upon themselves or their opinions in even the smallest way.

The Directory of Public Worship may appeal to the WCF for authority, but the WCF may not appeal to the DPW. That is the proper order. That is what is meant by it being secondary. the DPW is also open to free and conscientious amendments, as long as these do not violate the principles upon which it is based. The "light of nature" and "prudence" may determine more here than they would in the WCF.

We have established, then, that the commissioners would not violate the first doctrine, namely that of the Word (Ch. I of the WCF). Therefore we cannot appeal to even the commissioners' writings to establish doctrine, to establish what they meant by this or that. It might help us with some things, but we must always appeal to Scripture and Scripture alone. If the WCF does not lead us to that, then it is leading us wrongly. Or, that is, our understanding of it is leading us wrongly; for there are others who may read the same article and see Scripture wholly supporting it.

Therefore, if the texts in Eph 5 and Col. 3 say, "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs", and the WCF only says "psalms", what are we to understand by this? One may infer that they have deduced that the texts refer only to "psalms", thus the Psalms, but that is not the only possibility. It may also be that the intent of these texts have no such thing in mind. It may be possible that the word "psalms" has a general meaning which includes not only the 150 Psalms, but also all other approved psalms which the Church used. We may assume from some of the epistles that such psalms did exist, but we cannot prove it. But neither can we prove that they did not exist. It is something like the Solomon's poritico dilemma, which was eventually solved by archaeology. The Epistles seem to indicate that there were psalms other than the 150, and that ought not to be ignored. That is; the possibility exists, and that would not violate the texts.

Regardless of whether or not there were other songs of worship, the word "psalms" would have been used. There can be a difference between hymns and psalms, even if they are not from the 150 Psalms. I remember a class in Bible college that assigned each student to write a psalm, to show that they knew all that was being taught concerning the differences in types of worship songs. None of these psalms were included in the canon, of course, but some of them were actually psalms, and not just hymns or spiritual songs.

Notice that they are in descending order: from psalms to hymns to spiritual songs. So even if one were to interpret this loosely to mean 'psalms and psalms and psalms', it woud still yield the same result in the texts themselves. Except that those who are somewhat trained in music would not sit easy with that. They would insist that there is such a thing as a psalm which is not one of the Psalms, and that Paul's contemporaries would know that as well as we, if not better, since they were better grounded in psalmody.

The question that would immediately come to mind would be concerning the various commands about worship found in the Psalms themselves. We are to sing our praises too, not just say them. We are to do so alone and together. God is praised with our songs of joy and praise. He is pleased when His blessings produce such a response. And He sanctifies the praises of little children as much as adults, and even uses the former to express the concept of perfect praise. He even has mountains and seas singing His praises. Of course we must take that allegorically, as meaning that the awe these inspire in us is a reflection of the His power and steadfastness expressed to us. So when we see a mountain and wonder at its immovability, its firmness, and its lasting from the first generation until now, and this causes us to reflect about God's greater attributes, then the mountains have praised Him, so to speak. In just such a manner, the things that happen in our lives cause us to praise God, and so the things themselves praise God, as it is that He has used them to bless us. Such things are included in the Psalms as commands for us to sing about.

Therefore, there is a third possibility: that the WA understood a meaning of the word psalms which refers to songs of praise and joy. The Eph. and Col. texts include reference to psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs so that in all our praise and worship we include each other in a bond of unity, that we guide each other spiritually in every way, even in the music of the church, and that we train each other in God's ways. It is possible that the WA understood the texts in this way.
 

Kevin

Puritan Board Doctor
:agree:

This word "Psalm" was widely used (cf Needham) in the 17th cent. to refer to non-Davidic songs. These are what Poole called "any holy metre". This is your 3rd possibility Mangum.

This thread makes me think we need an Occams Razor smiley!:2cents:
 

Dan....

Puritan Board Sophomore
Personally, I only sing Psalms.
Implied by this statement: Personally, I do not sing uninspired hymns in private and family worship.

You might as well also say:
Personally, I do not bow to statues in private and family worship.
Personally, I do not burn incense in private and family worship.
Personally, I do not light candles as part of private and family worship.
etc...

But technically the RPW is a restriction of the powers of office-bearers in relation to public worship.
So is private and family worship not regulated by the Word of God? We can introduce whatever means of worship, whatever elements we wish in private and family worship??

The 2nd commandment is not for the corporate assembly alone. It applies to the individual also.

William Young, The Second Commandment:The Principle that God is to be Worshipped Only in Ways Prescribed in Holy Scripture and That the Holy Scripture Prescribes the Whole Content of Worship, Taught by Scripture Itself (found in Worship in the Presence of God Smith and Lachman, pg75:
This principle has universal reference to worship performed by men since the fall. In other words, it has equal application to the Old and New Testament. It is also universal in that is regulative of all types of worship, whether public, family or private.


technically this thread has been about corporate worship. The burden of proof should apply to corporate worship first and foremost.
This evades the point. What the EP proponent needs to do is demonstrate that EP is a violation of the RPW in all of worship and hence a violation of the RPW in corporate worship.

