Preponderant Psalmody, Total Psalmody
by Anthony A. Cowley (for the RPCNA Committee on Worship)
Through
Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God,
that
is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name. (Hebrews 13:15 NASB)
The Place Song in Covenant Renewal Worship
Public, corporate worship is a
renewal of the Church’s Covenant with God in Jesus Christ.[1] The
Church of Christ is to teach and observe all that He has taught us in His Word
for all of life (Matt. 28:19-20). The
Scriptures are our only rule for faith and life. Especially in the church’s public worship
Jesus Christ requires in His Covenant that each act, or element, of worship has
Biblical warrant. Even the circumstances of worship are to be worked out in
line with the general directives of the Scriptures. One aspect of corporate
worship is the service of song. Like
prayer, sung praise has always permeated the worship of God’s people[2]. Songs and prayers of praise, adoration,
thanksgiving, supplication, imprecation, confession, penitence and confidence
accompany each phase of Covenant renewal.
Praise is involved in various elements of worship: in prayer, in reading the Word, in confession
of faith, and in song. Singing, however,
is not merely a modality of praise, but also of confession of faith (Ps. 22:22;
40:9; 116:10, 17-19; Rev. 5), confession of sin (Ps. 32; 51), as well as
teaching and admonition (Col. 3:16).
This gives rise to the question, Is praise an ordinance with its own rules
and directives, or is it merely one way of doing other elements of worship?[3] The
Westminster Confession of Faith (21:5) states:
The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the
sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God,
with understanding, faith, reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the
heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments
instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God:
beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings, upon special
occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in a holy
and religious manner.
The distinction between element and circumstance is
important under the rubric of the Regulative Principle. “Elements” require
direct Biblical authorization, whereas “circumstances” of worship only need to
be compatible with good order. The WCF’s
language, “Parts of the ordinary religious worship of God” would indicate “the
singing of Psalms” as being an element, not merely a modality of other elements. In the case for Exclusive Psalmody (EP) the
singing of Psalms is viewed as a special ordinance, distinct from preaching,
praying, sacrament and Scripture reading.
While worthy of further elaboration, this question (of ordinance vs.
Modality) may be set aside, for either way there is an obvious overlap: we not only sing the Psalms, but we preach
them, and we use them for teaching and admonition. Clearly, when treated as a text for
preaching, the Psalms are approached in the same way as other passages of
Scripture. In EP circles, however, the
Psalms are the only Bible texts both read, expounded, prayed and sung. And, in all approaches to Christian worship
the service of sung praise is governed by special considerations, which tend to
confirm the intuitive understanding that there is an Ordinance of Praise,
distinct in significant ways from other aspects of public worship. The songs employed in worship are chosen in
order to fit into the flow of the whole liturgy, and often to confirm and
deepen the appreciation of the message preached or the sacrament
administered. The RPCNA affirms that the
only songs to be sung in public worship are the 150 Psalms of the Psalter.
The Sufficiency of the Psalter - Sufficient in What
Respect?
Every
debate over EP eventually reduces to the question of the sufficiency of the
Psalms for God’s praise in the New Covenant, and their place as a special canon
within the canon of Scripture. Those who
see EP as be a faulty rule for the Church of Christ “believe that the exclusive
singing of the OT Psalter results in a service of praise that is intrinsically
defective.” [4]
EP adherents assert that the Psalms answer all the needs of God’s people when
approaching the throne of grace in the service of sung praise. While there are extreme sentiments expressed
on both sides of this question, the main streams of Christendom all appreciate
the unique place of the Psalter, and would agree with Luther that “The Psalter
ought to be a precious and beloved book….it might well be called a little
Bible. In it is comprehended most
beautifully and briefly everything that is in the entire Bible.”[5] Such
testimonies to the glory and uniqueness of the Psalter could be
multiplied. Suffice it to note that most
editions of the New Testament published without the Law and the Prophets, still
include the Psalms. The Psalms are known
by all Christians to be essential reading.
Responsible advocates of including other scripture songs and uninspired
hymns in public worship do not reject the Psalter as part of the canon of
praise. At least, in theory. In practice, however, all too often, those
who reject EP have failed to give the Psalter any significant place in the
singing of the Church. Thankfully, this
is less the case today, with the use of so many Scripture songs, than it was
during the reign of the revivalist hymnals. [6] As we discuss the matter of Psalmody it is
essential to keep in mind that, sometimes when EP is rejected, the Psalter is
practically set aside. At the level of
practice EP is much better than any practice that allows the Psalms to become
anything less than the rule (canon) for singing Christianity.
