Rev. Matthew Winzer
reviews
Nick Needham’s essay
on the Westminster Assembly’s teaching
on psalms, hymns and musical instruments
reviews
Nick Needham’s essay
on the Westminster Assembly’s teaching
on psalms, hymns and musical instruments
馬太溫徹牧師
評論
尼克倪翰的論文
《西敏斯特大會對詩篇、詩歌和樂器的教導》
評論
尼克倪翰的論文
《西敏斯特大會對詩篇、詩歌和樂器的教導》
“The Confessional Presbyterian (2008) 253–266. Review: Nick Needham, ‘Westminster and worship: psalms, hymns, and musical instruments,’ In The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century,2, ed. J. Ligon Duncan (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2005). 540 pages. ISBN 978-1-857-92878-5. $37.99. Reviewed by Matthew Winzer, Grace Presbyterian Church (Australian Free Church), Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia. Download PDF.
Synopsis: Matthew Winzer briefly critiques Mr. Needham’s handling of the regulative principle of worship before reviewing at length his handling of the Westminster Assembly’s view of Singing of Psalms.
Sections are:
1) The Historical-contextual Interpretation of “Singing of Psalms” in the Westminster formularies;
2) The Work and Proceedings of the Westminster Assembly;
3) External Evidence: the Milieu of 1640s London;
4) Advocates for Exclusive Psalmody Amongst the Westminster Assembly of Divines;
5) and The Wider Puritan Tradition.
Mr. Winzer then briefly covers Mr. Needham’s handling of the Assembly’s view of musical instruments in worship before concluding the review.
A lengthy footnote handles the “other Scripture Songs” project of the Scottish General Assembly running parallel with what would become the 1650 Scottish Psalter.
Sections are:
1) The Historical-contextual Interpretation of “Singing of Psalms” in the Westminster formularies;
2) The Work and Proceedings of the Westminster Assembly;
3) External Evidence: the Milieu of 1640s London;
4) Advocates for Exclusive Psalmody Amongst the Westminster Assembly of Divines;
5) and The Wider Puritan Tradition.
Mr. Winzer then briefly covers Mr. Needham’s handling of the Assembly’s view of musical instruments in worship before concluding the review.
A lengthy footnote handles the “other Scripture Songs” project of the Scottish General Assembly running parallel with what would become the 1650 Scottish Psalter.
概要:馬太溫徹首先簡要地對尼德姆先生處理「敬拜之規範性原則」的論述提出了簡要的批判,然後對其處理西敏斯特大會對「唱詩篇」的觀點提出了長篇的評論,包括下列五個部分:
1)按照歷史背景對西敏斯特規條中的「唱詩篇」提出解釋
2)西敏斯特大會的作業和進行事項
3)外在的證明:1640年代倫敦的環境
4)西敏斯特大會神學家們對「獨頌詩篇」的支持者
5)廣大清教徒的傳統
在作結論之前,溫徹簡短地評論了倪翰對西敏斯特大會對在敬拜中使用樂器的看法的處理。
1)按照歷史背景對西敏斯特規條中的「唱詩篇」提出解釋
2)西敏斯特大會的作業和進行事項
3)外在的證明:1640年代倫敦的環境
4)西敏斯特大會神學家們對「獨頌詩篇」的支持者
5)廣大清教徒的傳統
在作結論之前,溫徹簡短地評論了倪翰對西敏斯特大會對在敬拜中使用樂器的看法的處理。
Westminster and Worship Examined: A Review of Nick Needham’s essay on the Westminster Confession of Faith’s teaching concerning the regulative principle, the singing of psalms, and the use of musical instruments in the public worship of God.
Westminster and Worship Examined:回顧 Nick Needham 關於威斯敏斯特信仰告白關於規範性原則、唱詩篇和在公共敬拜上帝中使用樂器的教導的文章。
Westminster and Worship Examined:回顧 Nick Needham 關於威斯敏斯特信仰告白關於規範性原則、唱詩篇和在公共敬拜上帝中使用樂器的教導的文章。
An attempt has recently been made by Nick Needham “to give an accurate historical judgment relating to the [Westminster] Assembly’s views and deliverances relating to exclusive psalmody and non-instrumental worship.”1 If, however, one were expecting to find a detailed examination of the writings of the divines, he would be sorely disappointed.
Throughout the article reference is made to only one fragment of writing from a member of the Assembly; all other quotations are taken from the statements of individual Puritans who neither attended the Westminster Assembly nor spoke specifically to the issue of exclusive psalmody. Moreover, no use has been made of the valuable historical material to be found in the writings of those members who have provided some sketches of its proceedings. Given this regrettable state of affairs, it must be said that the article fails in its attempt to provide an accurate historical judg-ment on the Assembly’s views. Whoever is the rightful possessor of the views Mr. Needham has represented, they have not been shown to belong to the Westminster Assembly. The Regulative Principle Of Worship. The author begins with a clear explanation of the regulative principle of worship as taught in chapter 21.1 of the Confession. He correctly notes that the Confession uses the word worship “in the specific sense of performing acts whose basic and pri-mary function is to express honour and veneration towards God” (Westminster, 224). As such it is to be distinguished from a wider definition of the word which considers all of life as worship. He then summarises the Confession’s statement as to the way God is to be worshipped: “God must be worshipped in ways He Himself has authorized in Scripture” (227). It is shown how this view differs from the Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican position, which maintains that the church has power to decree ceremonies to a greater or lesser degree (229). He then turns to the Westminster Catechisms (Larger and Shorter) to clarify the meaning of the Confession and to confirm its insistence that worship must be instituted by God Himself (231–232). In this part of the author’s presentation one would have expected to have seen some discussion of the Confession’s teaching of the regulative principle in relation to liberty of conscience. Chapter 20.2 provides a treatment of the subject under this important heading, which is acknowledged by historians to be fundamental to the way the Puritans under-stood religion.2 This section of the Confession states, “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith or wor-ship.”3 The fact that a certain practice is not contrary to the Scriptures does not justify its use in worship to God; it must be positively taught in the Word as something that is required of the individual by God Himself. If it is not required by God in His Word then it is forbidden. Given the importance of worshipping God according to true liberty of conscience, it becomes necessary to define what a divine institution is. According to a Presbyterian manifesto written by the ministers of Sion College at the time the Assembly was sitting, it is only what “can be proved by Scripture to have this stamp of divine warrant and authority set upon them” that “may properly be said to be jure divino [by divine right], and by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ.” “Jus divinum [a divine right] is the highest and best Tenure, whereby the Church can hold of Christ any Doctrine, Worship, or Government. Only God can stamp such a jus divinum upon any of these things, whereby Conscience shall be obliged.”4 It does not suffice that an act of worship can be justified on the basis of Scriptural principles; this only constitutes a normative principle which is applicable to all of life. Faithful exegesis is required, whereby a divine right must be established from the Word of God for the introduction of a particular action or function into the worship and government of the church. Such an action must be shown to be (1) “above and contra distinct from all human power and created authority whatsoever;” (2) “beyond all just, human or created power, to abolish or oppose the same;” and (3) “so obligatory unto all Churches in the whole Christian world that they ought uniformly to submit themselves unto it in all the Substantials of it so far as is possible” (Jus Divinum, 7). This divine warrant5 can only be discovered by an interpretative process which takes into account the obligatory examples, divine approbation, divine acts and divine precepts of holy Scripture (13-35). It should be noted that this divine right is required even for the smallest details of God’s worship. This is a point on which all the Westminster divines were agreed, Presbyterian and Independent alike. The Scottish commissioner, Samuel Rutherford, stated the claim of the smallest matters on the conscience of the worshipper: We urge the immutability of Christ’s Laws, as well in the smallest as greatest things, though the Commandments of Christ be greater or less in regard of the intrinsical matter; as to use water in Baptism or to Baptise is less than to Preach Christ and believe in him, 1 Cor. 1.17, yet they are both alike great, in regard of the Authority of Christ the Commander, Matt. 28.18, 19. And it’s too great boldness to alter any commandment of Christ for the smallness of the matter, for it lieth upon our conscience, not because it is a greater or a lesser thing, and hath degrees of obligatory necessity lying in it for the matter; but it tieth us for the Authority of the Law-giver.6 In a similar vein, Jeremiah Burroughs, the English Independent, made it a noteworthy point that, In the matters of Worship, God stands upon little things. Such things as seem to be very small and little to us, yet God stands much upon them in the matter of Worship. For there is nothing wherein the Prerogative of God doth more appear than in Worship. He proceeded to explain, Now God hath written the Law of natural Worship in our hearts, as that we should love God, fear God, trust in God, and pray to God: this God hath written in our hearts. But there are other things in the Worship of God that are not written in our hearts, that only depend upon the Will of God revealed in his Word. And these are of such a nature as we can see no reason for but only this, because God will have them.... God would have some waies for the honouring of him, that the Creature should not see into the reason of them, but meerly the Will of God to have them so (Jeremiah Burroughs, Gos-pel-Worship, 11). This Puritan emphasis on human conscience being subject to the authority of God alone means that every action offered to God in formal worship, whether it be a small or a great action, requires a divine warrant in order that the conscience may offer it in faith to God. Worship