# WCF XXI:V



## daveb (Jun 9, 2005)

"The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, *singing of psalms* with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner"

Sorry if this has been discussed before, I did not find it on the board.

I'm wondering what the divines meant by "singing of psalms". Did they mean EP specifically? What is the historical context in which this was written? Were all of those at the assembly practicing EP in their churches?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 9, 2005)

They meant EP.

The divines beleived that the singing of Psalms did not mean "musical instruments, a rock band, and worship team." They meant EP all the way.

Here are some threads:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=9743#pid142643

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=9260#pid137306


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 9, 2005)

This is also clear because the same Assembly that produced the Confession also produced the Directory for Publick Worship which provides for the singing of psalms only as well as a metrical Psalter, not a hymnal.


----------



## daveb (Jun 9, 2005)

Thanks gents, that confirms my conclusions.


----------



## Myshkin (Jun 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by daveb_
> Were all of those at the assembly practicing EP in their churches?



Were there any at the assembly who dissented on this issue? If so, what was their position?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 9, 2005)

Personally, I have not found that anyone was opposed.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. 

I can't recall a difference of opinion on that.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 9, 2005)

I too am not acquainted with any dissenting voices at the Assembly on this issue, although someone more familiar with the minutes than myself could perhaps clarify this point. 

The 1673 preface to the 1650 Scottish Psalter is another helpful resource which goes to show the consensus that once existed regarding exclusive psalmody in the Reformed churches of England.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 9, 2005)

I have my ideas on this which others with respectable knowledge of the Assembly do not agree with. But for what it is worth, of the three views EP (psalms only), inspired praise (adds content from outside the book of psalms), and uninspired song (adds content that is not scripture), the original Westminster Stds are EP in practice. I believe when they say "œpsalm" they mean the Psalms of David. While individuals may have held differing views on what else might be sung, there does not appear to be any record of any discussion or debate about this. When one of the Divines wrote on psalm singing a few years after the Assembly (Ford I believe), if I recall correctly he writes as though he´d never thought about other content to be sung for worship song before which indicates it simply did not come up at the Assembly as an issue. You do find all three positions expressed by individuals in works leading up to the Assembly, but I'm not of the opinion this fact alone should be used to interpret the Westminster Stds on this point as if by psalm they meant merely "œsong". Others are of this opinion. I am of the opinion the actions of the Assembly argue that all they intended to authorize were the psalms, whether every one of the divines held to EP in theory or not. An organized EP theory developed over time as controversy over expanding worship song errupted, mainly from the 18th century forward. Someone has told me one of the entries in the most recent Westminster Confession into the 21st century volumes supports an opposing view to mine, but I've not seen this so cannot comment on it. Sorry I'm not giving documentation; this is just a quick and sloppy presentation.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 11, 2005)

Another interesting contemporary resource on this subject is David Dickson's _Truth's Victory Over Error_ (1684), the first published commentary on the Westminster Confession. 



> Truth´s Victory Over Error was the first published commenÂ­tary on the Westminster Confession of Faith. It was written by a contemporary of the Westminster Assembly, and a close ministeÂ­rial associate of the Scottish commissioners to the Assembly. David Dickson (1589"‘1662) was the son of a wealthy Glasgow merÂ­chant. He studied at Glasgow College under the great exegete Robert Boyd of Trochrig, and in 1610 was elected regent to inÂ­struct in Greek. He became minister of Irvine, in Ayrshire, in 1618, but in 1622 was suspended by Archbishop Spottiswood because he refused to conform to the Articles of Perth. These were an attempt by the king to impose Episcopalian worship on Scotland. The articles to which Dickson refused to conform provided for kneeling rather than sitting at the Lord´s Supper, private comÂ­munion, baptism not withheld longer than one Sunday and adminisÂ­tered privately where necessary, the participation of bishops in confirmation, and the observance of church holy days such as Christmas and Easter.
> 
> In 1622 Dickson was sent into exile in the North of ScotÂ­land, but within about a year was permitted to return to Irvine, where a notable revival began. Dickson began preaching on the street on market day, and many were brought under conviction of sin. One of the fruits of Dickson´s pastoral labors was "œThe Sum of Saving Knowledge," a presentation of the gospel which he co"‘authored with James Durham, and which is still printed in ScotÂ­tish editions of the Westminster Standards. It was a model used by ministers in catechising their flocks.
> 
> ...



Source: PRC Magazine Summer 1992


----------



## daveb (Jun 11, 2005)

This is good stuff guys. I will check into other commentaries on the confession but I do not expect them to differ. It is good to have such an early account by Dickson.



> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> When one of the Divines wrote on psalm singing a few years after the Assembly (Ford I believe), if I recall correctly he writes as though he´d never thought about other content to be sung for worship song before which indicates it simply did not come up at the Assembly as an issue.



Wow, very interesting.



> I am of the opinion the actions of the Assembly argue that all they intended to authorize were the psalms, whether every one of the divines held to EP in theory or not.



I agree, although I'd like to hear the "other side".



> Someone has told me one of the entries in the most recent Westminster Confession into the 21st century volumes supports an opposing view to mine, but I've not seen this so cannot comment on it.



Can anyone comment on this?


----------

