The Rise and Decline of Exclusive Canonical Psalmody in the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches: The Dutch Reformed Church Pt.1

In 1835, Hendrik DeCock, a minister and leader of the 19^th century Secession churches of Holland, wrote a pamphlet against the use of uninspired hymns in public worship entitled, The So-Called Evangelical Hymns the Darling of the Enraptured and Misled Multitude in the Synodical Reformed Church and even by some of God’s children from blindness, because they are drunk with the wine of her fornication, further tested, weighed and found wanting, Yes, in conflict with all our Forms of Unity and the Word of God. Though a catchy title, it would probably not attract much positive attention in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches of the 21^st century, since upon initially reading it most would immediately dismiss and reject it as nothing more than the mad ravings of a cranky internet blogger; however, in DeCock’s day, it caught the attention of a wide Reformed audience in Holland and was received with hearty affirmation. Cursory examination of the title would clue even the most inattentive reader in to the fact that DeCock was no fan of uninspired songs in public worship, that he believed exclusive canonical psalms alone had support from the history, practice, and confessions of the church, and that he believed using uninspired songs in worship was a violation of God’s law. As one might imagine, based upon the title of the tract, it is very negative in tone, and it would probably catch the typical 21^st century Reformed reader off guard since its rhetoric is very salty and its attack on man-made hymns is highly vociferous. A series of quotes from the tract provide a quick sampling of the fiery and bellicose tone that pervades the work:

Hymns were never introduced into the church, except to cause degeneration and contempt for the welfare of the church

 

We see as well, amongst other things in the New Covenant, that in the best of times, and in the purest churches, hymns are never found or tolerated

Where, therefore, were the hymns, or other whorish songs ever used in the days of the apostles in the congregations of the Lord?

History alone is sufficient to acquaint us with the stinking source from which they i.e. hymns flowed forth, and so we are able to judge them shameful and abominable

 These quotes offer a brief orientation to the tone of the argument that DeCock makes against uninspired worship songs and additionally, it provides some confirmation for the claim made in the pop magazine article entitled, We Used to Sing the Psalms Only---What Happened?, which was alluded to at the outset of this series of blog posts.  If the historical construction of the practice of exclusive psalmody in the Dutch churches that DeCock makes is accurate, then it would appear, that at least in the case of the Reformed churches in Netherlands, the article has struck deep into a vein of truth when it claimed that Reformed churches of Dutch descent in America made a clean break with the past when they added uninspired hymns to the public worship of the church. In the following paragraphs we will take up DeCock’s claims and trace the rise of exclusive canonical psalmody in the Dutch Reformed churches.

There can be no doubt that from the earliest days of the Reformation in the Netherlands, that the Psalms of David had a central place within the life of the church and its worship. By the spring of 1566 Petrus Datheen had overseen a project to translate the Geneva Psalter into Dutch. The intended design and role of the Psalter in the life of the Dutch church is signaled in the dedicatory letter which read, “to all congregations and servants of Jesus Christ, who sigh and weep under the tyranny of the Antichrist." Commitment to a central tenant of historic Protestant eschatology is given expression in the dedication as the people of God are viewed from the perspective of suffering under the diabolical and heavy hand of the Romish papacy, which all the 16^th century Protestant Reformers regarded as the Antichrist. One intentional design of the translated psalter was to bring solace from the inspired word of God to the Reformed saints who struggled under the Antichrist’s unholy oppression. Just how well the translated psalter did in accomplishing its intended purpose for this generation of persecuted saints can be evaluated by the comments of one historian who argued from the historical record that the word “all” in the dedication “proved to be prophetic, for the Psalter took the nation by storm. Soon all the congregations were singing Dathenus' psalms” (Kobald, 1997). Evidence for the psalter sweeping like a storm over the whole Dutch church is indicated by the fact that in 1568 at the Convent of Wezel, the synod adopted Datheen’s Psalter as the official song book of the church. Subsequent synodical decisions suggest that the principle of exclusive canonical psalmody was also adopted as the official position of the Dutch churches as the following evidence indicates:

The Psalms of David in the edition of Petrus Dathenus, shall be in the Christian meetings of the Netherlands Churches (as has been done until now) shall be sung, abandoning the hymns which are not found in Holy Scripture. (The National Synod of Dort 1578, art. 76)