is an act of bowing to His sovereign authority. There is no genuine honor given to the divine Name where there is not implicit submission to the divine Will; there is no place for human creativity in the worship of the Almighty. True worshippers are receptive, not creative; they attend on the Most High God and await His Word before they do anything in His court. It is regrettable that Mr. Needham represents the regulative principle as allowing a certain degree of sanctified creativity and freedom in the worship of God. He writes, The principle is rigid and inflexible, and does rule out creativ-ity (sanctified or otherwise), as far as the ingredients of our worship are concerned; but it equally allows us a measure of Christian liberty in the exact way that we mix or combine those ingredients. Form and freedom are both provided for (Westminster, 240). He finds this freedom in what the Confession (chapter 1.6) calls “circumstances concerning the worship of God ... which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” Mr. Needham considers that “in the realm of circumstance, ‘Whatever is not forbidden is lawful, if it is edifying’” (284). Do circumstances, as defined by the Confession of Faith, give freedom to practice things which edify if they are not forbidden by Scripture? The answer is a definite no. That which edifies is by nature a religious action and must therefore be deemed to be a part of worship. Genuine circumstances are non-religious and merely facilitate the performing of that action which God has prescribed. Samuel Rutherford further elucidates this necessary point: In actions or Religious means of Worship, and actions Moral, whatever is beside the Word of God is against the Word of God; I say in Religious means, for there be means of Worship, or Circumstances Physical, not Moral, not Religious, as whether the Pulpit be of stone or of timber, the Bell of this or this Mettal, the house of Worship stand thus or thus in Situation.7 A circumstance therefore is nothing more than a means of worship without any religious significance whatsoever. It is that without which the action as an action could not be performed. It is an adjunct which incidentally accompanies the worship rather than an addition which qualitatively af-fects the worship.8 That which edifies is not an adjunct but an addition to the worship of God. Another Scottish commissioner to the Assembly, George Gillespie, also carefully distinguished between “common circumstances and sacred ceremonies” in a sermon before the House of Commons: I know the Church must observe rules of order and conveniency in the common circumstances of Times, Places, and Persons; but these circumstances are none of our holy things: they are only prudentiall accommodations, which are alike common to all humane Societies, both Civill and Ecclesiasticall; wherein both are directed by the same light of nature, the common rule to both in all things of that kinde; providing alwayes, that the generall rules of the Word be observed.9 In language virtually identical to the Confession’s statement relating to circumstances, George Gillespie here makes the same two points as Samuel Rutherford. First, “these circum-stances are none of our holy things,” meaning that they have no religious value; and secondly, “they are only prudentiall accommodations,” that is, convenient means for carrying out the action required by God. It is clear that Mr. Needham has gone too far in claiming that circumstances are such as are edifying and not forbidden in Scripture. This effectively creates a class of religious actions which are beside the word in matters of faith and worship, contrary to the limiting principle of worship as articulated by the Westminster Confession, chapter 20.2 and 21.1. He allows for human creativity in contrast to the Confession’s explicit statement forbidding men to assume this prerogative which belongs to God alone. Singing Of Psalms. In his treatment of the singing of psalms, Mr. Needham correctly notes “that the acts of worship the Confession explicitly authorizes are the only acts for which it finds scriptural justification” (Westminster, 247). He also observes that “The third ingredient of worship mentioned in Confession 21.5 is ‘singing of psalms with grace in the heart’” (248). It is pointed out that The Directory for the Public Worship of God contains a section entitled, “Of Singing of Psalms,” and the conclusion is reached that “There can be no controversy then, that the Westminster documents regard psalm-singing as a divinely authorized act of Christian worship” (248). Given this clear statement that psalm-singing is a divinely authorized act of Christian worship, it comes as something of a surprise when the author later asserts that “The authorized act of worship is to sing praises to God. What we sing—the genre of song—then comes into the category of circumstance” (284). The Confession has clearly maintained that “psalms” are the matter to be sung in worship as plainly as it has stated that the Scriptures are the matter to be read in worship. Nevertheless, Mr. Needham feels the liberty to say that the matter of sung praise is a mere circumstance of worship. He no doubt finds this freedom in his idiosyncratic idea that the regulative principle allows for sanctified creativity in things which edify, even if such things are not positively instituted by the word of God; but it has already been shown that this concept is contrary to the Confession; the Confession teaches that anything which is offered to God in worship requires a divine warrant. What is sung in worship is undoubtedly intended to express honor and veneration towards God; therefore the matter of sung praise is a part of the instituted worship of God. The Historical-contextual Interpretation of “Singing of Psalms” in the Westminster formularies. Much of the author’s treatment of “singing of psalms” is concerned with showing that seventeenth century writers used the word “psalms” to refer to compositions other than the Old Testament book of Psalms. This compels him “to think twice before presuming that ‘psalms’ in the Westminster Confession obviously and exclusively mean the psalms of David” (250). A little later in the essay he becomes more bold and declares that exclusive psalmody is “the least probable” historical-contextual interpretation of the reference to “singing of psalms” in Confession 21.5 (280, 281). It is finally maintained that a plausible interpretation is, “That it is lawful to sing any spiritually edifying material” including extra-scriptural hymns (281). The critical question which naturally arises at this point is whether Mr. Needham has evaluated the appropriate historical context? Is the broader seventeenth century context a sufficient indication of the movements at work in the Westminster Assembly? It should be considered that the Parliament called the As-sembly with the resolution to bring the Church of England into “nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland, and other Reformed Churches abroad.”10 Subsequently “The Solemn League and Covenant” made it a point of avowed duty before God that the Churches of God in the three king-doms of Scotland, England and Ireland be brought “to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of church-government, directory for worship and catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.”11 The Assembly’s proceedings were part and parcel of that great movement known to history as “the second reformation.” Its transactions cannot therefore be considered as maintaining the seventeenth century status quo, but must be seen in the light of this solemn self-imposed according to the word of God. Given this impetus to bring the Church of England into a uniformity with the Church of Scotland, it is of first importance to ascertain what the Church of Scotland understood by the expression “singing of psalms” when used in the context of the ordinary parts of public worship. According to the 1641 “Government and Order of the Church of Scotland”—usually attributed to Alexander Henderson, who would later serve as a commissioner to the Westminster Assembly—”The public worship begins with prayer, and reading some portion of holy Scripture both of the Old and New Testament, which the people hear with attention and reverence, and after reading, the whole Congregation joins in singing some Psalm.” The Order goes on to mention another two times when the Psalms are sung in the public service, namely, after the reading and prefacing of the Scriptures and prior to the closing benediction.'2 From this description of ordinary religious worship it is not made clear what is meant by “singing some Psalm,” but the historical record shows that the Psalms of David in Meter were the only songs authorized to be used in public worship. The matter has been thoroughly investigated by the able Scottish church historian, David Hay Fleming, who gathered the relevant witnesses together and showed conclusively that human additions to worship-song were “disallowed as a Prelatic innovation,” and “that human hymns were not used in God’s public worship at the second Reformation.'3 It is needless to reduplicate this evidence as Mr. Needham acknowledges that “In actual liturgical practice, the Reformed Church of Scotland was exclusively psalm-singing” (Westminster, 274). So it is clear that when the 1641 “Order of the Church of Scotland” says that “the whole Congregation joins in singing some Psalm,” it undoubtedly means to refer to the Psalms of David as then used by the Church of Scotland. Now, considering the reforming resolution of the Parliament to bring the Church of England into nearer uniformity with the practice of the Church of Scotland, the “singing of psalms” mentioned in both the Confession and Directory might naturally be understood to refer to the Psalms of David as authorized and sung in the Church of Scotland. The historical context at least points in this direction; some corroborating evidence is required to show that the Westminster Assembly did in fact make moves to adopt the Scottish practice. This evidence is to be found in the Assembly’s work on a Psalter which included a metrical version of the Old Testament book of Psalms and nothing else.'4 The Work and Proceedings of the Westminster Assembly. As early as October, 1643, Robert Baillie indicates that the Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly went up to London with the following prospect: “it is liklie that one of the points of our conference will be anent a new Psalter.”'5 The commissioners were not disappointed. On 20 November, 1643, the House of Commons resolved: That the Assembly of Divines be desired to give their Advice, whether it may not be useful and profitable to the Church, that the Psalms, set forth by Mr. Rous, be permitted to be publickly sung, the same being read before singing, until the Books be more generally dispersed.'6 This resolution, besides initiating work on the new Psalter, also shows that the materials to be used in the worship-song of the Church of England at this time were those “permitted to be publicly sung,” and that the view of the Westminster divines was consulted as to what materials would be fit for this purpose. The Assembly’s reception of Parliament’s resolution was recorded by John Lightfoot: Wednesday, Nov. 22.