The Rise and Decline of Exclusive Canonical Psalmody in the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches: The German Reformed Church

In the post that introduced this series on the Rise and Decline of Exclusive Canonical Psalmody in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches, reference was made to an article which caught my attention many years ago when I first started studying out the issue of exclusive canonical psalmody. That article was entitled, “We Used To Sing Only Psalms---What Happened?”, and in examining that article it was noted that the “We” in the title referred to several different American Reformed and Presbyterian denominations including the RPCNA, CRC, RCA, PCUSA, and OPC and PCA. The significant claim made in that article was that all Reformed and Presbyterian churches in North America, which have roots in continental Europe and the British Isles, sang psalms exclusively in their worship in the past. Of course, the only denomination which continues to remain faithful to the Reformed heritage when it comes to worship is the RPCNA, the rest of the denominations listed, long ago exchanged the praises of Scripture for the words of men. The keen observer will have noticed however, that one denomination, which has roots in the 16^th century Reformation, the German Reformed Church, has been left out of the article. Some might argue that omission was intentional and the account of it is that the German Reformed were so heavily influenced by the Lutherans when it came to song in worship, that they never really followed the pattern of Geneva. Such an accounting however is surely inaccurate and wrong. The PCA sub-committee on Psalm-singing was able to conclude many years ago that the German Reformed Churches shared the same worship practices as the rest of the 16^th century Reformed church as it reported that “the Reformed churches in France, the Netherlands, and Germany, as well as the Presbyterian church in Scotland and later the Puritan churches in America were all exclusively Psalm singing until the beginning of the 19^th century.” Obviously what is relevant for our purposes is that the German church is listed here with the rest of the Reformed and Presbyterian churches and the committee report asserts that the German’s along with the rest of the churches committed themselves the practice of Psalm singing until about the early 19^th century. In what follows, support for that claim will be provided.

The early Reformation era practice of the German speaking churches must be distinguished from the later, mid 16^th century German church practice. Hughes Old explains that the sources of Reformed psalmody and hymnody are to be traced back to four main cities: Strasbourg, Augsburg, Constance, and Geneva. The first three cities are relevant in this analysis because they were German speaking and their practice of praise in worship in the early days of the 16^th century Reformation did vary from the practice which would take hold in Geneva under Calvin. Strasbourg, having a strong claim on being one of the earliest German speaking Reformed churches, deserves attention first. Bucer, the reformer of Strasbourg, held the line, early on, when it came to the content of worship song. The first several Strasbourg Psalters contained only inspired canonical songs. Apparently, Bucer’s position was coherent enough and consistent enough on this point, that Old is able to conclude that Calvin took over his position on worship song from Bucer (p.260). However, honesty requires us to mention that the 1537 Strasbourg Psalter does contain, for the first time, some human compositions which were used for newly approved holiday services, Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, and Ascension. The newly revised practice of Strasbourg would be short-lived however as the city was sacked by imperial forces and returned to Papal control in the late 1540’s. As for the German speaking church at Augsburg it did not follow the early pattern set by Strasbourg, and as early as 1530 had included roughly 20 man-made hymns. Finally, we must note the rather obvious inclusion of a large number of hymns in the Constance Hymnbook of 1540 (p.260). Johannes Zwick and Ambrosius Blarer were so committed to the use of man-made hymns, that Old reports they made an argument for their practice in the preface to their hymnal. Conscious of a need to support their argument from the early church, they appealed to Tertullian’s comment that some brought songs of their own composition to church and to the example of Ambrose of Milan who is known for having composed a number of his own hymns for worship. Old’s comments at this point are instructive, as he points out that though it was legitimate, historically speaking, for them to appeal to Tertullian and Ambrose as support for the claim that the practice of Constance conformed to examples of the early church, it was also fraught with its own difficulties since “Tertullian and Ambrose represented the minority opinion in the ancient Church. From the middle of the second century until at least the end of the fourth century most churches confined themselves to hymns and psalms taken from Scripture” (p.261). It is not a great obstacle to the thesis presented in this post to note that Constance maintained such a liberal policy on man-made hymns since the Reformation was suppressed in Constance in 1548. That means, whatever worship practices emerged in the German Reformed church of the mid 16^th century are not necessarily tied by genealogical succession to the practice of Strasbourgh, Augsburg, or Constance, since the work of Reformation had largely been terminated in these areas.