At the
same time, those who advocate EP for the New Covenant, recognize that the
Psalms are part of a larger canon of Scripture.
They are sung by Christians as New Covenant songs, not relics of a past
age. We sing the canon of the Psalms in
light of the total Scriptural canon. The
R.P. Directory for Worship is absolutely correct to say: “The Psalms of
the Bible, by reason of their excellence and their Divine inspiration and
appointment are to be sung in the worship of God.”[7] But, the R.P. Testimony (1980) goes
further, asserting the following:
The Book of Psalms, consisting of inspired psalms,
hymns and songs, is the divinely authorized manual of praise. The use of other
songs in worship is not authorized in the Scriptures. The Greek words in the
New Testament which are translated "psalm," "hymn" and
"song" all appear in the Septuagint (Greek) version of the Book of
Psalms. (21:5).
When it comes to the question of the
centrality and sufficiency of the Psalter as a standing rule for praise, I believe
that any non-psalms-based practice of song in worship will be “inherently
defective.”
Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs = The
Psalter?
While many other considerations move us
to Psalm singing, the exegetical argumentation for Exclusive Psalmody[8] depends
upon the meaning of the phrase “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” found in
Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16. Does this repeated phrase mean, “Sing the Psalms, and
only the Psalms,” or something else? There are some who assert: “that the psalms, hymns and songs of
Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 mean, and can only mean, the Psalms of the
Old Testament book of Psalms, the Hymns of the Old Testament book of Psalms,
and the Songs of the Old Testament book of Psalms.”[9] The
exegetical case for this view depends upon a semantic and syntactical analysis
of the phrase “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.” The semantic meaning of psalms is taken to be
undisputed, i.e., “psalms” refers to the book of Psalms[10]. While this seems a truism, we ought to note
that Paul is referring either to “The Psalms” as a book, or to psalms, which
are found in the Psalter and outside the Psalter. If the former, then all three terms, Psalms,
Hymns, Songs (P-H-P)are to be taken each as ‘global’ titles for the Psalms as a
canonical book and hymnal. If the
latter, then each term would refer to certain songs, whether included in the
Book of Psalms, or not. While
considerable semantic overlap of the P-H-P titles is clear (Cf. LXX title Psalm
76) these individual titles within the Psalter are given to individual psalms,
and to songs outside the Psalter.[11] So, while Frank Frazer is correct when he
states, “These examples, a few among many, are sufficient to show that each of
the three words in question was applied to the 150 Psalms,” he goes beyond the
evidence when he writes, “They were applied to the 150 Psalms collectively. They were applied to the 150 psalms
individually, without discriminating between them.”[12] Dr. Robson goes on to state, “Yet it is the syntax of these passages which will show
conclusively that the words psalms, hymns, and songs refer only, and
exclusively, to the Old Testament Book of Psalms.”[13] His syntactical analysis demonstrates that
two Trinitarian passages, Matt. 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:13 (and other passages),
parallel the structure of the Pauline P-H-P references. “To use this same structure in Ephesians 5:19
indicates that the terms psalms, hymns and songs are related very closely. It means that if any one of these terms is Scripture,
then all of the terms have the authority of Scripture, i.e. are the equal of
Scripture…. Psalms is already
acknowledged to be a reference to Scripture.
Songs, modified by the adjective, spiritual, would also be a reference
to Scripture, and therefore hymns must be Scripture.”[14]
Are the Other Inspired Bible Songs
Included, or only the Manual
of Praise?
