11 comments

1. Given that the divines commissioned a Psalter of exclusively the 150 Psalms of David and that that was the practice of all the Reformed churches, It is totally unreasonable to say that “Psalm” in WCF 21.5 refers to just songs in general. By the way, this is a claim a professor of mine has made and he is not a fringe guy. So, I’m a little surprised none of you had heard that argument before. Regardless, to be a consistently confessional Presbyterian, one must be exclusive psalmodist. If I’m not mistaken, the ARP officially says that 21.5 is professing EP, But they decide that they’re going to reinterpret it. At least they’re honest.

   Reply ↓

   • Jared,

     Calvin was not an exclusive psalmodist and neither was Beza. Neither was the minority that asked for the establishment of a committee in the Scottish Kirk to form a collection of New Testament songs. Exclusive Psalmody was the majority position classical period but it wasn’t the only position. The proper dividing line isn’t is EP vs every other view, but Scripture only vs the singing of non-canonical songs.

     Reply ↓

     • I agree, but regardless, the WCF is—in my view—explicit in its affirmation of EP. Btw, the Assembly also wanted to commission the translation of the whole Bible in metre, but specifically for pedagogical use—not for use in Lord’s Day worship.

       Reply ↓

       • Jared,

         The Scottish Kirk had to receive the Confession, that involves animus imponentis.

         Reply ↓

         • Dr. Clark,

           Could you please expound your comment?

         • Jared,

           The Scottish Kirk had to receive and adopt the confession. The confession isn’t just what the divines intended. That’s why the General Assembly allowed the committee to make a collection of Holy-Spirit inspired canticles. Animus imponentis is the intent of imposing. It’s the other horizon in confessional adoption and subscription. Most of the divines thought that the world was made in 6-24 hour days but few denominations impose that as doctrinal requirement because 1) it’s not explicit; 2) it’s not essential to the system; 3) we’re not bound by what the divines thought but by what they said and how we receive and impose the confession on the church(es).

2. I think Manton may have mistaken this quote from Tertullian to be about corporate worship instead of love feasts:

   “Yet about the modest supper-room of the Christians alone a great ado is made. Our feast explains itself by its name. The Greeks call it agapè, i.e., affection. Whatever it costs, our outlay in the name of piety is gain, since with the good things of the feast we benefit the needy; not as it is with you, do parasites aspire to the glory of satisfying their licentious propensities, selling themselves for a belly-feast to all disgraceful treatment — but as it is with God himself, a peculiar respect is shown to the lowly. If the object of our feast be good, in the light of that consider its further regulations. As it is an act of religious service, it permits no vileness or immodesty. The participants, before reclining, taste first of prayer to God. As much is eaten as satisfies the cravings of hunger; as much is drunk as befits the chaste. They say it is enough, as those who remember that even during the night they have to worship God; they talk as those who know that the Lord is one of their auditors. After manual ablution, and the bringing in of lights, each is asked to stand forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God, either one from the holy Scriptures or one of his own composing — a proof of the measure of our drinking. As the feast commenced with prayer, so with prayer it is closed.”

   Chapter 39 here: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm

   Reply ↓

3. Thank you for the discussion, Gentlemen!

   Something related to this discussion that I found interesting was that in Iain Murray’s little booklet against exclusive psalmody (The Psalter: The Only Hymnal?), he brings up a quote from Thomas Manton—a divine of the Westminster Assembly who also wrote an Epistle to the Reader which often accompanied the printing of the Westminster Confession (claims Murray)—to demonstrate that even a divine like Manton did not see the Westminster Standards’ use of the word ‘psalm’ as limiting the church to only sing canonical psalms (contra the EP view) or Scripture alone ( contra Dr. Clark’s view in Recovering the Reformed Confession). Here is the Manton quote below:

   “I confess we do not forbid other songs; if grave and pious, after good advice they may be received into the Church. Tertullian, in his Apology, showeth that in the primitive times they used this liberty, either to sing scripture psalms or such as were of private composure” (Manton in Murray, 14).

   I think this illustrates what Dr. Perkins refers to when he says he’s come across this line of argumentation before—when folks argue that the word ‘psalm’ in the Standards does not necessarily refer only to the canonical psalms but is more inclusive of non-Scripture songs.

   Perhaps Manton is on an island when it comes to the divines on this (I’m not conversant enough with the history of the divines to comment intelligibly), but I’d love to hear how others would interact with this Manton quote.

   Reply ↓

   • There was a committee appointed in the Scottish Kirk, after the adoption of the Standards, to consider the adoption of New Testament Canticles. The committee was approved. It was a minority view. Beza also advocated for the use of New Testament canticles but these were New Testament texts set to music.

     I should like to see context of the quotation. Where did he say it? In what context? Who are “we” and when did he think that they might be sung, e.g., in worship or in private settings? I would like to see where Manton thought that Tertullian said that. It’s possible but I want evidence. Even if Manton was saying what Murray seems to imply, I don’t see how that changes that the DPW says.

     There were a variety of opinions at the Assembly (and around it). The question is always this: Does the church have the authority to impose on the congregation words sung to God that he himself has not given us? Why isn’t the Word of God sufficient for public worship?

     Reply ↓

     • Brandon, I’d second the questions that Dr. Clark asked, but yours is an intriguing question. I hope you can dig up the original source. I’ve occasionally wondered if some of the divines may have preferred to think of the Psalms as the best songs for corporate worship, but not intending to limit singing to only the Psalms- which assumes they may not have thought of the content of singing as strictly part of the element.

       I highly recommend you read this essay about how Westminster viewed the singing of Psalms by Matthew Winzer: https://www.cpjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Winzer-NeedhamReviewf.pdf

       I’ll consider Winzer’s view authoritative until he is answered.

       Reply ↓

       • Hey Dr. Clark and Joel,

         Murray pulled the Manton quote from The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 4. I found it here on Google Books, on page 442 in Manton’s exposition of James 5:13: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y5s_AAAAYAAJ&dq=thomas%20manton%20complete%20works&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=Songs&f=true.

         Manton may indeed have misunderstood the Tertullian reference (which Murray more or less grants in a footnote), but the first sentence of the excerpt—“I confess we do not forbid other songs; if grave and pious, after good advice they may be received into the Church”—struck me as extremely interesting when I first read it during a season when I was devouring everything I could on the debate over what should be sung in the church’s stated worship services.

         Now that I’ve looked into the context more (thank you both for the excuse to do a little digging 🙂), I still get the impression that Manton believed the Psalms are to be sung in the church because of divine command (a la the RPW).

         However, it doesn’t appear that he thought (at least in this exposition) that the Psalms—and other inspired songs by extension—were the only songs the church may rightfully sing in worship. The best or “fittest,” yes, but not the only. This comes immediately after the excerpt I originally posted:

         “But that which I am to prove, that scriptural psalms may be sung, and I shall, ἐκ περισσοῦ, with advantage over and above, prove that they are fittest to be sung” (p. 442).

         So, Joel, Manton may be one clear case of a divine who fits your suspicion. If I’m reading him correctly, he was a “psalms principal place” proponent, but not an “inspired song only” advocate in the worship of the church. (I will be sure to look into that essay you posted as well—thank you!)

         Those are good questions in your last paragraph, Dr. Clark—ones I think we should all reckon with as we seek to land on the biblical and confessional position. Another question we should probably ask is this: Does Scripture positively command (or by good and necessary consequence require or allow) the use of non-inspired song in the church’s worship, as it does with some of the other elements, such as prayer and preaching?

         Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.