—The first thing done this morning was, that Sir Benjamin Rudyard brought an order from the House of Commons, wherein they require our advice, whether Mr. Rous’s Psalms may not be sung in churches; and this being debated, it was at last referred to the three committees, to take every one fi fty psalms.'7 The Assembly did not take their commission lightly, but proceeded immediately to examine Rous’ Psalms for their fitness to be authorized for use in the Church of England. In relation to undertaking to revise the Psalms of Rous, the Assembly Minutes record an important statement by Alexander Henderson, which connects this Psalm book to the Assembly’s work on a directory of worship as well as to the proposed uni-form practice of the churches of Scotland and England: Mr Hinderson: We had a psalme booke offered to our church made by Lord Sterling, but we would preferre this [Rous’ Psal- ter] to that, for I have seene it. Well done to revise the booke & if it come to a directory of worship, that ther might be uni-formity in that in the whole Island....18 This record should not go unnoticed, for it shows that the mention of a Psalm book in the final draft of the Directory for Public Worship had a specific referent in mind, namely, a metricated version of the Old Testament book of Psalms. Little is recorded concerning the Assembly’s deliberations anent the Psalter. Robert Baillie has noted that “Mr. Nye spoke much against a tie to any Psalter, and somewhat against the sing-ing of paraphrases, as of preaching homilies; we, understand, will mightily oppose it: for the Psalter is a great part of our uniformity which we cannot let pass until our church be well advised with it” (Baillie, Letters, 2.121). It appears from this notice that some of the extreme opinions of the separatists found their way into the Assembly via Philip Nye. They had become so vehemently opposed to the Book of Common Prayer that they would have nothing uninspired in the worship service, not even paraphrases of the Psalms. Robert Baillie’s personal opinion reflected the mind of the Scottish commissioners that the Psalter was an essential ingredient in that uniformity of worship which was sought in the Solemn League and Covenant.19 Some further notices of the Assembly’s work reveal that their labors on the Psalter were concerned with accurately reflecting the original Hebrew of the Old Testament Psalms and excluded anything which did not keep closely to the text. John Lightfoot’s Journal entry for December 22, 1643, records, “Mr. Gibson proposed, that a select committee of Hebricians might be chosen, to consult with Mr. Rous upon the Psalms, from Psalm to Psalm, for the solidity of the work, and the honor of the Assembly” (Lightfoot, Journal, 90). Robert Baillie reports that the new translation of the Psalms excluded the uninspired doxology, or conclusion, “resolving to keep punctual to the original text, without any addition.” He adds that all parties were content to omit it because it was an addition whereupon “the Popish and Prelatical partie did so much dote” (Baillie, Letters, 2.259). The divines were not prepared to include any matter in their covenanted psalm book which did not adhere closely to the inspired text. While work on the Psalter steadily proceeded, the Directory for Public Worship was completed by the divines and presented to the Parliament, whereupon the following ordinance was passed: The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, taking into serious consideration the manifold inconveniences that have arisen by the Book of Common-Prayer in this Kingdom, and resolving, according to their Covenant, to reform Religion according to the Word of God, and the Example of the bes Reformed Churches, have consulted with the Reverend, Pious, and Learned Divines called together to that purpose; And do judge it necessary, that the said Book of Common-Prayer be abolished, and the Directory for the Public Worship of God, herein after mentioned, be established and observed in all the Churches within this Kingdom. 20 The ordinance indicates, first, that the Parliament was acting in accord with its covenanted commitment to uniformity in religion; secondly, it was following through on its resolution to follow the example of the best Reformed Churches; and thirdly, that what the Assembly of divines had concluded with respect to the public worship of God was to be universally implemented throughout the churches of the kingdom. As already noted, the Directory for Worship contains a section on the singing of psalms. In this section it is written, “That the whole congregation may join herein, every one that can read is to have a psalm book; and all others, not disabled by age or otherwise, are to be exhorted to learn to read.”21 It has been shown that Parliament made provision for this psalm book in directing the divines to give consideration to the suitability of Rous’ psalms. At the very time the Directory was passed and enacted the divines were still completing the examination and alteration of this Psalter. In the absence of any other provision, the most logical conclusion is that the Directory’s mention of “a psalm book” is a reference to the Psalms of David in Meter which they were in the process of finalising. The psalm book was finally completed on November 13, 1645, and sent up by the Assembly to the House of Commons with this resolution: Ordered—That whereas the Honorable House of Commons hath, by an order bearing the date the 20th of November 1643, recommended the Psalms set out by Mr. Rouse to the consideration of the Assembly of Divines, the Assembly hath caused them to be carefully perused, and as they are now altered and amended, do approve of them, and humbly conceive that it may be useful and profitable to the Church that they be permitted to be publicly sung.22 The finished product received the imprimatur of the House of Commons on November 14, which resolved, “That this Book of Psalms, set forth by Mr. Rouse, and perused by the Assembly of Divines, be forthwith printed.”23 All that was required now was the examination and approval of the Psalter in Scotland. In a public letter on November 25, 1645, Robert Baillie wrote, “The Psalms are perfyted: the best without all doubt that ever yet were extant. They are now on the press; but not to be perused till they be sent to yow, and your animadversions returned hither, which we wish were so soon as might be.”24 In two private letters he ex-pressed a longing which he shared in common with his fellow laborers in England: “It is our earnest desire that the Psalter might at this time be put in such a frame that we needed not to be troubled hereafter with any new translation thereof.” “These lines are likely to go up to God from many millions of tongues for many generations.”25 These statements reveal that the Psalter committee in London desired their version of the Psalms to be a manual of praise which would be used for many generations and that they were not inclined to make any efforts towards producing another. The Assembly of divines subsequently recommended the emended version of Rous and passed over another version from the pen of Mr. William Barton, which had been referred to them by the House of Lords. Barton’s Psalms had been brought to their attention on October 7, 1645; after perusal, they sent the following communication to the House of Lords on November 14, the same date that the House of Commons authorized the use of Rous’ Psalms: in Obedience to the Order of this Honorable House, they appointed a Committee to consider thereof; and, upon the whole Matter, do find Reason to certify this Honorable House, That albeit the said Mr. Barton hath taken very good and commend-able Pains in his Metaphrase, yet the other Version, so exactly perused and amended by the said Mr. Rouse and the Committee of the Assembly with long and great Labour, is so closely framed according to the Original Text, as that we humbly conceive it will be very useful for the Edification of the Church.26 From this communication it becomes clear that the Assembly considered their labors had produced a translation which closely reflected the original text, and that they were not prepared to work on another. Although the revised Psalter was sent to Scotland for further examination and correction, the Assembly of divines made no further efforts in the way of preparing materials to be sung in the public worship of God. As far as they were