In a moment we shall turn to the
question of the meaning of “spiritual” in the P-H-P passages. My point here is that we cannot read
Ephesians and Colossians as referring to the Book of Psalms as such. I have found no persuasive case by which the
Church can justify singing the Psalter while not singing other inspired songs. Indeed, What
is the Scriptural warrant by which we exclude other inspired
songs from the Public worship? Among the
Hymns and Songs in the Bible beyond the
Psalter, many are not only reported as sung but are commanded to be sung[15]. The rationale asserted for excluding these
from our canon of worship song is the fact that they are not included in the
canonical Psalter, the divinely authorized manual of praise. That is, now that the Psalter is collected,
we lack clear biblical warrant for singing anything else, even other Biblical,
inspired, songs. This view depends upon
the assumption that the Psalms were collected into their final canonical form
as an exclusive manual of praise. This
is an argument from silence whereby previous O.T. imperatives are set out of
gear by virtue of an assumption about the nature of a collection. First, note that whatever prima facie plausibility
this case may have for the exclusion of the non-Psalter O.T. hymns, such would
not apply to the exclusion of the New
Testament canticles and hymns, reported in Revelation, Luke, etc.. We cannot expect N.T. songs to have been
included in the OT Psalter! While we
do not have a N.T. Psalter (a new manual of praise), we do have N.T. songs. Unless we can show that the
Psalms-Hymns-Songs (P-H-P) phrase in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 actually means
“the O.T. book of Psalms,” the Biblical warrant we find there for singing the
P-H-Ps in the canonical Psalter applies equally to all the inspired P-H-P in
the canonical Bible. There is therefore sufficient ground to sing not only like
those in Revelation & Luke, etc., but to sing with them the very Scripture
songs they employ.
For EP
to be true[16]
two matters must be firmly determined:
1. That the Psalter is the
Divinely Appointed Exclusive Manual[17] of
Praise, and 2. That the P-H-P phrase
applies to this collection as such, and not to the various songs which go
towards making up the collection. As
seen above, these two points are mutually related[18]. Defenders of EP, such as the authors of The
True Psalmody[19] often
first prove that the Psalter was collected for the purposes of public worship
song. Then they show that the P-H-P
phrase points to the Psalms by means of the titles included in the Septuagint
Psalter. Thus far, this is unobjectionable[20]. But, a certain proposition has silently
slipped into the case[21]: that the phrase points to the manual as such,
to the whole, not the parts that make up the whole. But, the very structure of the case indicates
the fallacy: “The Book of Psalms, consisting
of inspired psalms, hymns and songs is the divinely authorized manual of
praise. The use of other songs in worship is not authorized in the
Scriptures.” The proposition, “The use of other songs in worship is
not authorized in the Scriptures” points to “inspired psalms, hymns and
songs.” Logically, this would include all
inspired psalms, hymns and songs.
Certainly, no objection can be made to singing any of the inspired songs
in the book of Psalms, for they meet this criteria. The Apostle Paul could
easily have said that we are to sing The Psalms, David’s Psalms, or the Book of
Psalms (all phrases used in Scripture), but he used the distributive phrase,
not a collective (‘global’) term. The
Orthodox Presbyterian (minority) proponents of EP grant this point:
...(ii) If the argument drawn from the expansion of
revelation is applied within the limits of Scripture authorization then the
utmost that can be established is the use of New Testament songs or of New
Testament materials adapted to singing. Principally the minority is not jealous
to insist that New Testament songs may not be used in the worship of God. What
we are most jealous to maintain is that Scripture does authorize the use of
inspired songs, that is, Scripture songs, and that the singing of other than
Scripture songs in the worship of God has no warrant from the Word of God and
is therefore forbidden.[22]
However, Murray and Young indicate their
preference for EP in the following propositions:
1.
There
is no warrant in Scripture for the use of uninspired human compositions in the
singing of God’s praise in public worship.
2. There is explicit authority
for the use of inspired songs. 3. The songs of divine worship must therefore be
limited to the songs of Scripture, for they alone are inspired. 5. The Book of Psalms has provided us with the
kind of compositions for which we have the authority of Scripture. 5. We are therefore certain of divine sanction
and approval in the singing of the Psalms. 6.
We are not certain that other songs were intended to be sung in the
worship of God, even though the use of other inspired songs does not violate
the fundamental principle in which Scripture authorization is explicit, namely,
the use of inspired songs. 7. In view of
the uncertainty with respect to the use of other inspired songs we should
confine ourselves to the Book of Psalms.
I find it
ironic that Murray & Young, who rest much upon inspired song and two
Pauline P-H-P citations, can go on to create doubt respecting the appointment
of all inspired songs for worship.[23] Note the same manual concept slips
into Murray’s argument, when he writes:
When taken in conjunction with the only positive
evidence we have in the New Testament, the evidence leads preponderantly to the
conclusion that when Paul wrote “psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs” he would
expect the minds of his readers to think of what were, in the terms of
Scripture itself, “psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs,” namely, the Book of
Psalms.[24]
If he
had written, “songs such as the psalms from the Book of Psalms,” I would have
no objection! The songs of the LXX
Psalter would be the pre-eminent thing which would occur to the mind of the
readers of Colossians and Ephesians in terms of any pre-existing body of
praise, but Biblically literate Christians would have thought equally of the other Songs, Hymns and Canticles outside
the Psalter.