The point I was making is that these other songs pertained to individuals; besides the fact that they were inscripturated as historical narrative, not as songs intended to be sung.
But they were sung by individuals in worship. We have no reason to believe that they were sinning in singing these songs.

Hence they are not precedents for singing songs other than the Psalms in corporate worship; and Col. 3:16 clearly has a corporate context in view. Whatever else might be implied from the debate is superfluous to the status quaestionis.
You need to prove that Col 3:16 is referent only to corporate worship. If I invite a brother's family over for dinner, and we worship together in some manner (prayer, singing psalms, reading scripture, etc...), would not Col 3:16 apply?
 

Dan....

Puritan Board Sophomore
Personally, I only sing Psalms.
Implied by this statement: Personally, I do not sing uninspired hymns in private and family worship.

You might as well also say:
Personally, I do not bow to statues in private and family worship.
Personally, I do not burn incense in private and family worship.
Personally, I do not light candles as part of private and family worship.
etc...

But technically the RPW is a restriction of the powers of office-bearers in relation to public worship.
So is private and family worship not regulated by the Word of God? We can introduce whatever means of worship, whatever elements we wish in private and family worship??

The 2nd commandment is not for the corporate assembly alone. It applies to the individual also.

William Young, The Second Commandment:The Principle that God is to be Worshipped Only in Ways Prescribed in Holy Scripture and That the Holy Scripture Prescribes the Whole Content of Worship, Taught by Scripture Itself (found in Worship in the Presence of God Smith and Lachman, pg75:
This principle has universal reference to worship performed by men since the fall. In other words, it has equal application to the Old and New Testament. It is also universal in that is regulative of all types of worship, whether public, family or private.


technically this thread has been about corporate worship. The burden of proof should apply to corporate worship first and foremost.
This evades the point. What the EP proponent needs to do is demonstrate that EP is a violation of the RPW in all of worship and hence a violation of the RPW in corporate worship.

The point I was making is that these other songs pertained to individuals; besides the fact that they were inscripturated as historical narrative, not as songs intended to be sung.
But they were sung by individuals in worship. We have no reason to believe that they were sinning in singing these songs.

Hence they are not precedents for singing songs other than the Psalms in corporate worship; and Col. 3:16 clearly has a corporate context in view. Whatever else might be implied from the debate is superfluous to the status quaestionis.
You need to prove that Col 3:16 is referent only to corporate worship. If I invite a brother's family over for dinner, and we worship together in some manner (prayer, singing psalms, reading scripture, etc...), would not Col 3:16 apply?
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
:agree:

This word "Psalm" was widely used (cf Needham) in the 17th cent. to refer to non-Davidic songs. These are what Poole called "any holy metre". This is your 3rd possibility Mangum.

This thread makes me think we need an Occams Razor smiley!:2cents:

Well, I had all last night to think about, and shaving (ideas) with Occam is a regular occurrance.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
OK. Do we agree that the WCF does not teach EP?
I wasn't going to do this but rather than leave things up in the air and possibly stumble anyone I am going to conclude the following, at least to what I wanted this thread to be about.:rolleyes:

While there is more work to be done, I’ve not seen anything to change my mind on this. We cannot say the Standards teach EP theory and trying to justify this from other sources simply throws the interpretation of “singing of psalms” into uncertainty rather than confirming it. However, while we cannot say with certainty why, on the other side, the Westminster Standards are EP in practice. They only authorized singing of the 150 psalms as an element of public worship. This meaning of the term psalm is supported from looking at the development of their various productions and understanding the guiding principle laid out in the Solemn League and Covenant for the closest uniformity of religion for the three nations.

The SL&C stated the subscribers would “endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Worship and Catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.” The Assembly had an outline for their work.

The first document the Assembly produced was the Directory for Public Worship, which says: “IT is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family. In singing of psalms, the voice is to be tunably and gravely ordered; but the chief care must be to sing with understanding, and with grace in the heart, making melody unto the Lord. That the whole congregation may join herein, every one that can read is to have a psalm book ….”

The Directory was completed late 1644 and approved in January 1645. Those section dealing with public worship included:

Of Publick Reading of the Holy Scriptures
Of Preaching of the Word
Of the Sacrament of Baptism
Of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
Of Publick Solemn Fasting
Of the Observation of Days of Publick Thanksgiving
Of Singing of Psalms.

Regarding the last, the idea to publish an approved Psalter for public worship (no doubt so that “every one that can read” could have a psalm book) was first proposed in late 1643, a year prior to the completion of the Directory.

“The first thing done this morning was, that Sir Benjamin Rudyard brought an order from the House of Commons, wherein they require our advice, whether Mr. Rous’s Psalms may not be sung in churches; and this being debated, it was at last referred to the three Committees, to take every one fifty Psalms.” Lightfoot’s Journal, November 22, 1643 cited in Baillie’s Letters and Journals edited by Laing, 3.536-537.

