# Historical Church singing and EP



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 28, 2005)

I have always understood that the early church used song and scripture together. Not just the Psalms exclusively. 




> Several of Paul's epistles contain fragments of hymns from the first generation of Christians (Philippians 2:6-11; I Timothy 3:16; Ephesians 5:14; Colossians 1:15-20); all are Christ-centered and brief, powerful proclamations of the early church's faith



Here is an article from Christian History Institute. I am still having problems believing the early Church was singing Psalms exclusively. I understand the practice took over, but was it that away from the beginning?

Sing and make Melody to God / Christian History Institute

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 28, 2005)

EP will not be proven from historical practice. It must be exegetically proven. Even if EP was the norm in the early church, it quickly dissipated until the English/Scottish Reformation.


----------



## Peter (Jul 28, 2005)

Dissipated until the calvinistic reformation. The French Huguenots and other continental reformed have the honor of being EP before Scotland.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 28, 2005)

For a historical survey of EP, I recommend reading _The Songs of Zion_ by Michael Bushell (a friend of mine), _The Psalms in Worship_ ed. by John McNaughter or _The Psalms in Christian Worship_ by Rowland Ward.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 28, 2005)

That still doesn't address the common knowledge that the church sang NT scripture and others outside of the Psalms.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> That still doesn't address the common knowledge that the church sang NT scripture and others outside of the Psalms.



I don't believe it is common knowledge at all. The premise must be proved. It is my conviction, respectfully, based upon historical study, from the references already cited, and others (pro EP and con), that the theory that the early church sang hymn fragments apart from the Psalter is bogus.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 28, 2005)

Then why would this publication print this? I have also heard this in years past. Is Christian History Institute Publishing bogus stuff? Yes or No.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Then why would this publication print this? I have also heard this in years past. Is Christian History Institute Publishing bogus stuff? Yes or No.



I have found the Christian History Institute publications to contain many historical errors and interpretations of historical events that are less than Biblical. I take care to use discernment when I cite from them.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Then why would this publication print this? I have also heard this in years past. Is Christian History Institute Publishing bogus stuff? Yes or No.


I don't know; can you give a reference of theirs or documentation for the claim? That would help the discussion rather than having "is to" and "is not" ad infinitum.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 28, 2005)

*The True Psalmody*

Before _Songs of Zion,_ one of the standard works if not the standard work on exclusive psalmody was _The True Psalmody,_ first published in 1859 by a consortium of UP and RP men (yea, its dated, which is why Bushell's work was needed--but it is still surprisingly fresh and current except perhaps for the hymnic fragment argument which it predates). For those interested it is posted in PDF format at the link below. So while dated perhaps, it is at least free!
http://www.naphtali.com/pdf_files.htm
(page down to the last item)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 28, 2005)

I just e-mailed them for reference to back up there claim. I have heard that claimed in other places also. I am going to research it myself. I have found reference material also. I have also read other stuff claiming it bogus. I agree that we need to know. But just to claim it is bogus or the other is not going to get us anywhere. 

An original RMS "Opinions are like armpits. Everybody has a couple of them and if not attended to they will ultimately stink. And most of them do."


----------



## cupotea (Jul 28, 2005)

Doesn't Paul quote a hymn in one of his letters? I know he doesn't say "Here's a hymn", but isn't that widely believed? Give me a couple hours and I'll find the verse, haha.
----
Erm, it might be Rom 11:34-35. My Geneva says it's "lyrical fashion". Obviously Romans isn't a worship service, but it implies that they'd be singing hymns, at least.

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by Cottonball]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 28, 2005)

I think this is what you are talking about Cottonball.



> Heumann, and after him Storr, Michaelis, and Jennings (Jewish Ant. 2:252), suppose that the reference is to a song or hymn that was sung by the early Christians, beginning in this manner, arid that the meaning is, "œWherefore, as it is said in the hymns which we sing,
> 
> 
> 'Awake, thou that sleepest;
> ...


Ephesians 5:14
The New Geneva even mentions it may have been a Hymn.
I think this is what you are talking about Cottonball.

