Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I wish, Jeff! I cited the same thing on page 1 of this thread and here we are on page 2.
BTW, for those who may be interested, I have provided a brief biographical sketch for most of the signers of the Puritan Preface which can be found in the church history forum.
I wish, Jeff! I cited the same thing on page 1 of this thread and here we are on page 2.
BTW, for those who may be interested, I have provided a brief biographical sketch for most of the signers of the Puritan Preface which can be found in the church history forum.
Well it seems to me that the quote proves what the Westminster Assembly intended by the term "Psalms" in the confession. The burden of proof to repudiate that the Westminster Divines meant something else than the Psalms of David by "Psalms" would now seem to be so large that it would take a mountain of evidence to overturn what one short paragraph so elequently conveys by their own mouths.
With such polemics going on, before, during, and after the WCF was written, how can they miss the E in EP? May I offer the suggestion that these men did so deliberately? That they knew what they were doing? That they were following the RPW properly?The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Be the Only Rule of Faith
We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects.
Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule, as the apostles have taught us, saying, Prove the spirits, whether they are of God. Likewise: If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house.
The Puritan Preface to the Psalms in Metre
"Good Reader,
‘TIS evident by the common experience of mankind, that love cannot lie idle in the Soul; For every one hath his oblectation (way of enjoyment) and delight, his tastes and relishes are suitable to his constitution, and a man's temper is more discovered by his solaces than by any thing else: Carnal men delight in what is suited to the gust (taste) of the flesh, and Spiritual Men in the things of the Spirit; The promises of God's holy Covenant, which are to others as stale news or withered flowers, feed the pleasure of their minds; and the Mysteries of our Redemption by Christ are their hearts' delight and comfort: But as joy must have a proper object so also a vent: for this is an affection that cannot be penned up: the usual issue and out-going of it is by singing: Profane spirits must have Songs suitable to their mirth; as their mirth is Carnal so their Songs are vain and frothy, if not filthy and obscene; but they that rejoice in the Lord, their mirth runneth in a spiritual channel: Is any merry let him sing Psalms, saith the Apostle, James 5.13. And, Thy statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage, saith holy David, Psa. 119.54. Surely singing, 'tis a delectable way of instruction, as common prudence will teach us. Aelian (Nat. Hist., book 2, ch.39) telleth us that the Cretians enjoined their Children, To learn their Laws by singing them in verse. And surely singing of Psalms is a duty of such comfort and profit, that it needeth not our recommendation: The new nature is instead of all arguments, which cannot be without thy spiritual solace. 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. But then 'tis meet that these Divine composures should be represented to us in a fit translation, lest we want David, in David; while his holy ecstasies are delivered in a flat and bald expression. The translation which is now put into thy hands cometh nearest to the Original of any that we have seen, and runneth with such a fluent sweetness, that we thought fit to recommend it to thy Christian acceptance; Some of us having used it already, with great comfort and satisfaction."Thomas Manton, D.D.
Henry Langley, D.D.
John Owen, D.D.
William Jenkyn.
James Innes.
Thomas Watson.
Thomas Lye.
Matthew Poole.
John Milward.
John Chester.
George Cokayn.
Matthew Meade.
Robert Francklin.
Thomas Dooelittle.
Thomas Vincent.
Nathanael Vincent.
John Ryther.
William Tomson.
Nicolas Blakie.
Charles Morton.
Edmund Calamy.
William Carslake.
James Janeway.
John Hickes.
John Baker.
Richard Mayo.
Matt,
This is very helpful.
Can you or someone else supply a printed, hard copy reference?
I've downloaded William Barton, The Book of Psalms in Metre. Close and Proper to the Hebrew: Smooth and Pleasant for the Metre. Plain and Easie for the Tunes. With Muscall Notes. Arguments, Annotations, and Index. Fitted for the ready use, and understanding of all good Christians.... (London, 1644)
but the only preface is by Barton and it is an apology for his translation.
Thanks,
rsc
When I was in grade school, which was called a Calvinistic Christian School, we heard about Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Knox, and so on, and we heard quite a bit about what they had to say about things. But so very rarely was Calvin's name used in church. My parents and our church were thoroughly Calvinists, adamantly Calvinists. But they knew how to draw the line between, "the Bible says" and "Calvin says". They truly honoured Calvin, but he was not the authority. He had his views on things, and they were important to us because he was a well-educated and well-respected leader in the Church. But he was not the Church, and he himself was sure to make that point. His authority could not be pasted overtop of the Church's documents and statements of faith. The BC reflects that same devotion to the Word. I am going to assume (though I know it to be true) that the WA had that same devotion. They would shiver, I suspect, at the way their views are imposed to create doctrine where there is no doctrine.
So it has been proven to me without a doubt that the WA commissioners were decidedly EP in their thinking. That, then, is proof enough for me that, in their great care, they did not impose what the Bible does not impose. They were careful about the Bible as the only rule of faith and life. That is why the E is not there, but the P is.