 The German Reformation in the mid 16^th century was marked by a new phase of development in the trend toward strict Calvinism. In 1546 the Protestant faith found an opening in the Palatinate but opposition between Lutherans and Reformed parties prevented a Reformed consolidation until Frederick III took control in 1559. Convinced of the Calvinistic brand of Protestantism, Frederick reorganized the doctrine and worship of the Palatinate along classically Reformed lines. Not only did Frederick commission a catechism, he also called for a new liturgy which included the requirement to sing the Psalms in German. Timing could hardly have been better since the finished form of the Geneva Psalter had just been printed in 1562 and all it took was some translation work to provide the church in the Palatinate with a song book. Westermyer (1980) tells us that the work of translation was performed by Konigsberg law professor, Ambrosius Lobwaser, by 1565, and it was done so on account of the fact that it was Calvin’s example that the German Reformed followed (pg.90). German Reformed church historian, J.I. Good, writing in the 19^th century confirms the German Reformed commitment to exclusive psalmody after the model of Calvin when he writes, "the Reformed Church of Germany had been like the other Calvinistic churches, a Psalm-singing Church for about a century. Since the days of Zwick and the Strasbourg hymn-writers in the time of Bucer they had produced no hymns (pg.403)." This quote makes it fairly clear that German Reformed Church after the mid 16^th century was a psalm singing church and that it followed this practice out of a conscious determination to align its worship with that of Calvin and Geneva.

Now comes the distasteful part, which is to relate in brief, the DECLINE of psalm-singing in the German Reformed Church. Whether it occurred by the mid 17^th century or by the early 18^th century, there seems to be no dispute among historians that the practice of the German church changed from exclusive psalmody to a position that is very similar to the Lutheran practice. How and why that change took place is not all that difficult to nail down. Good tells us that though the practice of psalm-singing had been the norm for the first 100 years of the German Reformed, the winds of change did begin to blow and those winds were fanned by rise of German Pietism. Perhaps a sampling of quotes from Good at this point will serve well to capture what caused the reversal in practice:

Now if it had not been for revival of Pietism, who knows but we might still be singing the Psalms in the Reformed Church?

 

               We therefore have Pietism to thank for our hymns…

Strange as it may appear to us, the introduction of hymns was bitterly opposed in many parts of the Reformed Church as an innovation, as the old Reformed people had become greatly wedded to the Psalms…

They held that God’s word (the Psalms) and not man’s words (the hymns), should be sung in God’s worship. And in their Psalms they aimed at the literal rather than the rhythmical translation, so that God’s Word might be changed as little as possible.

For many years Neander’s hymns were not permitted to be sung in the churches. They were, however, used at private meetings, at conventicles and prayer meetings. But by and by they became so popular that they won their way into the churches, for the Church could no longer afford to pass them by.

 

So after will nigh a century and a half of psalm singing, the General Synod of Julich, Cleve, Berg and Mark issued a new hymn book in 1738 (pg.404).

Clearly, Good writes as one who supports the change caused by Pietism, but he also makes it abundantly clear that the change from psalms to hymns marked a radical and not minor change in practice. He  points out that the radical change was more about what was pragmatic than principled. Notice the principle of the old German practice as Good says, “They held that God’s word (the Psalms) and not man’s words (the hymns), should be sung in God’s worship,” but now, the German church does what became “popular” through use in the private meetings and conventicles. In other words, the false piety of German Pietism actuated the change in practice not the discovery of a command in the word of God to sing man-made hymns.