concerned, ample provision had been made for fulfilling that part of the service which they entitled “the singing of psalms.” The matter, however, was not yet concluded. On March 26, 1646, the House of Lords inquired of the Assembly of divines as to why the psalms of William Barton “may not be sung in Churches as well as other Translations, by such as are willing to use them.”27 The divines sent in their answer on April 25: whereas there are several other Translations of the Psalms already extant: We humbly conceive, that, if Liberty should be given to People to sing in Churches every one that Trans-lation which they desire, by that Means several Translations might come to be used, yea in one and the same Congrega-tion at the same Time, which would be a great Distraction and Hinderance to Edification.28 Not only did the Assembly confine its labors to the Psalms of David in Meter, but they would not even consider allowing more than one metrical Psalter to be used in the Church lest it cause distraction and hinder that edification which they considered the approved Psalter was fitted to promote. This review will not trace the history of the Psalter as it moved from England to Scotland because it has no bearing on the question as to what is meant by the term “psalms” in the Westminster formularies.29 It suffices at this point to simply show that the Commissioners considered the Assembly’s work on Rous’ Psalter to provide for that part of public wor-ship which the divines called “the singing of psalms.” This is expressly stated in a paper by the Commissioners which was presented on December, 1646, to the Grand Committee at London, and was subsequently laid before the Commission of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland at Edinburgh on January 21, 1647, courtesy of Robert Baillie: And because the singing of Psalms in Churches is a part of the public worship of God, We desire that the Paraphrase of the Psalms in meter, as it is now examined, corrected, and approved by the Assembly of Divines here, and by the Commissioners of the Gen. Assembly in Scotland, may be likewise authorized and established by Ordinance of Parliament.30 The corroborating evidence has now been considered. It has been demonstrated that the Church of England, in conscientiously pursuing covenanted uniformity with the Church of Scotland, sought to make provision for that part of worship called “the singing of psalms” by preparing and authorizing a book of metricated Old Testament Psalms to be used through-out the kingdom. They made no further provision for the singing of any other materials in the Church of England. When this is taken in connection with the fact that nothing was to be used in public worship but what was authorized by public authority, it becomes clear that the covenanted Church of England adopted the same exclusive psalm-singing practice as the covenanted Church of Scotland. Given this state of affairs, there is really only one way of interpreting the phrase “singing of psalms” as used in the Confession of Faith and Directory for Public Worship. It must specifically refer to the Old Testament book of Psalms. There is no historical-contextual basis for a generic interpretation of the word “psalms,” according to which it is taken to mean a religious song. If Mr. Needham had investigated the appropriate historical context, namely, the proceedings of the Westminster Assembly, he would have seen that the phrase “singing of psalms” was limited to the Old Testament book of Psalms. External Evidence: the Milieu of 1640s London. That the historical context of the Confession and Directory was exclusively psalm-singing is substantiated by the external evidence as found in the contemporary situation within which the Assembly undertook its work of reformation. This situation is described in a book published in 1645, the year the Assembly was hard at work in preparing a Psalter. The author was Thomas Edwards, an English Presbyterian minister, who sought to expose the religious errors which were prevalent in his day. His dislike of innovations is unmistakable: The Prelatical faction and that Court party were great Innovators, given to change, running from one opinion to another, being Arminians as well as Popish, yea some of them Socinians, and countenancing such, and were every day inventing some new matter in worship, add-ing this ceremony and the other, putting down some part of worships, and altering them by substituting other; as in putting down singing of Psalms in some Churches, and having Hymnes; in putting down all conceaved Prayer, and commanding bidding of Prayer, with a multitude of such like: so our Sectaries are great Innovators, as changeable as the Moon, bringing into their Churches new opinions daily, new practices, tak-ing away the old used in all Reformed Churches, and substituting new; taking away of singing of Psalms, and pleading for Hymnes of their own making....31 This was the milieu within which the Westminster As-sembly undertook the work of reformation. According to this contemporary Presbyterian minister, the old practice used in all Reformed Churches was “singing of Psalms,” whilst the prelatical faction sought to introduce hymns and the sectaries pleaded for hymns of their own making. After the Directory for Public Worship was published it suffered scathing criticism from these same two parties, when it was seen that the Assembly had adhered to “the singing of psalms.” Both factions stood on their liberty to sing songs other than those found in the Old Testament book of Psalms. The high church advocate was for traditional hymns whilst the high spirited enthusiast claimed individual inspiration. The first author to comment on the Directory appears to have been the high-churchman, Dr. Henry Hammond, who condemned various parts of it because of its variance with the liturgy of the Church of England. Dr. Hammond argued for the continuance of some hymns in the service and understood “singing of psalms” in the Directory to be referring to the Psalms of David in Meter. And thus in all Ages of the Church some Hymns have been constantly retained to be said or sung in the Churches; I mean not only the daily lections of the Psalms of David (which yet this Directory doth not mention, but only commands a more frequent reading of that Book, then of some other parts of Scripture) nor the singing of some of those Psalms in Meter, (which yet this Directory doth not prescribe neither, save only on days of Thanksgiving, or after the Sermon, if with convenience it may be done, making it very indifferent, it seems, whether it be kept at all in the Church or no, unless on those special occasions.)32 What did this contemporary high churchman understand the Directory to prescribe when it speaks of “the singing of psalms” after sermon? The singing of the Psalms of David in Metre. Moreover, he found this to be too restrictive and considered it contrary to the age-old tradition of singing some hymns.33 Another antagonistic commentator on the Directory was the Quaker, Francis Howgil, who was against the use of all forms in worship, and therefore wrote from the opposite perspective of Dr. Hammond. Like Dr. Hammond, he understood the Directory to be referring to the Psalms of David in Meter in its use of the phrase “singing of psalms.” Dir[ectory]. The next comes on the performance of the worship, which is reading, preaching, with singing of Psalms... An[swer]. You that have nothing to quicken your affections, but to turn Davids cryings and tears into a Song.... Dir[ectory]. And now I come to the singing Psalms, and their Mass-house, the place of their Worship, and so I have done with their traffique. First, they say, that singing of Psalms publicly in a Congregation, with a tuneable voice, is a Christians duty. An[swer]. Where was it injoyned by Christ, or any of his Ministers? I am ignorant, and yet the Scripture I know, but no where read in it, that singing of Prophesies, and Prayers, and other mens conditions, turned into Rime and Meeter by Poets, and Masters of Music, in an invented tune (in the same mind which invents tunes for Ballet-mongers) and to sing such conditions amongst proud, wanton, and disdainful people....34 Whatever one may think of the rhetoric, it is undeniable that this contemporary critic of the Directory understood the phrase “singing of psalms” to be referring to the Psalms of David in Metere It is instructive to note that a contemporary reformed commentator on the Westminster Confession of Faith specifically refutes the Quakers by means of the wording of the Confession which indicates that “singing of psalms” is a part of the ordinary worship of God. David Dickson, the Professor of Divinity successively of Glasgow and Edinburgh Universities, took his students through the Confession as a means of training them for the ministry. These lectures were later published under the title, “Truth’s Victory Over Error.” In this work he asks the question, “do not the Quakers and other sectaries err, who are against the singing of psalms, or at least tie it only to some certain persons, others being excluded?” He answers in the affirmative, and provides the following as one of the reasons by which they are confuted: We cheer and refresh ourselves by making melody in our hearts to the Lord, Eph. v. 19. Which ariseth, first, from our conscientious going about it as a piece of the worship of God, and in so doing we are accepted in that. Secondly, From its being a part of Scripture, appointed for his praise, whether it agree with our case or not. That being the end wherefore it was designed to be sung, is sufficient warrant for our joining in the singing thereof.35 This contemporary commentator understood the Confession to teach that the psalms to be sung in worship were “a part of Scripture, appointed for his praise”--which can be none other than the Old Testament book of