So how are hymns P? Well, what is it in "How Vast the Benefits Divine" that is not already in the Psalms, made more explicit in the NT, and advocated by Eph and Col. to sing about? What does "Amazing Grace" contain that is not in the Psalms, that is not made more clear to us in the NT, that the Bible commands us to sing about for teaching and admonishing? What is not Psalmist about them? It is the E that is the question. And it is decidedly not there, nor in the Bible, and now we know that it is emphatically not in the WCF. We know this because the commissioners were one and all EP, but omitted the E from the WCF.
So it has been proven to me without a doubt that the WA commissioners were decidedly EP in their thinking. That, then, is proof enough for me that, in their great care, they did not impose what the Bible does not impose. They were careful about the Bible as the only rule of faith and life. That is why the E is not there, but the P is.
So how are hymns P? Well, what is it in "How Vast the Benefits Divine" that is not already in the Psalms, made more explicit in the NT, and advocated by Eph and Col. to sing about? What does "Amazing Grace" contain that is not in the Psalms, that is not made more clear to us in the NT, that the Bible commands us to sing about for teaching and admonishing? What is not Psalmist about them? It is the E that is the question. And it is decidedly not there, nor in the Bible, and now we know that it is emphatically not in the WCF. We know this because the commissioners were one and all EP, but omitted the E from the WCF.
I am very uneducated on this issue and I enjoy reading the threads on EP. The one thing that I do see happening by supporters of EP is that they cannot demonstrate the "Exclusive" part of their argument. Maybe my understanding is not where it should be but I do not see in Scripture or in the Confession or Catechisms the teaching of Psalms ALONE. I can certainly see their emphasis on it and many great men of the faith have held to EP, but I do not find this to be conclusive...
This thread looks like it has been much better in it's Christian attitude than previous threads, which I would like to commend all the participants. As one who is still researching the subject, it is much easier to digest arguments when they are presented in a loving, humble attitude.
..."How Vast the Benefits Divine" and "Amazing Grace" are not found in Scripture, but every single Psalm in the Psalter is.
John....the RPW, when properly understood, is that it isn't necessary to add an E to everything that is commanded. The Divines didn't make an exhaustive list of everything that was forbidden, they just listed that which Scripture command (to sing Psalms), therefore anything else is excluded which is the E that you're looking for and saying is not there. It's funny how you keep arguing against yourself when you keep saying that commands not found in Scripture are an invention of man and therefore forbidden, the same is true of anything man adds to worship. "How Vast the Benefits Divine" and "Amazing Grace" are not found in Scripture, but every single Psalm in the Psalter is.
Apparently you've missed the poetic point of the song. Can you show proof in the pages of Scripture that "flaming tongues above" are singing only and exclusively the 150 Psalms? Oh, wait, we already have proof in Revelation to the contrary.Neither is "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing." I find it so ironic that the composer of this work included the line "Teach me some melodious sonnet, sung by flaming tongues above." I'm like, the Lord has already done this. There's 150 of them right in the pages of Scripture."
But Scripture and the WCF themselves do not say so.
Apparently you've missed the poetic point of the song. Can you show proof in the pages of Scripture that "flaming tongues above" are singing only and exclusively the 150 Psalms? Oh, wait, we already have proof in Revelation to the contrary.
Good stuff eh?
Here is some of the information I have on this, some from the web, some from CDs and the original book itself (at home):
It came from the text of a letter to the reader affixed to an edition of the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter printed for the Company of Stationers at London in 1673. The title page bears the words: "THE PSALMS OF DAVID In Meeter. Newly Translated and diligently compared with the Original Text, and former Translations: More plain, smooth and agreeable to the Text, than any heretofore."
Is it safe to say that we all agree the Church, before Christ sacrifice on the cross, DEFINITELY sang the Psalms exclusively in Public Worship?
Where in Scripture does it show that has changed? I dont know of anywhere that it does. I think you must conclude that we are only permitted to continue to sing EP. That conclusion lines up with RPW and the WCF.
I come to that conclusion because I dont know of anywhere in Scripture that shows we can sing uninspired songs in Public Worship. This study is relatively new to me and I humbly ask for anyone to show, in Scripture , where EP singing in Public Worship has changed.
If there is no example of or command to sing uninspired songs in Public Worship then we must conclude that EP remains to be the God ordained mode of Worship.
Why wouldn't Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16 be seen as expanding the list of avaliable songs for NT worship as opposed to simply reiterating what was the OT practice?
Well, not just novel, but quite unsuccesful.Is this a new standard? It sounds like quite a novel idea.
Maybe it had something to do with the desire to discuss this subject exclusively.
Second, someone just told me about an Act of the Scottish General Assembly, August 28, 1647, assigned to a man named Zacharias Boyd, to make metrical versions of other songs in scripture for public use. Can anyone confirm / comment on this.
Well, not just novel, but quite unsuccesful.
Are you asking why EPers argue their point? Or those against EP?What I dont understand and Im not settle yet on EP. Is why one would want to adimantly argue for the use of non-inspired hymns in worship. If one is EP why argue against it. EP is not bad or unbiblical. So I dont see why people get so upset about it. I can see though getting upset with the fact that some churchs refuse to sing psalms alltogether with non-inspired hymns in its place.
In Christ,
Blade