Only the Psalms of David shall be sung in the church, omitting the hymns which one cannot find in Holy Scripture. (The National Synod of Middelburg, 1581, art. 51)

The Psalms of David shall be sung in the churches, omitting the hymns which one does not find in Holy Scripture (The National Synod of Gravenhage, 1586, art. 62)

Two immediate conclusions seem to be warranted from the testimony of these synodical decisions: one, the Dutch synods maintained that only the “Psalms of David” were authorized for use in public worship, and two, all hymns were to be omitted from use in public worship. The fact that alongside this series of decisions affirming the exclusive use of the psalms, corresponding declarations had to be made directing the churches to eliminate hymns in worship, suggests that in some places in the Dutch church, uninspired hymns were struggling to find a footing. Evidence of a struggle however does not indicate a lack of clarity about the principle staked out in these synodical rulings since the decisions are emphatic and unambiguous both in what they affirm and reject. A responsible conclusion drawn from the evidence listed above is that the Dutch Reformed churches of the 16^th century found Biblical warrant to sing the Psalms exclusively in worship and that they were convinced that Scripture warranted use of only these songs and no others.

By 1619 it might appear that a slight change in principle about worship song began to emerge. In session 162 of the National Synod of Dordt the following statement about song in public worship was fashioned:

In the Church only the 150 Psalms of David shall be sung. The 10 Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Articles of Faith, the Songs of Mary, Zechariah, and Simeon, the hymn 'O God who is our Father,' and so on, shall be left in the freedom of the Churches, whether they want to use them or not, as they see fit. The rest of the songs shall be taken out of the church, and similarly any which have previously been imported into the church shall be omitted in the most decent way possible.

At first glance it seems that this official synodical statement represents a softening in the principle that all other songs except the Psalms of David and a select few inspired canonical psalms are not to be used in public worship. Some have proposed that the actual intention of the statement is to support and affirm exclusive psalmody though it admittedly makes a few concessions concerning uninspired songs which appear to have found a place in at least some of the churches. With the rise of Arminianism, use of some uninspired songs had crept into the churches of the northern and eastern Dutch provinces and found popular support for use on Lord’s Day’s when the Lord’s Supper was served; so, on account of entrenched use of and support for these few songs on certain Lord’s Days, in some places in the church, a sort of political settlement was reached and is reflected in the statement made in session in 162 (Polman, 1998).  Further support for such an interpretation is not only found in the series of unambiguous synodical decisions between 1578 and 1586 but is also found in the observation of 17^th century Dutch theologian Wilhelmus a’Brakel who commented on this decision in his The Christians Reasonable Service that, “The decision of the Dutch Synods has been very correct indeed, namely, that none other but the Psalms of David are to be used in the churches” (1700, vol.4, 34-35). Though it could be argued that a’Brakel is looking exclusively to synodical statements from the 16^th century, and not the statement of synod 1618-19, it could just as reasonably be argued that a’Brakel is interpreting the statement made in session 162 through the lens of prior synodical decisions and is operating on the assumption that those statements provide the proper framework for interpreting the more finessed and politically nuanced statement made by the great National Synod in 1619. Furthermore, what is clear from a survey of the Dutch psalters used from 1619 to the late 1700’s is that the Psalms of David comprised the manual of praise in the Dutch Reformed churches; however, by the latter part of the 18^th century breezy winds of change began to start sweeping through the church and the decline in commitment to the principle and practice of exclusive psalmody began to emerge, flushing the Psalms out of the church and replacing them with the songs of men.

Our next post will chart the decline of exclusive canonical psalmody in the Dutch Reformed churches.

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.

 

Brakel, Wilhelmus A, The Christian's Reasonable Service, trans. Bartel Elshout, 4 vols. (Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992), 4:34-35.  

DeCock, Hendrik, According to the Command of the Lord: Rev. H. DeCock’s Case against Hymns, trans. J.A. Wanliss and W.L. Brendenhof (Surrey, BC: By the Editors, 1998.)

Kobald, Norma. The Psalms, the Organ, and Sweelink. Reformed Music Journal 9 (1997).

Polman, Bert. The Hymn Question in the Christian Reformed Church. Origins 16 (1998).

 

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.