This new policy was far from the old one not only in practice but also in tone and ethos. Again, a quote from Good, no advocate of exclusive canonical psalmody either, which implicitly contrasts the original German Reformed commitment to Biblical worship with the new captures the difference:

The Reformed in many places closed the organs and introduced the singing of the psalms into the churches. Many of the old hymn books contained nothing but psalms…these psalms sustained the Reformed in persecution and linked their hearts more fully to God’s word. The early Reformed Church was Puritanic in her churches and her services (pg.453-4).

What is striking about Good’s observation is that the psalms were for a time when the church endured suffering and persecution for the sake of the gospel, and the hymns were for a time of ease, after the blood had been spilt, and the sweat and pain of the previous generation of builders had provided them a church where they could take rest in comfort. Perhaps the key to understanding the rise and decline of psalmody in the Reformed churches is found in this off-handed insight of Good. When the church suffers it looks to the word of God for relief, but when the church is at rest it looks to the opinions of men to sustain its comfort and ease. In a sense though, that may be the silver lining in the story for those who desire to see the church return to faithfulness in worship since our age is growing increasingly hostile toward true Christian faith. It may just well be that as the church in our age begins to endure more significant forms of persecution from an increasingly hostile culture that the syrupy, feel good worship that prevails everywhere today, even in Reformed and Presbyterian churches, will be replaced with the worship prescribed in God’s word. However, our prayer should not be that God would send sufferings so that we may be obedient in our worship, rather, our prayer ought to be that God would send us the Spirit of obedience, and that out of gratitude for salvation and a desire to glorify His name we may return to the kind of worship which God commands.   

On the Necessity of Reforming the Church by John Calvin:

If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity, viz., a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain.

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honour of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to His worship, if at variance with His command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 25:22; Matt. 15:9.) Every addition to His word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere " will worship" is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate.

J.I. Good, The Origin of the Reformed Church in Germany (Reading, PA: Daniel Miller, 1887).

Hughes Oliphant Old, The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship (Zurich: Theologisher, 1975).

 

Westermeyer, Paul. German Reformed Hymnody in the United States. The Hymn 31 (1980): 89-94.

The Rise and Decline of Exclusive Canonical Psalmody in the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches: The Decline of Exclusive Canonical Psalmody in Geneva

The following quote from Louis Benson will help reset the topic in this series of posts on the classical Reformed and Presbyterian commitment to exclusive canonical psalmody in worship, and help establish a baseline to measure the departure from this standard by the Reformed Church in the Enlightenment era:

There is no more difficulty in assigning the leadership to him (Calvin) than in assigning to Luther the leadership in establishing hymn singing in Germany and its spread from there into Lutheran countries. From this point indeed, the two figures stand as independent sources, from which flow two parallel streams of Protestant church song--- the Lutheran Hymnody on the one hand and the Reformed Metrical Psalmody on the other. And the streams were not fully united till after two centuries had passed. They are not in fact merged into unity even today, when the Calvinistic precedent of Psalm singing still furnishes the ground for maintaining denominational integrity among exclusive Psalm singers (p.75).

It may also prove helpful to add just one more quote from Benson about Calvin’s position on psalmody where he says of Calvin’s standard for worship song:

The Calvinistic Psalm took its authority and its appropriateness from its divine inspiration. It must be Holy Scripture, first of all; then it became metrical merely to facilitate its congregational rendering. Calvin had determined to make the Psalter the praise book of the Reformed Church (p.75).