Psalms. What does this external evidence demonstrate? First, that the contemporary situation amongst unreformed parties was one which allowed for the inclusion of man made hymns. On the high church side there was a concern to allow for the inclusion of traditional hymns, while the sectarian side insisted that individual freedom to express Spirit-inspired songs should not be curtailed. Secondly, that the custom in the reformed churches was to adhere to the singing of psalms to the exclusion of man-made hymns. Thirdly, that the Westminster Assembly, in seeking to bring the Church of England into nearer conformity with other reformed churches, prescribed the singing of psalms as an ordinary part of the worship of God; and fourthly, that both unreformed parties criticized the Westminster Assembly for exclusively adhering to the psalms and not allowing for man-made hymns. To date all the evidence contradicts Mr. Needham’s view that “psalms” might be taken generically for a religious song. The Church of Scotland practiced exclusive psalm-singing, the Church of England was brought into uniformity with the Church of Scotland and made provision for exclusive psalm-singing, and unreformed contemporaries criticized the Westminster Assembly for prescribing exclusive psalm-singing. Advocates for Exclusive Psalmody Amongst the Westminster Assembly of Divines. It may now be added that there were members of the Westminster Assembly who advocated the practice of ex-clusive psalm-singing and one member who wrote an entire book to vindicate it. The author of the book was Thomas Ford; its title is significant because he uses the phrase “singing of psalms” as adopted by the Confession and Directory. Its full title is, “Singing of Psalmes the Duty of Christians under the New Testament, or, A vindication of that gospel-ordinance in V sermons upon Ephesians 5.19 wherein are asserted and cleared I. That, II. What, III. How, IV. Why we must sing.”36 As to what must be sung in gospel-worship, Mr. Ford found it in his text, Ephesians 5.19, which speaks of psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs. The fact that hymns and songs are mentioned together with psalms did not lead him to conclude that compositions other than the Psalms of David might be sung in worship. To the contrary, he commented, I know nothing more probable than this, viz. That Psalms, and Hymns, and spiritual Songs, do answer to Mizmorim, Tehillim, and Shirim, which are the Hebrew names of Da-vid’s Psalms. All the Psalms together are called Tehillim, i.e. Praises, or songs of praise. Mizmor and Shir are in the Titles of many Psalms, sometimes one, and sometimes the other, and sometimes both joyn’d together, as they know well who can read the Original. Now the Apostle calling them by the same names by which the Greek Translation (which the New Testament so much follows) renders the Hebrew, is an argument that he means no other than David’s Psalms (Ford, 14). Having provided a grammatico-historical interpretation of his text, he asks the pertinent question, “But why should any man preferr his Composures before David’s Psalms, is it because they are more excellent?” He observes, “God himself hath made and given us a Psalm-book,” and claims this will suffice for every condition of God’s people: “There can be no composures of men, that will suit the occasions, necessities, afflictions, or affections of God’s people, as the Psalmes of David” (Ford, 21). The Psalms are far superior to anything composed by uninspired men: Let it once be granted that we must sing Psalms, I’ll warrant you David’s Psalms shall carry it; there being no art or spirit of man now, that can come near that of David.... I would fain know what occasions God’s people now, or at any time, either have, or can have, which David’s Psalms may not suite with, and better than any Songs composed by an ordinary gift (Ford, 21, 22). When it was objected that there should be freedom to compose songs as equally as there is to compose prayers, the answer is given that God prescribes a set form for singing but not for praying: “The Apostle hath prescribed us what to sing, viz. Psalms and Hymns, and spiritual Songs, which are the express Titles of David’s Psalms, as was shown before.” “There is a difference in this, that the Lord did not prescribe unto his people set forms of Prayer, as he prescribed set forms of Psalms, 2 Chron. 29.30. They were to sing in the words of David and Asaph, but we read not that they were to pray in any such set form” (Ford, 27, 28). He then spends much time defending the singing of psalms in a mixed congregation and urging the people to sing the psalms of David with the spirit of David. A second member of the assembly who advocated exclusive psalm-singing was Samuel Gibson. He has already been mentioned in association with the Assembly’s labors in preparing a Psalter, where he showed a keen interest in “the solidity of the work.” In a sermon before the House of Commons on September 24, 1645, he vindicates the Puritan commitment to the Bible and the use of the songs of Zion: But it hath been often said, Take away the Common Prayer Book, take away our Religion. Nay, our Religion is in the Bible; there is our God, and our Christ, and our Faith, and our Creed in all points. The whole Bible was St. Paul’s belief; there are the Psalms of David, and his prayers, and the Lord’s Prayer, and other prayers, by which wee may learn to pray; we have still the Lord’s songs, the songs of Sion, sung by many with grace in their hearts, making melody to the Lord, though without Organs.37 The Lord’s songs are the songs of Zion, and these Bible psalms suffice for making melody to the Lord. Another member to make comment on the subject is Thomas Young in his work which surveys the fathers’ attitudes towards sanctifying the Sabbath day. He observes that sometimes the early church sang from the Old Testament book of Psalms: “As for the hymns themselves, the Divine Oracles being sung with a sweet voice, did animate their sound, and therefore they sung sometimes David’s Psalter”—Chrysostom and Augustine being consulted as authorities.38 He further notes Tertullian’s testimony that early Christians would sing to God “either out of the Holy Scriptures or of his own invention,” and that “Socrates mentions some Psalms that were written by Chrysostom.” He concludes, however, with the canon of the Council of Laodicea which prohibited the singing of private psalms in church: “Conc. Laod. Can. 59. it is prohibited, that no private Psalms be uttered in the Church. Therefore St. Austin in the aforesaid place doth blame the Donatists, for leaving Davids Psalms, and singing Hymns which were invented by themselves” (Young, 358). Finally, John Lightfoot, the renowned oriental scholar, has also gone on record as to what compositions should be sung in worship. He is the one and only representative of the Westminster Assembly who is quoted by Mr. Needham, but it is clear from consulting the original words of Dr. Light-foot that he has been misquoted. Mr. Needham states that “Lightfoot mentioned the exclusive psalmodist interpretation of Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19,” but that “he preferred the interpretation ‘that by these three are meant the Psalms of David, and other songs in Scripture’” (Westminster, 270). Dr. Lightfoot, however, does not give personal preference to this view but explicitly states that this is the interpretation of others: “Others differ upon particulars, but agree upon this, that by these three are meant the Psalms of David, and other Songs in Scripture.”39 Because Mr. Needham has failed to correctly represent his source, he has no basis for this conclusion: “Thus a leading Westminster divine: all the songs of Scripture may be sung in public worship” (Westminster, 270). However, even if this had been a correct conclusion, the result would have been that this Westminster representative only allowed for inspired songs in worship whilst Mr. Needham considers the genre to be sung to be a mere circumstance. If Dr. Lightfoot did not personally endorse the inspired songs interpretation, what, it might be asked, was his view on the matter to be sung in worship? He notes that the hymn sung by the Lord at the end of the Passover was “the very same that every company did, viz. The great Hallel, as it was called, which began at the CXIII. Psalm, and ended at the end of the CXVIII.” This leads to a striking observation: “Here the Lord of David sings the Psalms of David.” The point is then expounded: He that gave the Spirit to David to compose, sings what he composed. That All-blessed Copy of peace and order, could have indited himself, could have inspired every Disciple to have been a David, but submits to order, which God had appointed, sings the Psalms of David, and tenders the Peace of the Church, and takes the same course the whole Church did” (Lightfoot, Works, 2.1160). Another point is raised for discussion. “But had they a vulgar translation in their own tongue?” The answer is given in the affirmative, and proven from the Talmud. An inference is then drawn from this fact: “here is our warrant for our framing the Psalms into our Tongue and Meter. Thus have we seen the Example, nay institution, of our great Master” (2.1160). Having noted that God has appointed that the Psalms of David should be sung by the whole church, that Christ Himself adhered to this divine appointment, and that His example in singing in the vulgar language is sufficient warrant to sing from a metrical translation of the Psalms, Dr. Light-foot concludes with an appropriate application: “If you sing right, sing Davids Psalms, but make them your own. Let the skill of composure be His, the life of devotion yours” (2.1161). What, then, was Dr. Lightfoot’s view on the matter to be sung in worship? The answer is, the Psalms of David. They were appointed by God, sung and instituted