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

It is a claim beyond dispute that the Reformed church in Geneva during the 16^th century sang only inspired canonical psalms. Support abounds for this assertion, but perhaps the easiest way to substantiate it is the contents of the 1562 Geneva Psalter. The 1562 Psalter was the finished form of the song book Calvin had been working to produce for at least 20 years. Previous editions contained various lyrical content, but by far and away these editions contained the Psalms to the virtual exclusion of anything else. By 1562 Pidoux is able to confirm that the final edition, which was printed and translated and distributed across Europe, contained only the 150 Psalms and the “Nunc Dimittis” and the Decalogue. In fact, so obvious is it that Calvin supported only the use of inspired psalmody in the worship of the church, evidenced in his signature work, the Geneva Psalter, that Benson (1909) can speak of a “peculiar” kind of worship song that was used in Geneva which called “The Calvinistic Psalm,” which he describes as “simply the Word of God, translated and versified in hymn-form, so as to be sung by the people.” With heavy weight scholars such as Pidoux and Benson lined up in support of the claim that in 16^th century Geneva, the church, under oversight of Calvin, sang only inspired psalms, no further argumentation will be offered in defense of the position. Surely, if someone can offer credible support from credible scholars to refute the claim presented here then the position being promoted would have to be reassessed and altered. Since such evidence and scholarship is most certainly lacking, then the basic soundness and correctness of the claim can be now taken for granted and another line of thought can be pursued, namely, the rise and then the decline of inspired psalmody in the Reformed church of Geneva.

The rise of inspired canonical psalmody in Geneva is very well documented by the scholarly research of Dr. Charles Garside. In the summer of 1979 Dr. Garside presented a study entitled “The Origins of Calvin’s Theology of Music: 1536-1543” to “The American Philosophical Society,” the oldest scholarly journal in America, which reaches back to 1769. This work is the gold standard, along with that of Dr. Hughes Oliphant Old, in establishing with the greatest scholarly credibility, the historical record of Calvin’s commitment to exclusive canonical psalmody. In the subsequent paragraphs we will follow Dr. Garside’s account of the rise of canonical psalmody in Geneva and then we will turn to the impeccable work of liturgist Luis Benson on the decline of exclusive canonical psalmody in the Genevan church.

With respect to the rise of canonical psalmody in Geneva, it is to be attributed exclusively to Calvin’s conviction and tireless effort. The story of the rise of canonical psalmody under the leadership of John Calvin begins with the Articles of 1537. These Articles contained four proposals which formed the backbone of Calvin’s attempt to bring order to Geneva: church discipline, psalm-singing in public worship, catechizing the youth, and reform of marriage statutes. For our purposes it is evident that the second proposal, psalm-signing in public worship, is of central significance.  Expanding upon this second article, Garside quotes from Calvin where he gives expression to the rationale of this ordinance: Furthermore it is a thing most expedient for the edification of the church to sing psalms in the form of public prayers by which one prays to God or sings His praises so that the hearts of all may be aroused and stimulated to make similar prayers and to render similar praises and thanks to God with a common love. What is of such great importance about Calvin’s accounting for the essential role of psalmody in worship is that it marks a departure from Calvin’s previous views and the prior practice of the Church of Geneva.

When Calvin arrived in Geneva in the autumn of 1536, he complained that the prayers of the Genevan’s were “cold.” Garside explains that Calvin is probably reacting to the fact that when he arrived in Geneva there was no music in worship at all since Farel had abolished it from the liturgy (p.14). Though Calvin took note of this defect, he himself was not at this time in substantial disagreement with the position of Farel as Garside notes, the 1536 edition of the Institutes indicates that Calvin was yet under the sway of Zwingli who from1525 removed the “barborous mumbling” (worship song) from the churches in Zurich (p.11). However, by January of 1537, Calvin’s views about song in worship had sharply changed and he found himself proposing psalm singing in the worship of God. What accounts for this change in thought? Garside suggests two factors: cold prayers and Bucer. With respect to the former, it is evident that Calvin, having experienced the dreadful and spiritually numbing effect of the Zwinglian prohibition against worship song, began to reconsider his position and found support for a new way forward in the writings of Bucer. As early as 1524 Bucer defended song in worship in his Justification and Demonstration from Holy Scripture. This work not only proposes suggestions for where song is to be appropriately used in the course of the liturgy, it also defends congregational singing in the final chapter.  Though it is fair to wonder if Calvin had read much of Bucer and his rationale for worship song, Garside’s judgment is likely correct that while the 1536 Institutes show an inclination towards  Zwingli’s view of prayer (song), the Articles of 1537 betray the hand of Bucer.