Does
“Spiritual” Mean “Inspired”?
This brings us to the question of the meaning of pneumatikos,
for it is here that the R.P. Testimony and other EP apologists turn in
order to establish the concept of exclusively inspired praise. Murray is an
articulate advocate:
Paul specifies the character of the songs as
“Spiritual”—odais pneumatikais. If anything should be obvious from the
use of the word pneumatikos in the New Testament it is that it has
reference to the Holy Spirit and means, in such contexts as the present, “given
by the Spirit.” Its meaning is not at all, as Trench contends, “such as were
composed by spiritual men, and moved in the sphere of spiritual things” (Synonyms,
LXXVIII). It rather means, as Meyer points out, “proceeding from the Holy
Spirit, as theopneustos” (Com. on Eph. 5:19). In this context the word
would mean “indited by the Spirit,” just as in I Corinthians 2:13 logois...pneumatikois
are “words inspired by the Spirit” and “taught by the Spirit” (didaktois
pneumatos).
…On either of these assumptions the psalms, hymns and
songs are all “Spiritual” and therefore all inspired by the Holy Spirit. The
bearing of this upon the question at issue is perfectly apparent. Uninspired
hymns are immediately excluded.
Dr. J. Renwick Wright gives a competent
review of the case:
There
has been much discussion… as to the meaning of the word rendered “spiritual” (pneumatikov), and its control of the
preceding words. What is its precise connotation[?]... Let me quote B.B.
Warfield again, for his is a name before which we all bow - Presbyterian
Review, July 1880. “Of the 25 instances
in which the word occurs in the New Testament, in no single case does it sink
even as low in its reference as the human spirit, and in 24 of them it is
derived from pneuma the Holy Spirit.
In this sense of belonging to, or determined by, the Holy Spirit the New
Testament usage is uniform, with the one single exception of Ephesians 6:12
where it seems to refer to the higher though superhuman intelligences. The appropriate translation for it in each
case is “Spirit-given” or “Spirit-led” or “Spirit-determined”. So - generally throughout the New Testament the word pneumatikov is used to signify an
immediate supernatural product of the Holy Spirit. For example, in Romans 1:11 the spiritual
gift of which Paul writes seems clearly to be a gift of the Holy Spirit
conducing to the edification of believers.
In 1 Corinthians 2:15 it is said, “But he that is spiritual judgeth all
things.” The word “Spiritual” here isn’t
equivalent to pious or saintly - but to renewed and enlightened by the Spirit
of God. It is true that the man who has
been renewed and enlightened by the Spirit of God is a pious man - but his
piety is the consequence of his being renewed and enlightened by the
spirit. You get the contrast between the
natural man and the spiritual man well expressed in John 3:6 - “That which is
born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is
spirit.” And there is a strong
parallel between man and song - for just as a spiritual man is one directly
made so by the Holy Spirit, so a spiritual song is one directly produced by the
Spirit’s agency. In other words, pneumatikov
here may be equivalent to Qeopneustov
that is - God breathed. [Wright cites Meyer and Tholuck in support,
finally]… Thayer in his lexicon on pneumatikov says of the wdai in our two verses that they are
“Divinely inspired and so redolent of the Holy Spirit.”… Clement…in his
work…”the Instructor”, he uses the language … ‘the apostle called the psalm a
spiritual song’. And Jerome…in his
commentary on Ephesians he says “The difference between psalms and hymns and
spiritual songs may be best seen in the book of Psalms.”[25]
I don’t think that the Greek word, pneumatikais
in Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 has the force of “inspired” rather than
“spiritual”[26]
This is because of the work of Paul Copeland in his 1985 unpublished paper, which
see.
Our 1980 Testimony’s statement of the
basis for EP goes beyond Scripture and sound reason. It claims too much and so falls short of
proving what it actually ought to show:
5.