by Christ, and are the right matter to be sung by the whole church. The evidence is now complete. First, the Church of Scotland practiced exclusive psalm-singing. Secondly, the Westminster Assembly labored to bring the Church of England into uniformity with Scotland’s practice by making provision for singing from the Old Testament book of Psalms. Thirdly, contemporary critics of the Assembly chided the Di-rectory for Public Worship for excluding man-made hymns and restricting the matter of worship-song to the Psalms of David. Finally, individual members of the Westminster Assembly espoused the exclusive use of the Psalms of David. In the light of this evidence, it is clear that Mr. Needham has failed to properly represent the views of the Westminster Assembly when he claims that exclusive psalmody is the least probable historical-contextual interpretation of the reference to “singing of psalms” in Confession 21.5. The Wider Puritan Tradition. What now should be made of Mr. Needham’s portrayal of the wider Puritan tradition? Did the Westminster Assembly reform the Puritan tradition so as to make it exclusive psalmodist, or is there evidence within that tradition of a commitment to exclusive psalmody? Some brief remarks on the nature of Mr. Needham’s evidence should suffice to show that the Puritans did not advocate what he has attempted to extract out of their writings. While Mr. Needham has correctly noted a diversity of opinion with respect to the interpretation of Ephesians 5.19 and Colossians 3.16, he has not established that the Puritans always saw these verses as being directly tied to the practice of public worship. In his summation of Matthew Poole’s Annotations (although the places cited were not written by Matthew Poole),40 Mr. Needham states, “Poole’s commentary does not adopt the exclusive psalmodist interpretation of ‘psalms, hymns and spiritual songs’ as meaning simply the psalter” (Westminster, 250). The exclusive psalmodist position, however, is a position relative to the public worship of God; but at no point does Mr. Poole’s continuators suggest that they consider the apostle Paul to be providing a directory for public worship. Mr. Needham quotes Thomas Cartwright on Colossians 3.16 and Paul Baynes on Ephesians 5.19, and concludes that they “accepted the use of non-Davidic songs in public worship” (Westminster, 263); but one looks in vain for a direct tie of the words of the text to a public worship situation. In the case of Thomas Cartwright, Mr. Needham’s only argument for non-Davidic songs is the fact that he has not referred the three terms to the Davidic psalter and that the word “spiritual” is used for songs that excite spiritual feelings. The Davidic Psalms would certainly excite such feelings, so one is at a loss to know why the Elizabethan Presbyterian must be understood as allowing for other songs. Paul Baynes specifically denies that the terms refer to the matter to be sung: “It may be asked, what is the difference betwixt these words? Ans. Some take it from the matter of them, some from the manner; that of the matter will not hold.”41 He subsequently discusses the difference of the words in terms of the manner of singing. He does say that a spiritual song might be one which is framed according to the Scripture (Baynes, 505), but makes no suggestion that this is to be used in an ordinary public worship context. When he comes to “the sum of the verse,” he speaks of “singing both in private and public, which this Scripture and Col. 3.16 do com-mend;” but where he speaks of the church service he confines his terms to “Psalms”—”and all things, Psalms, Prayers in the Church must be to edify” (505). When he finally applies the passage he provides this maxim: “get the spirit of David to sing a Psalm of David” (506). There is certainly no evidence for Mr. Needham’s suggestion that Paul Baynes “might have approved of newly written uninspired worship-songs other than the Davidic psalms” (Westminster, 267). Mr. Needham does acknowledge two Puritan expositors who understood the terms “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” to refer to the Davidic Psalms, namely, John Cotton and George Swinnock (271). The fact is that there was a galaxy of Puritans who understood the text in this way: William Perkins: “The book of Psalms, which contains sacred songs to be fitted for every condition both of the Church and the particular members thereof, and also to be sung with grace in the heart, Col. 3.16.”42 Henry Ainsworth: “There be three kinds of songs mentioned in this book: 1. Mizmor, in Greek psalmos, a psalm: 2. Tehillah, in Greek humnos, a hymn or praise: and 3. Shir, in Greek ode, a song or lay. All these three the apostle mentioned together, where he wills us to speak to ourselves with ‘psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs,’ Ephesians 5:19.”43 Nathanael Homes: “David’s Psalms are so full of praises, that they are called Tehillim, praises. Therefore the Apostles in that, Ephes. 5, Coloss. 3, and Matth. 26.30, uses a Greek word of the same signification; namely, humnos, a hymn.44 Edward Leigh: “as the Apostle exhorts us to singing, so he instructs what the matter of our Song should be, viz. Psalms, Hymns, and spiritual Songs. Those three are the Titles of the Songs of David, as they are delivered to us by the Holy Ghost himself.”45 William Barton: “Scripture-psalms (even David’s Psalms, called in Hebrew by the name of Psalms, and Hymns, and spiri-tual Songs), and no other, should be used in the Church; for no other are the word of Christ, and consequently cannot have that certainty, purity, authority and sufficiency that the Scripture psalms have.... God hath ordained and indited a Psalm-book in his Word, for the edification of his Church.”46 Jonathan Clapham: “The Apostle, Eph. 5 and Col. 3, where he commands singing of Psalmes, doth clearly point us to David’s Psalms, by using those three words, Psalmes, hymnes, and spirituall songs, which answer to the three He-brew words, Shorim, Tehillim, Mizmorim, whereby David’s Psalmes were called.”47 Thomas Manton: “Now these words (which are the known division of David’s psalms, and expressly answering to the Hebrew words Shurim, Tehillim, and Mizmorim, by which his psalms are distinguished and entituled), being so precisely used by the apostle in both places, do plainly point us to the Book of Psalms.”48 Cuthbert Sydenham: “I find they are used in general as the title of David’s psalms, which are named promiscuously by these three words.”49 Isaac Ambrose: “Whether may not Christians lawfully sing Davids or Moses Psalms? and how may it appear? Answered affirmatively: Eph. 5.19, where, under those three heads, of Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual songs, Davids Psalms are contained.”50 Finally, in 1673 an edition of the Scottish Metrical Psalter was printed for the Company of Stationers at London, which contains an introductory epistle with the following statement: “to us David’s Psalms seem plainly intended by those terms of Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs, which the Apostle useth, Ephes. 5.19, Col. 3.16.” The epistle is subscribed by Thomas Manton, D.D., Henry Langley, D.D., John Owen, D.D., William Jenkyn, James Innes, Thomas Watson, Thomas Lye, Matthew Poole, John Milward, John Chester, George Cokayn, Matthew Meade, Robert Francklin, Thomas Dooe-little, Thomas Vincent, Nathanael Vincent, John Ryther, William Tomson, Nicolas Blakie, Charles Morton, Edmund Calamy,51 William Carslake, James Janeway, John Hickes, John Baker, and Richard Mayo.52 Mr. Needham concludes his historical examination by stating, “Almost all the Reformed commentators we have looked at failed to interpret these terms as referring to the Davidic Psalter alone” (Westminster, 283). The problem is that he does not appear to have consulted a sufficient number of materials in order to arrive at a fair idea as to how Ephesians 5.19 and Colossians 3.16 were understood by the Puritan tradition at large. Moreover, he has failed to appreciate the fact that his quoted commentators did not necessarily see the terms in these texts to be prescribing the matter of song to be sung in public worship, but were more concerned with the application of the Word to a godly life in general. On the other hand, the Puritans quoted in this review did consider these texts to be prescriptive of worship-song, and have expressed their conviction that the apostle intended to refer to the Psalms of David by means of these terms. On the whole, therefore, it must be concluded that Mr. Needham has not truly represented the general thought of the Puritan tradition relative to the duty of singing psalms. Musical Instruments Little needs to be said under this section of the review. The author states the position of the Westminster divines in no uncertain terms: “Clearly the Westminster divines did not believe in the validity of instrumental worship” (Westminster, 291). This review has already referred to Samuel Gibson’s sermon before the House of Commons, in which he states, “we have still the Lord’s songs, the songs of Sion, sung by many with grace in their hearts, making melody to the Lord, though without Organs” (Gibson, The Ruine, 25). Mr. Needham quotes the ordinance of Parliament made on May 9, 1644, “for the speedy demolishing of all organs,” and “none others hereafter set up in their place” (Westminster, 291). He notes that all appeal to the Old Testament in justification of instrumental worship “breaks itself to pieces on the reefs of the regulative principle” (296), and proves that in Old Testament worship “the noise was the worship: an audio-symbolic evocation of the majesty and glory of God ... which passed away with the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, when worship ‘in Jerusalem’ passed over into worship ‘in spirit and truth’” (298). So far the Westminster/Puritan