From these two quotes a couple of important issues emerge. First, Luther and Calvin are regarded by Benson as the liturgical leaders of the Lutheran and Reformed churches respectively. This point is significant since it provides an objective reference point for the measuring the form of worship, particularly in the matter of congregational song, which is what we might call “classically” Reformed. Such a point of clarification is useful since many today who claim to represent the conservative Reformed and Presbyterian position on worship often describe their form of worship as “traditional” or as “classical” over against innovative forms of worship practiced in many Reform and Presbyterian churches today which they often like to label as “revivalistic.” However, Benson’s identification of Calvin as the liturgical standard bearer of historical Reformed worship means that the term “classical” can only honestly and accurately be used to describe worship which conforms to the actual model of worship instituted by Calvin in Geneva and which was followed by other Reformed and Presbyterian churches of the 16^th century. Second, Benson isolates the precise difference between Lutheran and Reformed when it comes to the element of song. Benson explains that Lutheran song can be fairly characterized as manmade compositions while Calvinistic songs were nothing less than divinely inspired and taken directly from Scripture. Further, Benson notes that these two contrasting views represented two distinct streams of worship song and they only converged in the Reformed Church 200 years after the Reformation, though he accurately notes some churches which wish to be distinguished as fully Calvinistic in worship continue to conform to Calvin’s precedent of exclusive canonical psalmody. It is evident from this manner of description, that Benson judges only exclusive psalm singing churches as classically Reformed and Calvinistic.

Now, moving on to our specific area of focus, attention will be given briefly to the DECLINE of exclusive canonical psalmody in the church of Geneva. First of all, Benson stakes out the bold ground of claiming that exclusive psalmody was the practice of the French-speaking Reformed churches for well over 100 years after the publication of the 1562 Geneva Psalter (p.108). It is true that the Synod of Montabaun in 1594 commissioned Beza to versify Scriptural canticles as a sort of appendix to the Geneva Psalter, which he did. Beza submitted 12 songs, 10 of which were taken from the Old Testament, and the Church approved their use in worship and private devotion; however, these songs never quite caught on as we might say, and never had a subsequent impact on the church’s repertoire of praise. Second, in the very late 17^th century the Venerable Company of Pastors in Geneva approved a motion to eliminate imprecations of the Jews against their enemies from the Psalms. This work was completed largely by Benedict Pictet in 1693 but again, was not unanimously received  (p.112). Third, in the early 1700’s a strong push towards a more “evangelical” hymnody arose in the church.  In response to this surge in momentum towards hymnody, Pictet proposed to supplement the Psalms with New Testament hymns. By 1705, Pictet, prepared 12 paraphrases of New Testament passages which were added to the Psalter as an appendix (p.115). The difference between this project and early attempted revisions and expansions is summarized well by Benson when he says that this project “took its impulse from Lutheran precedent, and it marks the beginning of the new period of Psalms and Hymns on equal footing” (p.116).  With this foot firmly planted in the doorway, supplementation of Psalter continued to grow over time until the 1778 edition of the Psalter contained 54 hymns. Fourth, As the Lutheran hymnal began to influence the Reformed Church, changes in worship song continued to grow until a short period of resistance and push-back was witnessed in the Geneva church early in the 19^th century. Those who were committed to the classical model of Reformed congregational singing sought to resuscitate the Psalter by revising its language and tunes. This reform movement was short-lived however and by the 3^rd decade of the 19^th century, the Psalter ceased to have the sole place in the church’s praise.