Regarding the Confession of Faith, the latter part, including chapter 21, was completed in December 1646, and it was approved in Scotland on August 27, 1647. Now is it that surprising to find that the parts of worship that they articulate correspond to sections of the Directory?

Note the ordinary parts of public worship are:
“The Reading of Scriptures with godly fear”
“the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the word”
“singing of psalms with grace in the heart”
“due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ”
And the extraordinary are:
Religious oaths and vows
Solemn fastings and thanksgivings

My contention is that in the context of working toward uniformity of worship amongst the other things dictated by the SL&C, is that there is no reason to force another meaning upon the phrase “singing of psalms” on one document as opposed to the other, and that the natural reference throughout is to the 150 psalms of David. It is very clear the Directory is speaking of a Psalm book, the Psalter the Divines produced only contained the 150 Psalms, and given the sections in the WCF match those articulated in the directory, that that is the most natural reading for the Confession as well.

Now, the linkage of the Directory to the psalter and the psalter with the rest to the endeavor for unfiromity in religion is confirmed by both George Gillespie and Robert Baillie.

Gillespie says the following in his speech at the August 1647 GA:
“For the next Head of our Commission, ye know the Directory for Worship is settled long ago by the Parliaments of both Kingdoms. I confess it is not yet observed by all there so as it ought, yet it is observed by many, to the great good of that land. We shall only add to that head, the matter of the Psalms; all grant that there is a necessitie of the change of the old Paraphrase. This new Paraphrase was done by a Gentleman verie able for the purpose, but afterward it was revised by a Committee of the Assembly of Divines, accordingly to the original, and was approven by the whole Assembly.” Baillie, 3.451.
Baillie in his speech before the GA, August 6, 1647, writes:
“I was glad to be a carrier of a Confession of Faith; also of a Psalter, which to my knowledge had cost the Assembly some considerable paines, and is like to be one necessary part of the three Kingdoms uniformitie.” Baillie, 3.12.
And a letter from all the Scottish Commissioners is also of note.
Extract from a paper presented by the Commissioners at London to the Grand Committee there, in December 1646, and laid before the Commission of the General Assembly at Edinburgh, by Mr. Robert Baillie, 21st January 1647.
Wherfor in pursuance of the ends of the Covenant, in discharge of that trust which is committed to us, as lykwise that some of our number who ar now to returne into Scotland may be able to give farther accompt to the Parliament of that kingdome, and to the Commissioners of the Generall Assembly at Edinburgh (both being now assembled), we have taken this occasion (without the least presuming to prescribe any wayes or to impose conditions) to renew our most earnest desires to the Honourable Houses of Parliament, and to the reverend Assembly of Divines for their part, that all possible care may be taken, and greater diligence used, to expedite the begun Reformation and Vniformity, to supply and make up those parts that ar yet wanting, and to put on and make effectuall what is already agreed upon. More particularly we do desire that some effectuall course may be provided by Ordinance of Parliament for the taking of the Solemn League and Covenant, by all persons, as well as in all places of this kingdome, and some considerable penalty or punishment (such as the honourable Houses in their wisdome shall think fitt) may be appointed for such as refuse to take it (much more for such as reproach it or speak against it), and that by authority of both Houses of the Parliament of England, the Covenant, Confession of Faith, Directory of Worship, Forme of Government and Catechisms may be setled in Irland as well as in England, according to the first article of the Solemn League and Covenant. Wee also desire that the Catechisme (now before the Assembly of Divines) may be perfected so soon as is possible: that the Confession of Faith may be established by authoritie of Parliament and immediately therafter sent into Scotland (as the Directory of Worship wes), to be agreed unto by that Church and kingdome, it being the cheefest part of that Vniformity in Religion, which both kingdoms stand bound by Covenant to endevour: that course may be taken for the better observing the Directory of Worship, which is, in many places of this kingdome, either wholly or in diverse materiall points neglected. And becaus the singing of psalmes in Churches is a part of the publike worship of God, We desire that the Paraphrase of the Psalmes in meter, as it is now examined, corrected, and approved by the Assembly of Divines here, and by the Commissioners of the Gen. Assembly in Scotland, may be lykwise authorized and established by Ordinance of Parliament.” See The Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland Holden in Edinburgh in the Years 1646 and 1647. Edited from the Original Manuscript by Alexander F. Mitchell, D.D., LL.D. and James Christie, D.D. with an Introduction by the former (Edinburgh: Printed at the University Press by T. and A. Constable for the Scottish History Society, 1892) 182-183. See also, Baillie, 3.540, where the last bit about the Psalter is cited.
So that is where I am and how I'll leave things for this thread. I will be examining this in more detail with some help for the review of the Needham for the RPW Survey and hopefully some good interaction with his material will result in the 2007 issue of The Confessional Presbyterian journal.
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Chris:

Shall we end it there, then? I'm OK with that. You started it, and I'm willing to let you end it. You made your point eloquently.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I did not mean by the material posted above to put a damper on anyone else's conversing on other related topics; so while I have ended the purpose of the thread as far as I'm concerned, feel free to carry on here, or perhaps more appropriately in new threads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top