tradition has been well preserved. The reader, however, is soon introduced to a subtle distinction: “But what shall we make—not of instrumental worship—but of instrumental accompaniment under the New Covenant?” (299). It is shown that an appeal to the circumstantial argument could only justify the use of a single instrument to keep congregational singing in tune, and that large congregations would not really need such accompaniment. It is also clarified that instruments have a tendency to take over the worship service and that such abuse must be guarded against. In sum, though, the author thinks “the use of a single instrument, purely to keep the singing in time and in tune, can be justified as a circumstance of worship” (302). This of course is Mr. Needham’s own opinion, and something for which he offers no support from the Westminster representatives. As noted, Parliament ordered the demolition of organs and made it clear that they were not to be set up in the future. It is doubtful, therefore, that the second reformation movement would have accepted this somewhat subtle distinction between instrumental worship and accompaniment. Conclusion The spiritual insight of William Cunningham may help to capture the fundamental concern of this review: Men, under the pretense of curing the defects and shortcomings, the nakedness and bareness, attaching to ecclesiastical arrangements as set before us in the New Testament, have been constantly proposing innovations and improvements in government and worship. The question is, How ought these proposals to have been received? Our answer is, There is a great general scriptural principle which shuts them all out. We refuse even to enter into the consideration of what is alleged in support of them. It is enough for us that they have no positive sanction from Scripture.53 The regulative principle of worship requires positive Scriptural warrant for everything that is offered to God as a specific act of worship. Mr. Needham has affirmed the Westminster Assembly’s insistence that all worship must be instituted by God Himself, but he has weakened this principle by allowing for things which edify if they are not forbidden by the Scriptures. Concerning the Assembly’s view relating to the singing of psalms, Mr. Needham has failed to examine the work of the Assembly in making provision for this ordinary part of public worship; the primary focus in determining the original intent of the Westminster divines should begin if not end here. His investigation of the “historical-contextual” setting is concerned with the broader Puritan tradition, and in many cases he has imposed a public worship context onto the statements of those he has quoted. It is only by following this faulty process that he is able to interpret the Westminster formularies as allowing for extra-scriptural songs. Otherwise there is no reason why they should not be understood according to what the Confession calls “the plain and common sense of the words” (chapter 22.4). The exclusive psalm-singing practice of the Church of Scotland, the Westminster Assembly’s work in preparing a Psalter, the milieu of the 1640s in which it undertook its work of reformation, the testimony of individual Westminster representatives, and the broader Puritan tradition all provide sound reasons for taking the word “psalms” as a reference to the Old Testament book of Psalms. Finally, Mr. Needham has correctly noted that the Westminster divines did not believe in the validity of instrumental worship and that the Parliament ordered the permanent demolition of all organs. No evidence has been provided that the Assembly might have considered their use as a circumstance of worship to keep the singing in time and in tune. The circumstantial argument for mechanical instruments must therefore be considered as a personal opinion which finds no support in the work and writings of the Westminster Assembly. ■ |
尼克·尼德姆(Nick Needham)最近試圖“就[威斯敏斯特]議會關於獨唱詩篇和不用樂器崇拜的觀點和言論作出準確的歷史判斷。” 1但是,如果有人希望在神學家的著作中找到詳細的檢查,他會非常失望。
貫穿本規條,僅提及大會成員的一小部分人的著作; 所有其他的語錄均摘自既未參加威斯敏斯特議會,也未專門討論獨唱詩篇問題的清教徒所做的陳述。 此外,規條也沒有使用那些提供了一些紀錄概要的成員的著作中所發現的有價值的歷史材料。 考慮到這種令人遺憾的狀況,必須說的是,該規條未能對大會的觀點提供準確的歷史判斷。 凡是尼德姆先生所代表的觀點的正當擁有者,都不能證明它們是屬於威斯敏斯特議會的一部分。
公眾敬拜規範原則作者首先明確地解釋了《西敏斯特信仰告白》第21.1章中所教導的敬拜規範原則。他正確地指出,信仰吿白使用了「敬拜」一詞是「具有特定意義上的行為,其基本和主要功能是表達對上帝的敬畏和崇敬”(西敏斯特,224)。因此,應與將生命視為崇拜的更廣泛的詞義區別開來。然後,他總結了信仰告白中關於敬拜上帝的方式的聲明:「上帝必須以他自己在聖經中所授權的方式來敬拜上帝」(227)。它顯示了這種觀點與羅馬天主教,路德教會和英國國教的立場有何不同,他們堅持認為教會或多或少有權命令敬拜方式(229)。然後,他求助於西敏斯特要理問答(大要理或小要理),以闡明信仰告白的含義,並確認其堅持認為敬拜必須是由上帝親自設立的(231–232)。
在作者演講的這一部分中,人們可能希望看到信仰吿白有關規範性原則的教導,與良心的自由之間的關係的一些討論。 第20.2章在此重要標題下提供了對該主題的處理。歷史學家認為這是清教徒對宗教理解的方式至關重要的基礎。2信仰告白的這一段落指出:「只有神是良心之主, 祂使人脫離與他的聖言完全相反的人的教導和誡命,不僅如此,也包括信仰或敬拜的事。」3 即便事實上某種習俗不違背聖經,也並不能證明其在向上帝敬拜時是合理的。 它必須是神的話中所積極地教導,是上帝自己對個人的要求。 如果上帝在他的聖言中沒有要求那樣做,就是被禁止的。
考慮到根據真正良心的自由來敬拜上帝的重要性,有必要界定什麼是神所設立的規範。根據議會開會時錫永學院Sion Collge的牧師們所寫的長老會宣言,「只有經聖經證明的,才能賦予他們神聖的授權和權威的印證,才能合法地稱為是依據神的權柄,並且是耶穌基督的旨意和其所設立的。 神的權柄是最高和最佳的保障,教會可以在其中持守任何教義,崇拜或治理。只有上帝才能在任何這些事情上封印,成為良心應有的義務。」4 這不足以成為根據聖經原則的崇拜行為的辯護;這僅構成一條適用於所有生活的規範性原則。忠實的詮釋經文是必要的,必須要從上帝的聖言中確立神聖的權柄,以便將特定的行動或功能引入教會的敬拜和管理。必須證明該行動是 (1)「高於一切人的或受造的權柄,並與之分別對立的」 (2)「超越一切恰當的,人為的或受造的力量,並廢除或反對這些;」 (3)「對整個基督教世界中的所有教會都具有強制性,以至於他們應盡可能統一地在所有教會中順服於它」(Jus Divinum,7)。 唯有通過一個詮釋性的過程來發現此神聖的授權5,該詮釋過程要考慮到強制性的例子,神聖的認可,神聖的作為和聖經經文中神的命令(13-35)。 應該注意的是,即使是對上帝敬拜的最小細節,也需要這種神聖的權利。在這一點上,所有威敏斯特的神職人員都同意,長老會和獨立派都是如此。蘇格蘭專員塞繆爾·盧瑟福 (Samuel Rutherford) 陳述了對敬拜者良心最小的要求: 我們敦促基督的律法的不變性,以及在最小和最大的事情上,儘管基督的誡命在本質問題上或多或少;至於在洗禮中使用水或施洗,不如宣講基督並相信他,林前 1.17,但就指揮官基督的權柄而言,他們都一樣偉大,太28.18, 19. 為一件小事而改變基督的任何誡命都是太大膽了,因為它存在於我們的良心上,而不是因為它是一件大或小的事情,並且有一定程度的義務必要性在於它該事項;但它把我們與頒布律法者的權柄聯繫在一起。 6 相似地,屬於英國獨立教會的Jeremiah Burroughs 提出了一個值得注意的重點: 在敬拜的事情上,上帝堅持那些小事。對我們來說,這些東西似乎很微不足道,但在敬拜的事情上,上帝卻堅持這些小事。因為沒有什麼比敬拜更能體現上帝的特權了。 他接著解釋, 現在神已經把自然敬拜的法則寫在我們心裡,叫我們愛神、敬畏神、信靠神、向神禱告:神都把這些寫在我們心裡了。但在敬拜神中還有其他一些事情沒有寫在我們的心裡,只取決於神在他的話語中所揭示的旨意。這些是我們看不到任何理由的性質,只有這一點,因為上帝會擁有它們......上帝會定一些方式來榮耀祂,受造者不應該探究其原因,但僅僅是上帝的旨意讓它們如此(Jeremiah Burroughs,Gos-pel-Worship,11)。 清教徒強調人的良心只服從上帝的權炳,這意味著在正式的敬拜中向上帝提供的每一個行動,無論是小行動還是大行動,都需要一個神聖的保證,以便良心可以憑著信心將它奉獻給上帝。敬拜是向祂至高無上的權柄低頭的行為。沒有對神聖旨意的順服,就沒有真正的把榮耀歸給神的名;在對全能者的崇拜中,人類的創造力沒有立足之地。真正的崇拜者是接受性的,而不是創造性的;在他們在祂的法庭上做任何事情之前,他們必須侍奉至高的上帝並等待祂的說話。 令人遺憾的是,李約瑟先生將規範性原則描述為在敬拜上帝時允許一定程度的被聖潔化的創造力和自由。他寫到: 就我們敬拜的成分而言,這個原則是僵化的和不靈活的,並且確實排除了創造力(無論是神聖的還是其他的)。但它同樣允許我們以我們混合或組合這些成分的確切方式衡量基督徒的自由。形式和自由都得到了規定(威斯敏斯特,240)。 他在《信條》(第 1.6 章)所稱的「關於敬拜上帝的情況……應根據本性之光和基督徒的審慎,根據聖經的一般規則來安排這種自由,這些情況總是被觀察。」李約瑟先生認為,「在情況下的領域,‘任何不被禁止的都是 合法的,如果它是有教化性的」(284)。 信仰告白所定義的情況性是否允許自由實踐那些不受聖經禁止的事情?答案是肯定的。造就的東西本質上是一種宗教行為,因此必須被視為敬拜的一部分。真正的環境是非宗教的,只是促進了上帝所規定的行為的執行。 Samuel Rutherford 進一步闡明了這一點: 在行為或宗教崇拜方式,以及道德行為中,凡是在神話語之外的,都是違背神話語的;我在宗教手段中說,因為有崇拜的手段,或物質的環境,而不是道德的,不是宗教的,就像講壇是石頭還是木頭,這個或這個金屬的鐘聲,禮拜堂這樣或那樣站立在 Situation.7 因此,環境只不過是一種沒有任何宗教意義的敬拜方式。沒有它,作為一個動作的動作就無法執行。它是敬拜附帶的附屬物,而不是質量上影響敬拜的附加物。8 造就的不是附屬物,而是對上帝敬拜的附加物。 議會的另一位蘇格蘭專員喬治·吉萊斯皮(George Gillespie)也在下議院的佈道中仔細區分了“普通情況和神聖儀式”: 我知道教會必須遵守秩序和便利的規則在時間、地點和人物的一般情況下;但是這些情況並不是我們的聖物:它們只是審慎的調適措施,這對所有的人道社會來說都是共同的,無論是政府還是教會;其中兩者都受到相同的本性之光的指導,這是對所有同類事物的共同規則;先決條件是,始終都要遵守聖經的一般規則。 9 用與信仰告白中有關情況的陳述幾乎相同的語言,喬治·吉萊斯皮在這裡提出了與塞繆爾·盧瑟福相同的兩點。首先,「這些情況都不是我們的聖物」,意思是它們沒有宗教價值;其次,「它們只是審慎的調適措施」,就是為實行神所要求的行動所提供之方便手段。 很明顯,李約瑟先生甚至超過地聲稱,適應情況是具有教化性的,而不是聖經所禁止的。這有效地創造了另一類的宗教行為,在信仰和敬拜方面與神的話毫無關聯。這與西敏斯特信條第 20.2 和 21.1 章所闡明的敬拜的限制原則恰恰相反。他允許人的創造力,是與信仰告白的明確聲明相反的,信仰告白禁止人們承擔這種只屬於上帝的特權。 唱詩篇。 在他對唱詩的處理中,李約瑟先生正確地指出“信條明確授權的敬拜行為是唯一符合聖經理由的行為”(威斯敏斯特,247)。他還觀察到“信條 21.5 中提到的敬拜的第三個要素是‘在心中優雅地唱詩篇’”(248)。有人指出,《公開敬拜神名錄》中有一節題為“唱詩篇”,得出的結論是“那麼就沒有爭議了,威斯敏斯特的文件將唱詩篇視為神聖的授權的基督教崇拜行為”(248)。 鑑於這一明確的聲明,即唱詩篇是上帝授權的基督徒敬拜行為,當作者後來斷言“授權的敬拜行為是歌頌上帝時,這令人驚訝。我們所唱的——歌曲的類型——就屬於環境的範疇”(284)。 《信條》明確指出,“詩篇”是敬拜時要唱的內容,就像它明確指出聖經是敬拜時要閱讀的內容一樣。儘管如此,李約瑟先生還是可以說,歌頌的事情僅僅是敬拜的一種情況。毫無疑問,他在他獨特的想法中找到了這種自由,即調節性原則允許在造就的事物中進行神聖的創造力,即使這些事物不是由上帝的話語積極制定的。但已經表明,這個概念與《懺悔錄》相反; 《信條》教導說,在敬拜中獻給上帝的任何東西都需要有神聖的保證。敬拜中所唱的歌,無疑是表達對上帝的尊崇。因此,歌頌是對上帝所設立的敬拜的一部分。 西敏斯特規範中解釋「唱詩篇」的歷史背景。 多數作者處理「唱詩篇」這個陳述,都考量到 17 世紀的作家們使用「詩篇」一詞是指與舊約詩篇以外的作品。這迫使他「在假定西敏斯特信條中的「詩篇」顯然且完全是指大衛的詩篇之前要三思而後行」(250)。稍後在文章中,他變得更加大膽,並宣稱「獨唱詩篇」是對信仰告白 21.5 (280, 281) 中提到的「唱詩篇」的「最不可能的」歷史背境解釋。最後堅持認為,一個合理的解釋是,「唱任何具靈性教化的材料都是合法的」,包括聖經外的讚美詩(281)。此時自然產生的關鍵問題,是李約瑟先生是否評估了適當的歷史背景?更廣泛的 17 世紀背景是否足以表明西敏斯特議會中進行的運動? 應該考慮的是,英國議會召集西敏斯特大會的決議,是讓英格蘭教會「與蘇格蘭教會和國外的其他改革宗教會達成更接近的協議。」10 隨後,「莊嚴結盟與立約」將其定為在上帝面前宣稱的責任點,即蘇格蘭、英格蘭和愛爾蘭三個王國的上帝的教會「在宗教、信仰告白、教會-政府形式、敬拜規範和教理問答方面」達到最接近的合一;好讓我們和我們的後代,像弟兄一樣,活在信心和愛心中,主也樂意住在我們中間。」11 西敏斯特大會的進程是眾所周知的偉大運動的一部分。歷史上稱為「第二次改革」。因此,它的議事內容不能被視為維持 17 世紀的現狀,而必須根據這種莊嚴的自願接受按照神的話來看。 鑑於這種將英格蘭教會與蘇格蘭教會統一的推動力,首先要確定蘇格蘭教會在普通公眾場合使用「唱詩篇」一詞時所理解的崇拜含義。 根據 1641 年「蘇格蘭教會的治理和規章」——通常歸因於後來擔任西敏斯特議會專員的亞歷山大·亨德森——「公眾敬拜始於祈禱,並閱讀部分舊約和新約聖經,,人們以專注和崇敬的心情聆聽,並且在閱讀後,整個會眾一起唱一些詩篇。」該規定接著提到,另外兩次在公共敬拜中唱詩篇時,即在閱讀聖經之後,以及在結束祝福禱告之前。'2 從這種對普通宗教敬拜的描述來看,「唱一些詩篇」是什麼意思並不清楚,但歷史記錄表明,只有配上旋律的大衛詩篇是唯一獲准在公共敬拜中使用的歌曲。能幹的蘇格蘭教會歷史學家大衛·海·弗萊明(David Hay Fleming)對此事進行了徹底的調查,他將相關證人聚集在一起,並最終表明,在敬拜歌曲中添加人工內容是「不允許的創新」,並且「在第二次宗教改革時,在上帝的公開敬拜中,沒有使用人作的讚美詩。」3 無需重複這一證據,因為李約瑟先生承認「在實際的敬拜禮儀實踐中,蘇格蘭歸正教會只唱詩篇」(威斯敏斯特,274)。所以很明顯,當 1641 年的「蘇格蘭教會規章」說「全會眾一起唱一些詩篇」時,這無疑是指當時蘇格蘭教會使用的大衛的詩篇。 現在,考慮到英國議會的改革決議使英格蘭教會與蘇格蘭教會的做法更接近一致,信仰告白和規範中提到的「唱詩篇」自然可以理解為,指的是在蘇格蘭教會獲得授權和演唱大衛的詩篇。歷史背景至少指向這個方向;需要一些確鑿的證據表明西敏斯特議會確實採取了蘇格蘭教會實踐的行動。這一證據可以在大會關於詩篇的工作中找到,其中包括舊約詩篇的配曲調版本,沒有其它的詩歌。'4 西敏斯特議會的工作和程序。 早在 1643 年 10 月,羅伯特·貝利就表示,出席西敏斯特議會的蘇格蘭委員們去了到倫敦,帶著這樣的預期:「很可能我們會議的重點之一是提出一本新的詩篇。」5 委員們並沒有失望。 1643 年 11 月 20 日,下議院決議: 希望西敏斯特大會神學家們能提出他們的建議,無論這對教會是否有用和有益,允許公開唱由勞斯先生提出的詩篇,在唱歌之前閱讀相同的詩篇,直到書籍更普及。'6 該決議除了開始新詩篇的工作外,還表明當時英格蘭教會的敬拜歌曲所使用的材料是「允許公開演唱」的材料,並諮詢了西敏斯特神學家的觀點,關於哪些材料適合此目的。 John Lightfoot 記錄了西敏斯特大會對英國議會決議的接受情況: 11 月 22 日,星期三。——今天早上做的第一件事就是,本傑明·拉德亞德爵士帶來了下議院的命令,他們需要我們的建議,是否不能在教堂裡唱勞斯先生的詩篇;經過辯論,最終提交給三個委員會,每五十首詩篇。 7 議會並沒有輕視他們的委託,而是立即著手審查勞斯的詩篇是否適合被授權在英格蘭教會中使用。關於修訂勞斯詩篇的承諾,大會紀要記錄了亞歷山大·亨德森(Alexander Henderson)的重要聲明,該聲明將這本詩篇與大會關於敬拜目錄的工作以及提議的蘇格蘭和英格蘭教會統一實踐聯繫起來。: Hinderson 先生:我們有一本 Sterling 勳爵為我們的教會提供的詩篇,但我們更喜歡這本勞斯的詩篇 [Rous' Psal-ter] 。因為我已經看過了。修改此書作的很好,如果納入到敬拜規章中,那麼整個三島國的規章就可能達到一致....18 該記錄不應不要被注意,因為它表明在公共敬拜目錄的最終草案中提到詩篇書有一個特定的參考,即舊約詩篇的公製版本。關於大會在詩篇之前的審議記錄很少。羅伯特·貝利指出,“先生。奈多次反對與任何詩篇有聯繫,並且在某種程度上反對唱釋義,比如講道。我們,理解,會強烈反對它:因為詩篇是我們統一性的重要組成部分,除非我們的教會得到充分的建議,否則我們不能讓它過去”(Baillie, Letters, 2.121)。