Psalms Singing comments from Edward Leigh (1602-1671)

[Catechist]

Does anyone know who the "D. Burgess" Edward Leigh is referring to here?

~THE GORDIAN KNOT~: A SERIOUS CALL TO DEFEND THE GOSPEL--by Edward Leigh (1602-1671)

When Leigh references D. Burgess on page 629 of the online book which corresponds to page 609 actually of the book itself, I wonder what "Burgess" would he be referencing concerning music/psalm singing/ceremonies/etc?

Anthony, Cornelius, Daniel Burgess?

Probably not Daniel, I think he would have been only five years old?

I found an online version of this book here Turpin Library - Rare Books Collection

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Why are you asking? I see your reference? Is it in Historical context? Gordian knot has a lot of inference. To what part of it do you refer? Do you mean to refer to it as merely political overbearing or something that can't be untied?

If you want to know what the church sang back then I would imagine it would mostly be the book of Psalms. Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs would be a most likely reference to the book of Psalms as there are references to those words even in their subtitles of the book of Psalms. They are referenced as Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs. I don't think you could prove different.

P.S. He mentions Davids Psalms mostly so I must be in line with I think.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

D means Dr. so that I think would be Cornelius Burges, but I am not sure what work of his would have defended some ceremonies and musical instruments in worship. If it were Anthony I would also be unsure what work.

 

[Wayne]

The all-wise Wikipedia indicates that there was another Daniel Burgess, "chaplain to Horace Vere and father-in-law to William Ames."

Besides this "D. Burgess", there is also the possibility of the reference being to "Dean Burgess", as in an academic title.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I suspect he means Dr. John Burges, a moderate Puritan, and one of the defenders of the English Popish Ceremonies against which Gillespie wrote.

 

[Wayne]

I'm striking out on WorldCat trying to find any publication by any D. Burgess other than Daniel [1645-1713], and Daniel is of course not the person referenced.

John's looking like the guy. Thanks, Chris. Was the simple "D." a common abbreviation in that time for "Dr." ? I hadn't seen that before.

Three titles show up on WorldCat for John Burgess [1563-1635]. Yale preserves a copy of each title and no other libraries worldwide indicate at this time have any of these among their holdings.

1. An ansvver reioyned to that mvch applauded pamphlet of a namelesse author [i.e. William Ames] : bearing this title: viz. A reply to Dr. Mortons Generall defence of three nocent ceremonies, &c. the innocency and lawfvlnesse whereof is againe in this Reioynder vindicated .... London : Printed by Augustine Matthewes for Robert Milbourne, 1631. 15 p. leaves, 75, 654 [i.e. 648] p.; 19 cm.

2. Covell, William [d. 1614?] and John Burgess, A briefe ansvver vnto certaine reasons by way of an apologie deliuered to ... the L. Bishop of Lincolne. At London : Printed by G.S. for Clement Knight, and are to be sold at his shop in Paules Churchyard at the signe of the Holy Lambe. 7 p.l., 160 [i.e. 158] p.; 18 cm.

3. The lavvfvlnes of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords svpper : wherin (by the way) also, somewhat of the crosse in baptisme ... London : Printed by Augustine Matthewes for Robert Milbourne, 1631. 5 p. l., 120 p.; 19 cm.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Wayne, I had seen it before; M. for Mr. B. for Bishop, etc. If John Burges talks about musical instruments in worship in those works it must be in passing. His main work from 1631 which encompasses both 1 and 3 you give does not give that subject in the outline and I've not time to hunt through the work. But I know Cornelius mentions musical instruments disparagingly in a work from 1660 and I just think it would be unlikely either he or Anthony defended some ceremonies and instruments in worship; the "some ceremonies" sure fits John Burges.

 

[Catechist]

Why are you asking? I see your reference? Is it in Historical context? Gordian knot has a lot of inference. To what part of it do you refer? Do you mean to refer to it as merely political overbearing or something that can't be untied?

I asked because I wanted to know who D. Burgess was?

If you want to know what the church sang back then I would imagine it would mostly be the book of Psalms. Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs would be a most likely reference to the book of Psalms as there are references to those words even in their subtitles of the book of Psalms. They are referenced as Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs. I don't think you could prove different.

Though there was no consensus on this matter, your comment has a lot of inference but I do understand your opinion. Here is a snippet from an article from Dr Rowland S. Ward,

"There was no consensus among the Reformed as to the precise meaning of the term 'psalms, hymns and spiritual songs' in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16.

a. Some make no special comment on the terms so far as whether they were inspired songs or not (eg. John Davenant (Colossians, Latin 1627, 1630, 1639, English 1831); John Diodati (Annotations, 1642, 1643 etc.) and John Trapp (Epistles, 1647).

b. Some considered the three-fold term referred to material agreeable to Scripture teaching but not necessarily songs embedded in the text of Scripture. Those who thus allowed for new songs included the Englishmen Thomas Cartwright (On Colossians, 1612), Paul Bayne [d. 1617] (On Ephesians 1643, 5th ed. 1658), and Edward Elton (On Colossians 1612, repr. 1620, 1637). We could add the learned Scot, Robert Boyd [d. 1627] (Ephesians, Latin 1652); and the English Baptist hymnwriter, Benjamin Keach (The Breach Repaired, 1691, 2nd ed. 1700).

c. Some regarded the terms as referring to inspired material only (inclusive of the Psalter). These included Nicolas Byfield (Commentary on Colossians, 1615, repr. 1617, 1627, 1628, 1649); Jean Daille (On Colossians, French 1643, English trans. 1672); John Cotton of New England (1647, repr. 1650) and the Scottish Commentator, James Fergusson (Colossians, 1656; Ephesians, 1659). Fergusson seems to restrict the meaning to Old Testament songs.

d. Others regarded the three-fold expression as referring to the Psalter alone. Thomas Ford (1598-1674), a member of the Westminster Assembly, is of this mind. Likewise Cuthbert Sydenham (1622-54), Presbyterian minister at Newcastle, advances this view in his 48 page tract on what he terms one of 'the two grand practical controversies of these times' (the other was infant baptism). To the same effect is the Biblical scholar Francis Roberts (1609-75) in his Clavis Bibliorum, 3rd ed. 1665.

This mixed tradition of interpretation is a further confirmation that the statement in the Westminster Confession, a consensus document, was not designed to bind the conscience as to the precise extent of the material of praise in the worship service.

In 1673 an edition of the Scottish Psalter was published in London with a preface signed by 25 of the leading ministers of the age, including John Owen, Thomas Manton and Joseph Caryl. They state:

'Now though spiritual songs of meer humane composure may have their use, yet our devotion is best secured where the matter of words are of immediately Divine inspiration; and to us David's Psalms seem plainly intended by those terms which the Apostle useth, Eph 5:19, Col 3:16.' We know Thomas Manton was not opposed to uninspired materials of praise in public worship (see his Commentary on James at 5:13), but the signers obviously stood in the line of the earlier Calvinistic Reformation. The Psalter was envisaged as the norm of praise, but commonly was not underpinned by an argument for it alone."


P.S. He mentions Davids Psalms mostly so I must be in line with I think.[/QUOTE]

For the full article see Should the Psalter be the Only Hymnal of the Church?