Although Calvin experienced a renaissance in his thinking about worship song, the church in Geneva would not experience something similar in its practice, at least not during Calvin’s first stay in Geneva. By early 1538, not only would Calvin not yet be enjoying the proposed change in worship, he also found himself in the position of being banished from Geneva by the city council. On account of his refusal to endorse the arrangement which would cement political ties between Geneva and the Swiss city of Bern by implementing liturgical reform that would make these two cities uniform in their worship, Calvin and Farel were given their "pink slips" and were bounced out of Geneva (p.14). Upon their dismissal from Geneva, both Calvin and Farel went straight to Bern in order to give an account of the fallout in Geneva. From there, they went on to a local synod meeting at Zurich in early May of 1538 where something of a tectonic shift occurred. There, Calvin and Farel presented 14 articles for consideration to the synod, and among those, article 13, was a requirement to sing psalms in public worship. The synod unanimously approved these articles, including article 13, and just a couple of months later the city of Bern changed course from a Zwinglian policy of no congregational singing to one of exclusive psalmody in June of 1538. Ironically the unintended consequences of the Bernese political arrangement with Geneva left Calvin without a pastoral call, while at the same time, it triggered a massive change in policy among the Swiss churches signaling a decisive shift away from the policies of Zwingli toward the new views of Calvin (Bucer!) on worship song.

For a space of about 3 years, from 1538-1541, Calvin labored quite happily in Strasbourg as a he pastored a congregation of French speaking refugees. It would be during this stay in Strasbourg and working in close consultation with Bucer that Calvin would refine his views on psalmody and forge a connection between his theory of regulated worship and its practice. Shortly after arriving in the city, Calvin oversaw the production of a song book for worship in 1539 which was modeled on the Strasbourg Psalter. Another indication of growth and movement in Calvin’s thought on worship is found in the 1539 edition of the Institutes published during his stay in Strasbourg. By making a simple comparison between the 1536 edition of the Institutes and the 1539, Garside was able to show an important development in Calvin’s thought. For instance, in the 1536 edition Calvin expressed the opinion that he did not “condemn speaking and singing provided they were associated with the hearts affection and serve it” (hardly a ringing endorsement of congregational singing) while in the 1539 edition he inserted between “singing” and “provided” the following phrase:  but rather strongly commend them (13). Another revision occurs where Calvin deleted the phrase “serve it,” as was expressed in 1536, removing the notion that song had a mere servile role in worship. Garside suggests that these slight modifications in the 1539 Institutes, written as they were in Latin, which means they were available to a wide reading audience, form a permanent record of Calvin’s views on worship song and set in motion the emergence of the liturgical principles of Strasbourg as the standard for the next few hundred years of Reformed worship which would eventually erode and give way under the weight of popular revivalism.  With these developments in place, Calvin was prepared to return to Geneva and re-launch his quest for the Reformation in that most difficult of cities.

As time passed, the Genevans realized they needed Calvin, though Calvin was not exactly sure he wanted them. But, under council from others, Calvin returned to Geneva in 1541, on one condition however, that the city council accepts his proposals which were outlined in the 1541 Ecclesiastical Ordinances. On September 13, 1541, he reentered Geneva, met with the town council, and picked up his bid for reform where he had left off a few years before as he submitted his Ordinances. These Ordinances were substantially the same as the Articles of 1537 except for some changes to the proposals on worship song. Tucked away in the middle of a paragraph on marriage are the following two sentences: It will be good to introduce ecclesiastical songs, the better to incite the people to prayer to and praise God. For a beginning the little children are to be taught; then with time the church will be able to follow (16). Though these sentences are similar in content with the Articles they say little about the nature of worship song and they seem to shift the subject from worship to children’s education. The very wording of the Ordinances suggests that a future communication would be needed to clarify the content and role of music in the public worship of the Genevan churches and that clarification and expansion is found in the 1542 Epistle to the Reader for his order of worship for Geneva.