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## cupotea (Jul 28, 2005)

Yup, that's probably it. Thanks, Randy!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 29, 2005)

Vincent Word Studies
1 Tim 3:16


> But the correct reading is Î¿Ì”Ì€Ï‚ who. The antecedent of this relative is not mystery, as if Christ were styled "œthe mystery," but the relative refers to Christ as an antecedent; and the abruptness of its introduction may be explained by the fact that it and the words which follow were probably taken from an ancient credal hymn. In the earlier Christian ages it was not unusual to employ verse or rhythm for theological teaching or statement. The heretics propounded their peculiar doctrines in psalms. Clement of Alexandria wrote a hymn in honor of Christ for the use of catechumens, and Arius embodied his heresy in his Thalia, which was sung in the streets and taverns of Alexandria. The Muratorian Canon was probably composed in verse. In the last quarter of the fourth century, there are two metrical lists of Scripture by Amphilochius and Gregory Nazianzen.



Matt, 
Apparently Arius did make a hymn of heresy. By the way I disagree with Vincent's assumption on Theos. So do many other scholars. It is not an historical problem as much as a manuscript assumption. The fragments of Hymns do say Theos. The Alexandrian text doesn't which is where Arius's heresy was sung.

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I think this is what you are talking about Cottonball.
> 
> 
> ...



From a chapter entitled _The Psalms in the New Testament Church_ by Prof. W.G. Moorehead in _The Psalms in Worship_ ed. by John McNaughter (originally published 1907, republished by SWRB in 1992), pp. 113-114:



> Are there traces of hymns in the Epistles? It is affirmed with much positiveness that there are fragments of hymns found in the Epistles, and that these must have been in use in the Apostolic Church. Prof. Fisher cites these passages in proof: Eph. v.14; I Tim. iii.16; I Pet. iii.10-12. The claim demands careful examination. If it is valid, the position of the Psalm-singers is overthrown.
> 
> ...
> 
> Eph. v.14 reads: "Wherefore he saith, Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." Who or what is here quoted? The verb "saith" has no subject expressed. King James and both Revised Versions have "he" as the subject of "saith." In this case it is God that saith "Awake." If we insert "it" as the subject of "saith," then the reference is to Scripture -- "Scripture saith." In either case the result is the same; it is an inspired word the Apostle quotes, no merely human utterance. By no possibility of exegetical dexterity can this verse of Ephesians be made to serve as evidence that "fragments of Christian hymns" are found in the New Testament Epistles. Moreover, Dr. Charles Hodge very strongly holds that "as this formula of quotation is never used in the New Testament except when citations are made from the Old Testament, it cannot properly be assumed that the Apostle here quotes some Christian hymn with which the believers in Ephesus were familiar." With Dr. Hodge agree Alford, Ellicott, Eadie, Graham, Moule, Brown, Blaikie, Barnes and Meyer. Every one of these able students of the Scripture affirm that Paul quotes from the Word of God, not at all from a merely human composition. They differ somewhat as to what place he cites, but that this is a Bible quotation they are unanimous. Thus it appears beyond peradventure that two of the texts appealed to by Prof. Fisher and others with him do not denote "Christian hymns"; they pertain to the inspired Scripture....



[Edited on 7-30-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## cupotea (Jul 29, 2005)

Hey, that's interesting!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 29, 2005)

Andrew,



> They differ somewhat as to what place he cites, but that this is a Bible quotation they are unanimous.


They aren't even in agreement on what he is quoting....


These guys are just guessing. I gave you something from antiquities. I could say I just don't believe it either. Does that make a group of likeminded individuals correct? I have read a few things like this and find them lacking........

You accused Christian History Institute of, we'll say, untruthfulness. Even if they believe what they write to be correct as a group that doesn't make it correct. 

I gave a reference. You gave me accusation.]

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Andrew,
> 
> 
> ...



Randy, brother, I guess we'll just have to respectfully disagree on which church history authority is more credible.

In regards to CHI, I have found their historical scholarship to be sloppy at times (such as giving inaccurate dates for historical events) and I've been less than impressed with their spin on certain historical persons and events. I have no axe to grind against them and it's not my intent to make accusations against them. I just prefer more accurate historical and Reformed scholarship and speaking candidly about my own preference.

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------