Singing God's praise is part of public worship in which the whole congregation
should join. The Book of Psalms, consisting of inspired psalms, hymns and
songs, is the divinely authorized manual of praise. The use of other songs in
worship is not authorized in the Scriptures. The Greek words in the New
Testament which are translated "psalm," "hymn" and
"song" all appear in the Septuagint (Greek) version of the Book of
Psalms. Ps. 95:2; Ps. 40:3, (4); Ps. 96:1; Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19; Mark
14:26; 1 Cor. 14:26; Jas. 5:13.[27]
This is simply unsound exegesis and reasoning. Paul Copeland writes that the Testimony
“makes the astounding claim that the Greek terms for sacred music are found in
a collection of sacred music translated into the Greek language!”[28] as if
that somehow proves that we are to sing nothing else. These titles appear in other parts of the
LXX. This paragraph is a departure from
the more balanced statement in the earlier Testimony (1809, etc.), which is
preserved in our Directory for Public Worship (1945): “The Psalms of the Bible, by reason of their excellence and their
Divine inspiration and appointment are to be sung in the worship of God, to the
exclusion of all songs and hymns of human composition.” [29] Whatever pneumatikos means,
inspiration is at least a meaningful line to draw. To exclude the songs of Divine inspiration
that simply fail to make it into the OT Psalter, especially when they are NT
songs, is not warranted.
A Psalm-fed church will be a body
which will pray like Mary and Sing like the Saints in Revelation! And, not only
so, they ought to be sung in a way that reflects the canonical nature of the
Psalter. The monks of the early church
were right in the practice of chanting through the Psalter.[30] Our
history of Psalm Explanations encourages me that we could easily improve our
practice of singing through the Psalms in a regular way, from 1 to 150. Doing a responsive reading, a Psalm
explanation and then singing or chanting the Psalm in the service. The RPCNA seeks to honor the canonicity of
the Psalter by excluding other songs from public worship. I don’t think that this is what the
canonicity points to as much as the disciplined and regular use of the whole
Psalter in an ordered fashion. We ought to sing them thus. This, we - in
most of our churches - do not do. But,
as a manual, the Psalter is our instructor, our model to teach us not only What
to sing, but how to pray and how to sing.
The question that remains, however,
is whether or not the R.P. Testimony is correct when it goes on to assert that
the Psalms are to be sung “to the
exclusion of all songs and hymns of human composition.” While I am not prepared to argue that this
is correct, I have not been able to decide that it is incorrect. A study of Paul Copeland’s paper causes me to
suspect that it is going beyond Scriptural warrant, but time does not allow
further inquiry.
[1] This is a solid
Biblical-theological deliverance which incorporates the whole Scriptural
testimony better than any other options.
It allows us to follow the Shape of the Liturgy (Dom Gregory Dix) of the
Western Church (Bard Thompson. Liturgies of the Western Church .
Meridian Books. World Publishing Co. 1961; Charles W. Baird. Presbyterian
Liturgies: Historical Sketches . Baker. 1960).
[2]
Actually, congregational
singing in its present form began with the Reformation, and it there may
have been no singing in the Synagogue until after the Christian era. Sijnging in the Temple was by priestly
choirs, not the congregation.
[3] As
asserted by Greg Bahnsen in his debate with William Young in Antithesis. Also, cf. Vern Poythress, “Ezra 3, Union
with Christ, and Exclusive Psalmody, I-II” Westminster Theological Journal,
37-38.
[4] Paul Copeland, “Statement of reservations presented to
St. Lawrence Presbytery,” 1985, p. 1 (unpublished manuscript).
[5] Martin Luther, “Preface
to the Psalter, 1545 (1528),” Luther’s Works (tr. C.M. Jacobs;
Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960),
Vol. XXXV, p. 254.
[6] Psalm-less Christians are a relatively new phenomena. For, as discussed in my historical study, the
Psalter has formed a central part of the worship of the Church in various ways
for three millennia. Cf. The Psalms Through Three Thousand
Years: Prayerbook of a Cloud of
Witnesses, by William L. Holladay (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993/1996).
[7] The Directory for the Worship of God, 2:1. (Constitution,
[Pittsburgh: Board of Education &
Publication], page f.2).
[8]
See my related
paper, “Summary of the Exegetical & Theological Arguments For and Against
Exclusive Psalmody.”
[9] Edward A. Robson, “An Exposition of The Psalms, Hymns
and Spritual Songs of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16,” in The Biblical Doctrine of Worship. (Pittsburgh, PA:
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, 1973), pp. 197-205.
[10]
This move is made
explicitly by Dr. Robson, and is a long standing assumption amongst both EP
advocates (The True Psalmody [Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1859], p. 74) and opponents
(e.g. Robert A. Morey, An Examination of Exclusive Psalmody [Shermansdale,
PA: New Life Ministries, n.d.], p. 4-5).