With the publication of the 1542 Epistle to the Reader, Calvin’s views on worship song have come to a firm and solid resting point. The title of this new work setting forth the liturgical order for Genevan worship is itself instructive, The Form of Prayers and Ecclesiastical Songs, with the manner of administering the sacraments and consecrating marriage according to the custom of the ancient Church. Here Calvin not only proposes the use of songs in worship he also classifies it is a form of prayer, describes its role, and gives us some sense of what its nature. With respect to the role of worship song Calvin says they are to “arouse and inflame the hearts of men to invoke and praise God with a more vehement and ardent zeal” while concerning the nature of song he explains “there must always be concern that the song be neither light nor frivolous, but have gravity (pois) and majesty (maieste), as Saint Augustine says” (p.18).” The 1542 Epistle represents the high water mark of Calvin’s views on worship song which never underwent subsequent change or alteration. From this point forward, Calvin worked tirelessly to produce a complete song book for worship containing the Psalms of Scripture which not only were able to “arouse and inflame” the hearts of men to praise but also met that high standards of quality proposed by Augustine.

Over the next 20 years several versions of the Geneva Psalter would be published as the body of poetry and melodies grew until 1562 when it reached its final form. At no time subsequent to 1542 did Calvin change his views on worship song. Many have thought that Calvin produced psalters which contained hymns and songs not taken from the word of God. Such suppositions are entirely false and baseless, and do not account for how Calvin could so openly contradict his own published views on the subject, yet retain his credibility as an advocate of exclusive canonical psalmody. The fact is, Calvin did not change his views nor his practice between 1542 and 1562 and the great proof of that is the final form of the 1562 Psalter. With this evidence in view, we can see that the canonical psalms had not only the principal place in praise, but the sole place in the praise of the Genevan church of the 16^th century.

In our next post we will examine the decline of psalmody in the Genevan church.

In every subsequent post I will always include Calvin’s comments on the centrality and primacy of worship to the cause of Reformation which is found in his great treatise On the Necessity of Reforming the Church:

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.

The Rise and Decline of Exclusive Canonical Psalmody in the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches: A Brief Introduction

Early on in my seminary days as I was researching the Reformed regulative principle of worship and its classical application, I came across an article which grabbed hold of my attention: We Used to Sing Only Psalms; What Happened? It took only a moments worth of reading to determine who the “We” in the title referred to as the summary of the article listed the churches in view which included the RPCNA, CRC, RCA, PCUSA, and OPC and PCA. In other words, this article made the categorical claim 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.

Such a claim, if  true, would certainly be a relevant consideration for one researching the historical Reformed and Presbyterian application of the regulative principle of worship because if the practice of exclusive psalmody could be traced to the beginnings of the Reformed church in the 16^th century and to the writings of the Reformers themselves, then it could be objectively established that the Reformed church historically modeled in its practice what regulated worship consisted of. The unbiased reader, only after fairly and charitably evaluating the evidence, would have to concede the truth of the claim if it is adequately supported.

Making  such a concession is easier said than done since most people who are Reformed or Presbyterian will already know in advance that the claim is surely wrong. They will know that because their church is Reformed or Presbyterian, and at their church they sing hymns and so-called “spiritual songs” with guitars, drums, pianos, and organs; therefore, the article cited above must be wrong in what it claims about the historic practice of the Reformed churches. Furthermore, if the average Reformed or Presbyterian worshiper was unsettled by learning this truth for the first time and proceeded to ask anyone in the church who is “in the know” about such matters, they would be informed by such experts that it certainly is not the case that the Reformed and Presbyterians sang only psalms, and, even if they did (which they are certain they did not), they did not make this their practice because they thought the regulative principle required it; instead, the Reformed and Presbyterians maintained such a practice out of pragmatic concerns. Beyond that such experts will then provide thin support for this claim by sharing the anecdotal evidence that they once heard Calvin wrote a hymn “I Greet Thee My Fair Redeemer Art” (something for which there is not one shred of historical evidence). 

The purpose of this series of posts is to expose this kind of ill-informed expert testimony almost universally provided in confessional Reformed and Presbyterian churches to those who inquire as to whether their church is conforming to the regulative principle as maintained and practiced by the Reformers. It is without question that if the historic practice of the Reformed church provides the model for the proper application of the confessional regulative principle of worship then it can be easily shown that the prevailing contemporary practice of most Reformed and Presbyterian churches is out of step with this confessional standard. This series of posts about the rise and decline of canonical psalmody aims to address this failure of conformity to the regulative principle of worship by setting the historical record straight through presenting evidence to substantiate the claim implied in the title of the article referenced above.