Looking back over this brief presentation of the path to the decline of exclusive canonical psalmody, two important details are to be observed. One, the church of Geneva never ruled that Calvin’s regulative principle was unbiblical, nor did it even seem to grapple with the question of whether hymn-singing in public worship conformed to that principle; it simply “drifted” with the winds of change until this new practice was simply accepted. Surely this should be troubling to hymn-singers of the conservative stripe who think that somewhere in the history of the church, a synod met and decided that the regulative principle required the use of hymnody to supplement the Psalter (something the Reformed regulative principle surely requires). The fact is, no such meeting can identified as the catalyst for the change in the worship of the church of Geneva. It seems that over time, popular sentiment simply altered views of what was thought to be acceptable in worship. Two, the Reformed practice of exclusive canonical psalmody, in the church of Geneva, was disrupted by the Lutheran hymnal. In other words, prevailing popular trends influenced the worship of the church and ultimately changed it. The concern which such an alteration in practice ought provoke in the minds of conservative Reformed and Presbyterians can be easily appreciated by returning to Benson’s characterization of the two streams of congregation song which flowed from the two leaders of the Reformation, Luther and Calvin. From the stream of Luther, who held that worship is regulated by what God has not forbidden, man-made hymns flowed; while the stream which flowed from Calvin, who held that worship is regulated by what God commands, consisted of inspired canonical songs taken from Scripture. If we were to pose the question, “why did the Reformed Church of Geneva turn from Psalms to Hymns?” we would have to candidly bring forth the answer that the evidence indicates that a creep in the understanding of the regulative principle of worship, however imperceptible to them, seems to have occurred. The fact that the Venerable Company of Pastors in Geneva did not argue that Calvin’s principle and practice of worship was wrong, and, only over time, permitted the gradual use of hymns confirms our answer. Had they believed singing psalms only was a violation of the regulative principle they would have made the argument; however, there is no record of them arguing man-made hymns are commanded for use in worship and that therefore exclusive canonical psalmody was a violation of  God’s word. Instead, the story of the decline of exclusive canonical psalmody in Geneva reads like a story of accommodation, weakening of conviction about Biblically regulated worship, and wholesale capitulation to popular sentiment. The result of this sad story of decline is the supplanting of the confessional and Reformed principle of worship for that which is non-Reformed and unbiblical.

In view of these facts, those who claim to love the Reformed faith and who imagine that they follow Calvin and his Biblically informed philosophy and practice of worship, tmust ask if the story of the decline of psalmody in Geneva conforms to Calvin’s very clear statement of the regulative principle. If the story of decline and the practice of Lutheran forms of worship, without Biblical mandate or command, is what has replaced Calvin’s practice in the area of song in worship, then it must be asked further—which liturgical leader of the Reformation is now being followed: Luther or Calvin? Beyond that, it is incumbent upon those who are Reformed or Presbyterian in name, and yet, who conform to the practice of Luther, to either show that Luther was doing what was commanded and that Calvin was not, or to admit that they have opted for Luther’s regulative principle. Further, regardless of which of the two options is chosen, such persons ought then either to affiliate with the Lutheran Church or demand that the Reformed and Presbyterian churches revise the Reformed confessional regulative principle of worship to conform to the Luther’s in order that they may pursue their innovative form of worship with a clear conscience. After all, that is not only historically accurate and honest, it is what is required especially of those who take a vow to uphold, teach, defend, and refute anything contrary to the doctrine contained in the Reformed and Presbyterian confession. No middle ground on such a crucial doctrine as the doctrine of worship is permitted.

(BTW, those Reformed people who think of themselves as conservative in their worship but who refuse to conform to Calvin’s principle and practice, in the interest of accuracy and honesty, need to stop using “classical” to describe their worship. Such persons may be “classical” in the sense of following the principles of the Luther or Anglicanism, but they are not “classical” in the Reformed or Presbyterian sense in that they are not following Calvin’s practice nor that of the 16^th and 17^th century Reformed and Presbyterian churches. For such “Reformed” persons to continue to use “classical” to describe worship which  follows 18^th century revivalistic patterns is inaccurate, dishonest, and confusing. What they should say is that what they think of as true Reformed worship is what comes from the new school of 18^th century revivalism and that this model is much to be preferred both to the classical Reformed practice and to the contemporary revivalistic style perpetuated by Jack Miller in the late 1960’s in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.)

On the Necessity of Reforming the Church by John Calvin:

If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity, viz., a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain.

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honour of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to His worship, if at variance with His command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 25:22; Matt. 15:9.) Every addition to His word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere " will worship" is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate.

Louis F. Benson, “John Calvin and the Psalmody of the Reformed Churches,” Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society 5, 1 (March 1909):1–21; 5, 2 (June 1909): 55–87; 55, 3 (Sept. 1909): 107–118.