[11]
While the term
“psalm” is restricted to the Psalter, I Cor. 14:26 excepted, “hymn” and “song”
are found without the Psalms, e.g. Gen. 31:27; Ex. 15:1; Num. 21:17; Dt. 31:19,
21,22,30; 32:44; Jud. 5:12; 2 Sam. 22:1; 1 Ki. 4:32; Hab. 3:1, 19; Is. 12:5;
42:10; 38:20; Rev. 5:9; 14:3; 15:3, etc.
Luke 24:44 also speaks of “the Psalms,” probably indicating the whole O.T.
wisdom literature - "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was
still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses
and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." In the LXX psalmos occurs
87 times, of which 78 are in the Psalter.
So, in translation, at least the LXX uses the term, or title, psalm
9 times outside the Psalter.
[12]
Frank D. Frazier,
“Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs”, in Robson, ibid., p. 336. Emphasis
added.
[15] Alfred Edersheim writes, “At the close of the additional
Sabbath sacrifice, when its drink-offering was brought, the Levites sang the
‘Song of Moses’ in Deut. XXXII. This ‘hymn’ was divided into six portions, for
as many Sabbaths. ....At the evening sacrifice on the Sabbath the song of Moses
in Exod. XV was sung.” (The Temple, Its Ministry and Services[Eerdmans,
1952], p.188. - Drawn from an unpublished paper by Bruce Hemphill.)
[16]
Not merely as an
acceptable practical option, but as a divine requirement under the Regulative
Principle, upon pain of violating God’s Law!
[17]
In Presbyterian
polemics regarding Psalmody it is natural that the argument would have arisen
this way - Watt’s Paraphrases and various Hymnals were contending for a place
in the pew, as a manual of praise, to replace the Scottish Psalter then in
use. See The Songs of Zion: The Only Authorized Manual of Priase, by
J.R. Lawson (St. John, N.B.: R.A.H.
Morrow, 1879) for a good example of the polemic of the 19th Century.
[19] (Various.) The True
Psalmody, or Bible Psalms Only Divinely Authorized Manual of Praise . 1859.
(1867 reprint, Ed., Christopher Coldwell, Anthology of Presbyterian
& Reformed Literature. vol. 4.
Dallas: Naphtali Press, 1991.) http://www.naphtali.com/pdf/trupsalm.pdf
[20]
I have heard
arguments that the Psalms are not all intended for public worship as
songs. While I do not think that the
only purpose for the collection was for the Psalter to become an exclusive
manual for praise (and I find no Scriptural warrant for it being exclusive in
this respect, or any other), the title of the collective canon is mizmor
in Hebrew and Psalms in Greek. Psalms
are religious songs to be sung to instrumental accompaniment. Cf. The
True Psalmody, p. 50 (and Chapter II passim, “The Book of Psalms Has the Seal of Divine
Approval…”). The Psalter is inclusive,
i.e., a collection set apart for various uses, Prayer, recitation, song,
meditation, repitition. This fits its
place in the Wisdom literature of the Bible.
It should be noted that the LXX version of the Psalter has various NT
and OT canticles appended. These songs,
inspired (or considered such) have been sung in the church ever since.
[22] John Murray and William Young, "Minority Report
of the Committee on Song Worship," (14th General Assembly of the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church). In an edited form on the web at: http://members.aol.com/RSICHURCH/song1.html and http://www.opc.org/GA/song.html.
[23] Except, perhaps, on a case-by-case basis, which would show
why any given song would be inappropriate, or would lack warrant.
[24]
ibid. Emphasis added. Dr. William Young told me
at the 1990 Psalm-Singers conference that Murray wrote the whole report. He
signed on.
[25]
J. Renwick Wright,
“Presbytery of the Alleghenies - Conference on Psalmody. Topic Number 3”
(unpublished manusscript), pp. 8-10. I cannot determine just where the Warfield
quote ends and Dr. Wright picks up again (it is probably at “So - generally
throughout the New Testament…”)
[26] For exegesis of “spiritual”
see: Paul Copeland's statement of reservations presented to St. Lawrence
Presbytery, 1985.
[27] Reformed Presbyterian
Testimony, 21:5.
[28] Copeland, Op. Cit.
[29] The Directory for the Worship of God, 2:1. (Constitution,
[Pittsburgh: Board of Education &
Publication], page f.2).
[30] Also see the Book of Common Prayer’s break down
of the Psalms, so that they may be read over once a month.
1 comment:
test
Post a Comment