As Rome was not built in one day, so the evidence for the historical worship practices of the Reformed and Presbyterian churches cannot be reasonably presented in one post. So, in the introduction to this new series, we will seek to whet the appetite of the reader in order to encourage them to keep checking in to follow the evidence presented in subsequent posts. In what follows, we will set forth some documentation from reliable scholars which will provide evidence to substantiate the claim made in the introduction that the Reformed and Presbyterian churches of the 16^th and 17^th century sang only psalms. Evidence presented will show that the churches in Switzerland, Germany, France, Holland, England, and Scotland all sang the psalms exclusively. Having set forth that foundation, a series of posts will follow which will document the rise and decline of the psalms in these very same Reformed and Presbyterian churches. It will not be hard to establish that just as the rise of psalmody was on account of study of God’s word and an aim to apply the regulative of principle to the forms of worship, so the decline of psalmody and the rise of man made hymns was on account of replacing the authority of God’s word with subjective human standards.

So, in kicking off our introduction let’s take a moment to provide some evidence to support our claim that the Reformed and Presbyterian churches of the 16^th and 17^th century used only the psalms in worship. Remember, in reading over the evidence supplied here, challenge yourself to ask, who is more credible in establishing the historic practice of the Reformed church, the people who are “in the know” in your church or reputable scholars who are simply stating the facts as they understand them based upon careful research? By the way, asking that question is not all that radical, since most people make decisions about significant matters by weighing the evidence presented in credible and reliable sources. With that in view, consider the following:

      One: Every “expert” consulted in the article referenced above, except for Robert Copeland from the RPCNA, is committed to singing hymns and spiritual songs in worship. In other words, the experts who were consulted about the actual historical practice of the Reformed and Presbyterian churches (John Frame, Harry Boonstra, Norman Copeland, Hugh McKeller, and Arlo Duba) concede that how their churches now worship is not in accord with the historic practice of the Reformed church. This means that the so-called experts you consult in your church who tell you our claim is wrong stand in disagreement with these reputable scholars who have abandoned the Reformed regulative principle and yet, are honest enough to admit it.

      Two: Pierre Pidoux, a scholar of no mean credentials, in an article entitled, “The Fourth Centenary of the French Metrical Psalter” proposes the following question: it will be asked why, apart from the “Nunc Dimittis” and the Decalogue, the 1562 edition (the final form of the Geneva Psalter) contains only the psalms. It takes little thought to see that Pidoux is asserting that the 1562 version of the Geneva Psalter contains only inspired canonical psalms. So confident is he of this fact that he states it in categorical terms. If he is so sure of this fact, why is it that the anecdotal claim that Calvin once wrote and hymn and inserted it in the Geneva Psalter is given any credibility? Whoever offers that claim to you in order to argue for the practice of using hymns and songs in worship as consistent with Calvin and his practice is surely wrong unless they can prove that their opinion and evidence is weightier than that of Pidoux. 

      Three: The 1993 PCA sub-committee report on “Psalm-singing” presents the following question: how can it be that the Psalms, which God gave to His people specifically to be sung, particularly in public worship, and which for centuries were sung among all the major Protestant groups (exclusively so among Presbyterian, Reformed, Baptist, and Congregational, denominations) are universally neglected? Ouch, that is a zinger there, isn’t it? First, this is an official PCA sub-committee making this statement, not some “radical” Presbyterian theologian or even crazy group of Presbyterian zealots.  No one would claim that the PCA committee is doctoring the evidence to fit their bias and current practice, and expect at the same time to be thought of as credible.  Second, the question contains the statement that Presbyterian and Reformed churches exclusively sang the psalms and that they did so for centuries. Third, they lament that the practice of singing psalms is neglected today. When a PCA committee is willing to concede that the historic practice of the Reformed and Presbyterian church is exclusive psalmody and the contemporary practice is not, that is a wake-up call for all Reformed and Presbyterian churches and church members to sit up and examine whether their worship is Reformed.

