Nathaniel Holmes on inordinate forms of sung praise

Status
Not open for further replies.

JH

Puritan Board Sophomore
“David’s psalms sung in our English meter differ much from cathedral singing, which is so abominable, in which is sung almost everything, unlawful litanies, and creeds, and other prose not framed in meter, fit for singing; battologizing [repeating excessively] and quavering over the same words vainly.

Yea nor do they all sing together, but first one sings an anthem, then half the choir, then the other, tossing the Word of God like a tennis ball. Then all yelling together with confused noise. This we utterly dislike as most unlawful.”

– Nathaniel Holmes, Gospel Music: or, The Singing of David’s Psalms, etc. in the Public Congregations, or Private Families Asserted… (London, 1644)
 
He thinks chanting prose is unlawful? How does he think the Hebrews sang the Psalms?
Mm, I'm not sure that's what he was getting at as much as his rant/ire is driven by Rome/Church of England singing "almost everything", making little distinction between prayer and singing, and so on. Nevertheless, maybe you are correct.

I certainly wouldn't agree that chanting prose is unlawful for the exact reasons you mentioned; but I moreso shared it especially because of the latter half of the excerpt, about unnecessary and unlawful distractions in the worship of God, which I think is important to consider. It should go without saying, I wouldn't necessarily share the all viewpoints of the author. I also do not intend to provoke any brethren by the sharing of the quote.
 
Is the BCP metrical?
No. It is Miles Coverdale's translation of the Psalms into English. Here is Psalm 8:

1 O Lord our Governor, how excellent is thy Name in all the world : thou that hast set thy glory above the heavens!
2 Out of the mouth of very babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength, because of thine enemies : that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
3 For I will consider thy heavens, even the works of thy fingers : the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained.
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him : and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 Thou madest him lower than the angels : to crown him with glory and worship.
6 Thou makest him to have dominion of the works of thy hands : and thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet;
7 All sheep and oxen : yea, and the beasts of the field;
8 The fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea : and whatsoever walketh through the paths of the seas.
9 O Lord our Governor : how excellent is thy Name in all the world!
 
I didn’t think so. So I’m confused as to how it is superior to the SMV in the context of singing.
Coverdale's Psalter is not metrical but is pointed for chanting in the Book of Common Prayer.
Chanting can be done to either Anglican Chant or a Plain Song Chant like Gregorian or Ambrosian.


I understand Nathaniel Hopkins objection to singing / chanting canticles of human origin, like the Te Deum [which should be understood and treated like a creed], and even to ones written in the 1st or early 2nd Century like Phos hilaron.
I also understand his objection to singing / chanting the canticles from the Apocrypha like Benedicite, omni opera Domini and the Benedictus es, Domine.
I understand and disagree with Hopkins' objection to singing or chanting the Ten Commandments and canticles drawn from the Bible other than the Psalter.

I do not understand his seeming objection singing or chanting the Psalter responsively. Can someone explain this?
 
Coverdale's Psalter is not metrical but is pointed for chanting in the Book of Common Prayer.
Chanting can be done to either Anglican Chant or a Plain Song Chant like Gregorian or Ambrosian.


I understand Nathaniel Hopkins objection to singing / chanting canticles of human origin, like the Te Deum [which should be understood and treated like a creed], and even to ones written in the 1st or early 2nd Century like Phos hilaron.
I also understand his objection to singing / chanting the canticles from the Apocrypha like Benedicite, omni opera Domini and the Benedictus es, Domine.
I understand and disagree with Hopkins' objection to singing or chanting the Ten Commandments and canticles drawn from the Bible other than the Psalter.

I do not understand his seeming objection singing or chanting the Psalter responsively. Can someone explain this?
I suspect it has to do with the Puritan pursuit of plainness. In contrast to the Cathedral liturgy that was musically richly ornamented and required a professional choir to sing it, he felt that the praise of God's people should be unadorned and simple enough to be performed by the congregation. If you have listened to a cathedral choir, you probably know what he means: the lyrics can easily be smothered by the musical form. I'm not sure that he would necessarily have objected to a simpler form of antiphonal chanting, especially where the text fits it, such as Psalm 136. But he thought metrical psalms the best way to allow ordinary folk without musical training (or even psalmbooks in many contexts) to join in the praise as participants rather than observers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top