      Four: Louis F. Benson, perhaps one of the greatest liturgical scholars of the late 19^th and early 20^th century, in the Stone Lectures delivered at Princeton in 1907, makes the following claim about what he calls a “peculiar” type of Protestant church song:

As over against this Hymnody, the distinction of the Calvinistic Psalmody lay not in its form but in its authorship and subject-matter. The Hymn was a religious lyric freely composed within the limits of liturgical propriety by anyone who had the gift. The Calvinistic Psalm, on the other hand, was simply the Word of God, translated and versified in hymn-form, so as to be sung by the people. To mark this distinction of the Calvinistic type Church-Song, it is designated as Metrical Psalmody. When the purpose is merely to distinguish the two types of congregational song within the bounds of Protestantism, it will be sufficient to designate the singing of metrical Psalms in the Reformed Churches as Psalmody, as over against the freer Hymnody of Lutheran and other bodies (1909: 3).

To summarize Benson’s point we could say that his claim is that the peculiar and distinct form of worship song used by the Reformed and Presbyterians was Psalmody while hymns of human composition were the form of song used by other Protestants (Lutherans!). Someone might respond to Benson’s claim by saying, “but the peculiar music of the Reformed and Presbyterian was not rooted in subservience to principle, rather, it was developed out of mere preference.” Such a claim is surely wrong, at least according to Benson who says:

In this, Church usage and Lutheran precedent alike were disregarded. The Scriptures were searched to find Apostolic authority on which to rest the ordinances of praise, and conformity to Scripture became the determining motive. To this supreme test the subject-matter of the songs themselves had to be submitted (1909: 4).

Clearly, Benson thinks that the reason why there is such a species of worship song which is “peculiarly Calvinistic” is because the Reformed bound themselves to Apostolic authority and warrant for establishing the content of worship-song. In other words, Benson says that the Reformed church maintained that the regulative principle of worship  applied to the content of worship song, and that not in a merely general way. This ought to pique the interest of any honestly inquiring Reformed and Presbyterian mind. You have been told that what your church does in worship is Reformed, that it conforms to the Reformed understanding of the regulative principle, that it is consistent with historical practice, and that it has Biblical warrant; yet, Benson, who is far more credible than anyone who you have heard this kind of thing from, insists that the historic Reformed practice claimed that the content of worship song was regulated by Scripture and that only inspired canonical psalms had Biblical warrant according to the Reformed. Someone is right and someone is wrong here, both about the historic practice and the Biblical warrant; and ,if you are a fair-minded reader, you must ask if Benson is more or less credible on this matter than the so-called “expert” who has proposed an alternate point of view to you.

      Five: 17^th century pastor-theologian Wilhelmus a Brakel in volume 4 of his A Christian’s Reasonable Service testifies to what kind of songs were sung in the Dutch Reformed Church of his day: the decision of the Dutch Synods has been very correct indeed, namely, that none other but the Psalms of David are to be used in the churches (p.35). So much for the arguments made by the CRC in the 20th century when they claimed that the Synod did not have a principled objection to the use of man-made compositions. Obviously, a Brakel does not share that take.

      Six: A group of families seceded from the Dutch Reformed Church in America in 1857 and formed what is now called the Christian Reformed Church partly because the RCA used man-made hymns in worship as crcna.org testifies: the seceders insisted on psalm-singing only http://www.crcna.org/pages/history_of_crc.cfm.

      Seven: James I. Good, a 19^th century German Reformed church historian says that the German Reformed Church sang only the Psalms on account of the influence of Petrus Dathenus, court preacher of Frederick III in the Palatinate. Good says with respect to the use of Psalms in the German Reformed church that “through his influence” that is the Dutch pastor Dathenus “its use was sanctioned, and the singing of psalms became customary in the Reformed Church of Germany (History of the Reformed Church in Germany 1620-1890, pg. 287). He also is able to establish precisely when the German Reformed Church officially changed its practice. Good explains that it was at the “General Synod of Julich, Cleve, Berg, and Mark, after using Psalms for a century and a half, ordered in 1731 a new hymn book, which should have hymns as well as songs” (p. 356). Clearly, Good’s testimony, if it is accurate, establishes the fact that the German Reformed Church sung psalms exclusively. Furthermore, the fact that a synodical decision by the German Reformed Church was required to bring about an official change in practice speaks against the notion that psalms were sung out of mere preference for pragmatic considerations only. As we will see in a subsequent article, the German Reformed Church changed its practice only after altering its regulative principle of worship. All this means, that if you are in a German Reformed Church at the present time and one of your denominational “experts” tells you that it was not the practice of the German Reformed Church to sing psalms only out of submission to the regulative principle of worship, you need to ask them if their credentials as ecclesiastical historians can match up with Good’s and then demand evidence to establish their claim. By the way, the scholarly testimony of Dr. Paul Westermeyer can be added to that of Good’s whose Ph.D dissertation is in the history of music in the German Reformed Church in America . Westermeyer in an article entitled, “German Hymnody in the United States” testifies that not only did Calvin restrict church music to the metrical singing of the psalms, he also says, “it was Calvin’s example which the German Reformed followed” (1980: 89). In the mouth of two very reliable witnesses it is established that the German Reformed sang only the psalms and out of conviction at that!

      Eight: Anyone remotely familiar with the history of the French Reformed Church is aware of the valiant profession of faith made by the Hugenot’s who were ruthlessly oppressed and slaughtered by the French crown. In a series of posts we have discussed W. Standford Reid’s claims about the central role of the psalter in shaping the piety and martial ethos of the psalms upon the French Reformed. The question remains however, did they sing canonical psalms exclusively? Here again the expertise of Benson is extremely helpful. He explains that psalm-singing patterned on the model of Geneva was already the universal practice in the French speaking evangelical churches by 1553. Beyond that, he cites from chapter 10 of the constitution of the French Reformed Church (1559) about worship song:

Singing of God’s praises being a divine Ordinance, and to be performed in the Congregations of the Faithful, and for that by use of Psalms their hearts be comforted and strengthened; every one shall be advertized to bring with them their Psalm-Books unto those assemblies, and such as through contempt of the this holy Ordinance do forbear the having of them, shall be censured, as also those, who in time of singing, both before and after sermon, are not uncovered, as also when the Holy Sacraments are Celebrated.

           

Clearly, Benson is able to provide documentation which demonstrates that exclusive psalmody was constitutionally mandated. Perhaps one more quote from Benson will help us appreciate just how constitutive the psalms were for the French Reformed. Commenting on the centrality of the psalter in the life of the French church Benson says, “to know the Psalms became a primary duty; and the singing of Psalms became for the Reformed cultus, the characteristic note distinguishing its worship from that of the Roman Catholic Church (pg. 72). It is indisputable then, that the French practice did not differ from that of the Swiss, the German, or the Dutch; the churches on the continent then were uniform in their practice from the 16^th century well on into the 18^th.

      Nine: That the psalms found a home in the Presbyterian churches of the British Isles is beyond dispute. For instance, when the Reformation took root in Scotland under the oversight of Knox he not only brought the theology he had learned from Geneva with him, he also brought the Psalter as well. The Scottish Psalter of 1564 had all 150 Psalms and was used steadily until its replacement by the Scottish Psalter of 1650. Among the English Puritans psalmody was well established also. Multiple printings of the Sternhold and Hopkins Psalter were made from 1560 on and used for nearly 100 years. It is also to be noted that the Westminster Confession explicitly authorizes and sanctions exclusive psalmody in chapter 21 on “Religious Worship.” Smith notes that chapter 21 was passed in session 732, October 29, 1646 with very little debate (pg. 6). He explains that the reason very little debate was needed is because the assembly had approved the Rouse Psalter for public worship just a year earlier in session 535, November 15, 1645. Such a legislative act meant that exclusive psalmody was the settled law of the land, therefore it is unquestionable that chapter 21 on religious worship can authorize nothing but exclusive psalmody.

So, there we have just a smattering of the evidence which substantiates the claim that the Reformed and Presbyterian churches of the 16^th and 17^th centuries used the psalms exclusively. Certainly more can and needs to be said to support the claim made in the introduction, but the trajectory is clear enough: Reformed and Presbyterians sang the psalms exclusively. Anyone who denies that must offer facts which refute the simple statement of the evidence presented above. If you are encountering this evidence for the first time you might be reeling a bit. After all, being Reformed is about being Biblical; yet, if your Reformed or Presbyterian church practices a form of worship so completely different than the historic Reformed church (which claimed to be Biblical in its worship), it cannot help but lead you to question if you are being Biblical in your worship. While you mull that question over, you might also be wondering whether it matters all that much after all. Surely one can be solidly Reformed in "the most important areas" without slavishly following the historic Reformed practice of worship right? Well, let me leave you with Calvin’s thoughts on the centrality of worship for the Reformation, and hopefully as you ruminate upon his comments, you will challenge yourself to come back and read the rest of the posts in this new series.

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.