從這份通知中可以看出,分離主義者的一些極端意見通過菲利普·奈(Philip Nye)進入了議會。他們變得如此強烈地反對《公禱書》,以至於他們在敬拜中不會有任何沒有靈感的東西,甚至連詩篇的釋義也不會。羅伯特·貝利的個人觀點反映了蘇格蘭專員的想法,即詩篇是莊嚴聯盟和聖約所尋求的統一崇拜的重要組成部分。 19 大會工作的一些進一步通知表明,他們在詩篇上的工作關注的是準確反映舊約詩篇的原始希伯來語,並排除了任何與文本不符的內容。約翰·萊特富特在 1643 年 12 月 22 日的日記中記載,“先生。吉布森提議,為了工作的穩固性和大會的榮譽,可能會選擇一個希伯來語專家委員會,就詩篇與勞斯先生協商,從詩篇到詩篇”(Lightfoot,Journal,90)。羅伯特·貝利報告說,詩篇的新譯本排除了未受啟發的讚美詩或結論,“決心與原文保持一致,不加任何內容”。他補充說,各方都滿足於省略它,因為這是一個補充,因此“流行和普雷拉蒂主義政黨做瞭如此多的寵愛”(Baillie, Letters, 2.259)。神職人員不准備在他們立約的詩篇中包含任何與所默示的經文不相符的內容。 在詩篇工作穩步推進的同時,神職人員完成了公共崇拜目錄並提交給議會,隨後通過了以下法令: 上議院和下議院聚集在議會中,認真考慮了《公禱書》在這個王國引起的種種不便,並根據他們的盟約,決定根據上帝的聖言和榜樣改革宗教歸正教會中,已與為此目的而召集的牧師、虔誠和博學的神進行了磋商;並且判斷有必要廢除上述公禱書,並在這個王國的所有教會中建立和遵守下文提到的公共敬拜上帝名錄。 20 該法令首先表明,議會的行為符合其對宗教統一的承諾;其次,它正在貫徹它的決心,以效仿最好的改革宗教會的榜樣;第三,神職人員大會關於公開敬拜上帝的結論是要在整個王國的教會中普遍實施。 如前所述,敬拜目錄包含一個關於唱詩的部分。這一段寫道:“為使全會眾都可以參與其中,凡能閱讀的人,都有一本詩篇;以及所有其他沒有因年齡或其他原因而殘疾的人,都應被勸告學習閱讀。”21 事實表明,議會為這本詩篇制定了規定,以指導神職人員考慮 Rous 詩篇的適用性。在目錄通過並頒布之時,神職人員仍在完成對這首詩篇的審查和修改。在沒有任何其他規定的情況下,最合乎邏輯的結論是,目錄提到的“詩篇書”是指他們正在定稿的米特中的大衛詩篇。 詩篇最終於 1645 年 11 月 13 日完成,並由議會提交下議院,並附有以下決議: 已下令——儘管下議院閣下已根據 1643 年 11 月 20 日的命令將羅斯先生所寫的詩篇推薦給神議會議審議,但議會已使他們仔細閱讀,並且由於它們現在已被修改和修正,因此請贊同它們,並謙卑地認為允許它們被公開演唱可能對教會有用和有益。 22 成品於 11 月 14 日獲得下議院的認可,下議院決定:“立即印製這本由 Rouse 先生撰寫並由神職人員審閱的詩篇。”23 這一切都是必需的紅色現在是蘇格蘭聖詩篇的審批。在 1645 年 11 月 25 日的一封公開信中,羅伯特·貝利寫道:“詩篇被完美演繹:毫無疑問,這是迄今為止最好的。他們現在在媒體上;但不要細讀,直到它們被送到你那裡,而你的反感又回到了這裡,我們希望它盡快出現。”24 在兩封私人信件中,他表達了一種渴望,他與他的同事在英格蘭:“我們熱切希望詩篇可以在這個時候被放在這樣一個框架中,這樣我們以後就不必再為它的任何新譯本而煩惱了。” “這些詩句很可能從數百萬種方言傳到神面前,流傳了好幾代。”25 這些陳述表明,倫敦的詩篇委員會希望他們的詩篇版本成為一本可以被世世代代使用的讚美手冊,他們不傾向於做出任何努力來生產另一個。 隨後,神職人員大會推薦了經過修訂的 Rous 版本,並通過了由上議院提交給他們的 William Barton 先生筆下的另一個版本。巴頓的詩篇於 1645 年 10 月 7 日引起了他們的注意;仔細閱讀後,他們於 11 月 14 日向上議院發送了以下通信,即下議院授權使用勞斯的詩篇的同一天: 遵照本院的命令,他們任命了一個委員會來考慮它;並且,在整個問題上,確實找到了證明這個尊貴的房子的理由,儘管上述巴頓先生在他的直譯中採取了非常好的和值得稱道的痛苦,但另一個版本,由上述先生仔細閱讀和修改. 勞斯和大會委員會經過漫長而偉大的工作,根據原文如此緊密地構建,以致我們謙卑地認為它將對教會的教化非常有用。 26 從這次交流中可以清楚地看出,大會認為他們的工作已經產生了與原始文本密切相關的翻譯,並且他們不准備翻譯另一個。雖然修訂後的詩篇被送到蘇格蘭進行進一步的審查和更正,但神職人員大會並沒有在準備公開敬拜上帝的材料方面做出進一步的努力。就他們而言,已經為完成他們稱為“唱詩篇”的那部分服務作出了充分的準備。 然而,這件事還沒有結束。 1646 年 3 月 26 日,上議院向神職人員大會詢問為什麼威廉·巴頓的詩篇“不能在教堂和其他譯本中由願意使用它們的人演唱。”27他們在 4 月 25 日的答復中發送: 而詩篇的其他幾個譯本已經存在:我們謙卑地設想,如果應該給予人們自由,讓人們在教堂裡唱每一個他們想要的譯本,那麼這意味著可能會使用幾個譯本,是的,同時在同一個會眾中,這將極大地分散和阻礙教化。 28 大會不僅將其工作限制在米特中的大衛詩篇上,而且他們甚至不會考慮允許在教會中使用不止一個韻律詩篇,以免引起分心並阻礙他們認為已批准的詩篇適合的造就推廣。 這篇評論將不會追溯詩篇從英格蘭轉移到蘇格蘭的歷史,因為它與威斯敏斯特公式中“詩篇”一詞的含義問題無關。 29 在這一點上,簡單地說明一下就足夠了。 表明委員們認為大會在 Rous 的詩篇上的工作是為了提供被神職人員稱為“唱詩篇”的那部分公共敬拜。委員們在 1646 年 12 月提交給倫敦大委員會的文件中明確說明了這一點,隨後於 1647 年 1 月 21 日在愛丁堡提交給蘇格蘭教會大會委員會,禮貌羅伯特·貝利: 並且因為在教堂中唱詩篇是公開敬拜上帝的一部分,我們希望以米為單位的《詩篇》釋義,因為它現在已經得到這裡的神職人員大會和委員們的審查、更正和批准蘇格蘭議會的代表,同樣可以由議會條例授權和設立。 30 現在已經考慮了確鑿的證據。事實證明,英格蘭教會在認真地追求與蘇格蘭教會聖約的一致性時,試圖通過準備並授權一本計量的舊約詩篇來為敬拜中稱為“唱詩篇”的部分做準備。在整個王國使用。他們沒有為歌唱做進一步的準備英格蘭教會中的任何其他材料。當這與公共敬拜中除了公共權威授權之外沒有任何東西可以使用的事實聯繫起來時,很明顯,聖約的英格蘭教會採用了與聖約的蘇格蘭教會相同的排他性唱詩的做法。鑑於這種情況,實際上只有一種方式來解釋《信仰告白》和《公共敬拜目錄》中使用的“唱詩篇”這個短語。它必須特別提到舊約的詩篇。對“詩篇”一詞的一般解釋沒有歷史語境基礎,根據這種解釋,它被認為是一首宗教歌曲。如果李約瑟先生調查了適當的歷史背景,即威斯敏斯特會議的進程,他會發現“唱詩篇”這個短語僅限於舊約的詩篇。 外部證據:1640 年代倫敦的環境。 在議會進行改革工作的當代情況中發現的外部證據證實了懺悔和目錄的歷史背景完全是唱詩篇的。這種情況在 1645 年出版的一本書中有所描述,那一年,大會正在努力準備詩篇。作者是英國長老會牧師托馬斯·愛德華茲,他試圖揭露當時普遍存在的宗教錯誤。他對創新的厭惡是顯而易見的: Prelatic 派和那個宮廷黨是偉大的創新者,被賦予改變,從一種觀點跑到另一種觀點,是阿民念派和波普派,是的,他們中的一些人是 Socinians,並且支持這樣的人,並且每天都在發明一些新的崇拜事物,把這個儀式和那個儀式加起來,把崇拜的一部分放下,用其他的代替來改變它們;就像在一些教堂裡唱詩篇,唱讚美詩一樣;放下所有隱含的祈禱,命令祈禱,與許多這樣的人一起:所以我們的教派是偉大的創新者,像月亮一樣多變,每天將新的觀點、新的做法帶入他們的教會,帶走舊的在所有改革宗教會中使用,並替換為新的;不再唱詩篇,為自己創作的讚美詩懇求....31 這是威斯敏斯特議會進行改革工作的環境。根據這位當代長老會牧師的說法,所有改革宗教會使用的舊做法是“唱詩篇”,而教區派試圖引入讚美詩,而教派則懇求自己製作讚美詩。 《公共敬拜目錄》出版後,它遭到了這兩個黨派的嚴厲批評,因為人們看到大會堅持“唱詩篇”。兩個派別都可以自由地唱舊約詩篇以外的歌曲。高級教堂的倡導者是傳統讚美詩,而興高采烈的狂熱者則主張個人靈感。 第一個對目錄發表評論的作者似乎是高級牧師亨利哈蒙德博士,他譴責了它的各個部分,因為它與英格蘭教會的禮儀不同。哈蒙德博士主張在服務中繼續使用一些讚美詩,並理解目錄中的“唱詩篇”是指米特中的大衛詩篇。 因此,在教會的各個時代,一些讚美詩一直被保留在教會中被說或唱。我指的不僅是大衛詩篇的日常朗誦(但本目錄沒有提及,但只是要求人們更頻繁地閱讀該書,然後是聖經的其他部分),也不是指用米尺唱一些詩篇, (但本目錄也沒有規定,只在感恩節或佈道之後,如果方便的話,它似乎很無關緊要,不管它是否完全保存在教堂裡,除非在那些特殊場合。)32 這位當代的高級教士在佈道後談到“唱詩篇”時,是如何理解督政府規定的?唱大衛的詩篇 在米。此外,他認為這過於嚴格,並認為這與唱一些讚美詩的古老傳統背道而馳。 33 另一位反對名錄的評論員是貴格會教徒弗朗西斯·豪吉爾,他反對在敬拜中使用所有形式,因此從哈蒙德博士的相反角度寫作。和哈蒙德博士一樣,他理解《名錄》在使用“唱詩篇”這個短語時指的是《米尺》中的大衛詩篇。 目錄]。接下來是敬拜的表現,閱讀、講道、唱詩篇…… 回答]。沒有什麼可以加快你的感情,而是把大衛的哭泣和淚水變成一首歌…… 目錄]。現在我來到唱詩篇,他們的彌撒堂,他們的禮拜場所,所以我已經完成了他們的交通。首先,他們說,在會眾中以可調節的聲音公開唱詩篇是基督徒的職責。 回答]。基督或他的任何大臣在哪裡享受它?我是無知的,但我知道但在其中沒有讀到的聖經,預言、祈禱和其他人的條件的歌唱,被詩人和音樂大師以一種發明的曲調變成了 Rime and Meeter(在為芭蕾舞者發明曲調的同一頭腦)並在驕傲、放蕩和輕蔑的人中歌唱這樣的條件......34 無論人們如何看待這些修辭,不可否認的是,這位當代的督政府批評家將“唱詩篇”這一短語理解為指米特里的大衛詩篇。 值得注意的是,一位當代改革宗的威斯敏斯特信仰告白評論家專門用信仰告白的措辭駁斥貴格會,這表明“唱詩篇”是對上帝的普通敬拜的一部分。先後在格拉斯哥大學和愛丁堡大學擔任神學教授的戴維·迪克森(David Dickson)帶領他的學生通過《懺悔錄》,作為培訓他們從事事工的一種方式。這些講座後來以“真理戰勝錯誤”的標題出版。在這部作品中,他提出了這樣一個問題:“貴格會和其他教派是否會犯錯,他們反對唱詩篇,或者至少將它與某些特定的人聯繫在一起,而其他人則被排除在外?”他的回答是肯定的,並提供以下作為反駁它們的原因之一: 我們在心中為主歌唱,以弗所,使自己歡欣鼓舞。 v. 19. 這首先產生於我們有良心的行為,作為對上帝的敬拜的一部分,這樣做我們就被接納了。其次,由於它是聖經的一部分,被指定為讚美他,無論它是否符合我們的情況。這就是它被設計為歌唱的目的,足以證明我們加入其中。 35 這位同時代的評論家將《懺悔錄》理解為教導在敬拜中要唱的詩篇是“聖經的一部分,為讚美他而指定”——這可能就是舊約的詩篇。 這些外部證據表明了什麼? 首先,未改革政黨的當代情況允許包含人造讚美詩。高教會一方擔心允許包含傳統讚美詩,而宗派一方則堅持不應該限制個人表達受聖靈啟發的歌曲的自由。 其次,改革宗教會的風俗是堅持唱詩,排斥人為的讚美詩。 第三,威斯敏斯特議會為了使英國教會更接近於其他改革宗教會,規定唱詩是敬拜上帝的普通部分;第四,未改革的兩黨都批評威斯敏斯特議會完全遵守聖詠,不允許人為的讚美詩。 迄今為止,所有證據都與李約瑟先生的觀點相矛盾,即“詩篇”可能被普遍視為一首宗教歌曲。蘇格蘭教會實行獨唱詩篇,英格蘭教會與蘇格蘭教會統一併規定獨唱詩篇,未改革的同時代人批評威斯敏斯特議會規定獨唱詩篇。 在威斯敏斯特神聖大會中倡導獨家詩篇。 現在可以補充的是,威斯敏斯特議會的一些成員主張專門唱詩篇的做法,還有一個成員寫了一整本書來證明這一點。這本書的作者是托馬斯福特。它的標題很重要,因為他使用了懺悔和目錄採用的“唱詩篇”這個短語。它的全稱是,“唱詩篇是基督徒在新約下的責任,或者,在以弗所書 5.19 的 V 佈道中對福音教儀的辯護,其中被斷言和清除 I. 那,II.什麼,III。怎麼樣,IV。為什麼我們必須唱歌。”36 至於在福音崇拜中必須唱什麼,福特先生在他的經文以弗所書 5.19 中找到了它,其中談到了詩篇、讚美詩和屬靈的歌曲。讚美詩和歌曲與詩篇一起被提及這一事實並沒有使他得出結論認為,除了大衛的詩篇之外的作品也可以在敬拜中演唱。相反,他評論說, 我知道沒有比這更可能的了,即。詩篇、讚美詩和屬靈的歌曲確實回應了大衛詩篇的希伯來名字 Mizmorim、Tehillim 和 Shirim。所有的詩篇一起被稱為 Tehillim,即讚美,或讚美之歌。 Mizmor 和 Shir 出現在許多詩篇的標題中,有時一個,有時另一個,有時兩者都在一起,因為他們很清楚誰可以閱讀原文。現在,使徒用希臘譯本(新約如此多地遵循)翻譯希伯來文的相同名稱來稱呼它們,這是一個論點,他的意思是大衛的詩篇(福特,14)。 在對他的文本進行了語法歷史解釋後,他提出了一個相關的問題,“但為什麼有人更喜歡他的沉思而不是大衛的詩篇,是因為它們更優秀嗎?”他觀察到,“上帝親自製作並賜給我們一本詩篇”,並聲稱這足以滿足上帝子民的每一種情況:“人不可能有任何沉著冷靜,可以適應場合、需要、痛苦或感情上帝的子民,就像大衛的詩篇一樣”(福特,21)。詩篇遠勝過沒有靈感的人所寫的任何東西: 讓我們一旦承認我們必須唱詩篇,我保證大衛的詩篇會載它;現在沒有人的藝術或精神可以與大衛相提並論……我很想知道上帝的子民現在或任何時候擁有或可以擁有的情況,並且比任何由普通禮物組成的歌曲更好(福特,21、22)。 當有人反對寫歌和寫禱告應該有同樣的自由時,答案是上帝為歌唱而不是為祈禱規定了固定的形式:“使徒已經規定了我們要唱什麼,即。詩篇和讚美詩,以及屬靈的歌曲,它們是大衛詩篇的明確標題,如前所述。” “這有所不同,主沒有給他的人民規定固定的祈禱形式,就像他規定了詩篇的固定形式,2 Chron。 29.30。他們要用大衛和亞薩的話唱歌,但我們沒有讀到他們要以任何這種固定的形式祈禱”(Ford, 27, 28)。然後,他花很多時間在混合的會眾中為唱詩辯護,並敦促人們以大衛的精神唱大衛的詩。 另一位主張獨唱詩篇的成員是塞繆爾·吉布森。他已經被提及參與大會準備詩篇的工作,他對“工作的穩固性”表現出濃厚的興趣。在 1645 年 9 月 24 日下議院的佈道中,他證明了清教徒對聖經的承諾和對錫安歌曲的使用: 但人們常說,拿走共同祈禱書,拿走我們的宗教。不,我們的宗教在聖經裡;在各方面都有我們的上帝、我們的基督、我們的信仰和我們的信條。整本聖經都是聖保羅的信仰;有大衛的詩篇、他的祈禱文、主禱文和其他祈禱文,我們可以藉此學習祈禱;我們仍然有主的歌曲,錫安的歌曲,由許多人在他們心中以優雅的方式演唱,為主製作旋律,雖然沒有器官。 37 主的歌就是錫安的歌,這些聖經的詩篇足以為主作曲。 另一位對這個主題發表評論的成員是托馬斯·楊(Thomas Young),他在他的作品中調查了父親們對聖化安息日的態度。他觀察到早期教會有時會從舊約詩篇中唱出:“至於讚美詩本身,神聖的神諭以甜美的聲音唱出,確實使他們的聲音充滿活力,因此他們有時會唱大衛的詩篇”——金口和奧古斯丁38 他進一步注意到特圖良的證詞,即早期的基督徒會“根據聖經或他自己的發明”向上帝唱歌,並且“蘇格拉底提到了金口寫的一些詩篇”。然而,他總結了老底嘉會議的教規,該教規禁止在教堂裡唱私人詩篇: “Conc. Laod. Can. 59.. 禁止在教會內發表私人詩篇。因此,上述地方的聖奧斯汀指責多納特派,因為他們留下了大衛的詩篇,而唱的是他們自己發明的讚美詩”(Young, 358)。 最後,著名的東方學者約翰·萊特富特(John Lightfoot)也記錄了應該在敬拜中唱什麼曲子。他是李約瑟先生引用的威斯敏斯特議會的唯一代表,但從查閱萊特富特博士的原話可以清楚地看出他被錯誤引用了。 Needham 先生說,“萊特富特提到了對歌羅西書 3:16 和以弗所書 5:19 的唯一詩篇主義解釋”,但“他更喜歡這樣的解釋:‘這三篇是指大衛的詩篇,以及 S 中的其他歌曲聖經’”(威斯敏斯特,270)。然而,萊特富特博士並沒有對這種觀點給予個人偏好,而是明確指出這是對其他人的解釋:“其他人在細節上存在分歧,但同意這一點,這三個是指大衛的詩篇和其他歌曲在聖經中。”39 因為李約瑟先生未能正確地陳述他的來源,所以他沒有這個結論的依據:“因此,一位權威的威斯敏斯特神:聖經中的所有歌曲都可以在公共敬拜中演唱”(威斯敏斯特,270)。然而,即使這是一個正確的結論,結果也會是這位威斯敏斯特代表只允許在敬拜中使用靈感歌曲,而李約瑟先生認為要演唱的流派只是一種情況。 如果萊特富特博士沒有親自支持靈感歌曲的解釋,那麼有人可能會問,他對這件事的看法應該在敬拜中唱嗎?他指出,主在逾越節結束時所唱的讚美詩“與每個公司所做的完全相同,即。偉大的哈雷爾,正如它所稱的那樣,始於 CXIII。詩篇,並在 CXVIII 結束時結束。”這導致了一個驚人的觀察:“大衛的主在這裡唱大衛的詩篇。”然後闡述了這一點: 將聖靈賜給大衛作曲的,就是唱他所作的。和平與秩序的萬有祝福的副本,本可以自己,本可以啟發每個門徒成為大衛,但服從上帝所指定的秩序,唱大衛的詩篇,並為教會提供和平,並採取與整個教會相同的路線”(Lightfoot, Works, 2.1160)。 提出另一點供討論。 “但是他們用自己的語言翻譯過粗俗的翻譯嗎?”答案是肯定的,並從塔木德得到證明。然後從這個事實中得出一個推論:“這是我們將詩篇納入我們的語言和韻律的保證。因此,我們看到了我們偉大大師的榜樣,不是機構”(2.1160)。 注意到上帝已經指定大衛的詩篇應該由整個教會唱,基督自己遵守了這個神聖的任命,並且他用粗俗語言唱歌的榜樣足以證明從詩篇的格律翻譯中歌唱, Light-foot 博士以一個適當的應用作為結尾:“如果你唱得好,就唱大衛詩篇,但要把它們變成你自己的。讓沉著的技巧成為他的,奉獻的生命是你的”(2.1161)。那麼,萊特富特博士對要在敬拜中歌唱的問題有何看法?答案是大衛的詩篇。他們是神所指定的,是基督所唱的,是基督所設立的,是適合全教會唱的。 證據現在已經完成。 首先,蘇格蘭教會實行專屬的詩篇演唱。 其次,威斯敏斯特議會努力使英格蘭教會與蘇格蘭的做法保持一致,為舊約詩篇中的歌唱提供了條件。 第三,大會的當代批評者指責公共敬拜目錄將人造讚美詩排除在外,並將敬拜歌曲的問題限制在大衛的詩篇中。 最後,威斯敏斯特議會的個別成員支持獨家使用大衛的詩篇。 鑑於這些證據,很明顯,李約瑟先生聲稱排他性的詩篇是對《懺悔錄》中“唱詩篇”的最不可能的歷史語境解釋時,他未能恰當地代表威斯敏斯特議會的觀點。 21.5。 更廣泛的清教徒傳統。 現在應該如何看待李約瑟先生對更廣泛的清教徒傳統的描繪?威斯敏斯特議會是否改革了清教徒的傳統以使其成為唯一的聖詠者,或者在該傳統中是否有證據表明致力於排他的聖詠?對李約瑟先生的證據性質的一些簡短評論應該足以表明清教徒並不支持他試圖從他們的著作中提取的內容。 雖然李約瑟先生正確地指出了關於以弗所書 5.19 和歌羅西書 3.16 的解釋的不同意見,但他並沒有確定清教徒總是將這些經文視為與公共敬拜的實踐直接相關。在他對 Matthew Poole 註釋的總結中(儘管引用的地方不是 Matthew Poole 寫的)40,Needham 先生說,“Poole 的註釋並沒有採用對‘詩篇、讚美詩和靈歌’的唯一詩篇主義解釋,僅僅意味著詩篇”(威斯敏斯特,250)。然而,唯一的聖詠者立場是相對於公開敬拜上帝的立場。但普爾先生的繼承者從未暗示他們認為使徒保羅是在為公眾敬拜提供目錄。 Needham 先生在歌羅西書 3.16 中引用 Thomas Cartwright 和在以弗所書 5.19 中引用 Paul Baynes 並得出結論,他們“接受在公共敬拜中使用非大衛歌曲”(我們斯明斯特,263);但人們徒勞地尋找文本中的文字與公共敬拜情況的直接聯繫。 在托馬斯卡特賴特的案例中,李約瑟先生對非大衛歌曲的唯一論據是他沒有將這三個術語提到大衛詩篇,並且“精神”一詞用於激發精神情感的歌曲。 Davidic Psalms 肯定會激發這種感覺,所以人們不知道為什麼必須將 Elizabethan Presbyterian 理解為允許其他歌曲。 保羅·貝恩斯特別否認這些術語指的是要唱的事情:“有人可能會問,這些詞之間有什麼區別?答。有些人從他們的事情中得到它,有些人從方式中得到它; 41 他隨後從唱法的角度討論了歌詞的差異。他確實說過一首屬靈的歌曲可能是根據聖經(貝恩斯,505)構築的,但沒有暗示這將用於普通的公共敬拜環境中。當他談到“這節經文的總和”時,他談到了“在私下和公開場合唱歌,這本聖經和 Col. 3.16 確實推薦”;但在他談到教會服務時,他將他的術語限制在“詩篇”——“所有的事情,詩篇,教會中的祈禱都必須是為了造就”(505)。當他最終應用這段經文時,他提供了這個格言:“讓大衛的精神唱大衛的詩篇”(506)。當然,沒有證據表明尼達姆先生認為保羅·貝恩斯“可能已經批准了新寫的未受默示的敬拜歌曲,而不是大衛詩篇”(威斯敏斯特,267)。 Needham 先生確實承認了兩位清教徒解經家,他們將“詩篇、讚美詩和靈歌”理解為指的是大衛詩篇,即約翰·科頓和喬治·斯文諾克 (271)。事實是,有一大群清教徒是這樣理解經文的: 威廉·珀金斯:“《詩篇》,其中包含適合教會及其特定成員的每一種情況的神聖歌曲,也可以在心中以優雅的方式歌唱,Col. 3.16。”42 亨利·安斯沃思(Henry Ainsworth):“本書中提到了三種歌曲:1. Mizmor,在希臘語 psalmos 中是一首詩篇:2. Tehillah,在希臘語 humnos 中,是一首讚美詩或讚美詩;以及 3. Shir,在希臘語 ode 中是一首歌曲或躺著。使徒一併提到這三者,他要我們用‘詩篇、讚美詩和屬靈的歌曲’對自己說話,以弗所書 5:19。”43 Nathanael Homes:“大衛的詩篇充滿了讚美,以至於它們被稱為 Tehillim,讚美。因此,使徒在其中,以弗所。 5、巨像。 3,和馬特。 26.30,使用相同含義的希臘詞;即,humnos,一首讚美詩。 44 愛德華·利:“正如使徒勸告我們歌唱一樣,他也指示了我們歌曲的內容應該是什麼,即。詩篇、讚美詩和靈歌。這三個是大衛之歌的標題,因為它們是由聖靈親自交付給我們的。”45 威廉巴頓:“聖經詩篇(甚至大衛的詩篇,在希伯來語中被稱為詩篇、讚美詩和靈歌),不得在教會中使用;因為基督的聖言沒有別的,因此不可能有聖經詩篇所具有的確定性、純潔性、權威性和充分性……上帝已在他的聖言中設立並編寫了一本詩篇集,以造就他的教會。 ”46 喬納森·克拉彭:“使徒,弗。第 5 章和第 3 章,在他命令唱詩篇的地方,通過使用這三個詞,詩篇、讚美詩和靈歌,清楚地向我們指出大衛的詩篇,這三個詞回答了希伯來語的三個詞,Shorim、Tehillim、Mizmorim ,因此大衛的詩篇被稱為。”47 托馬斯·曼頓(Thomas Manton):“現在這些詞(這是大衛詩篇的已知劃分,明確回應了希伯來詞 Shurim、Tehillim 和 Mizmorim,通過這些詞來區分和賦予他的詩篇),使徒在這兩篇詩篇中都如此精確地使用了這些詞。地方,請明確指出我們的詩篇。”48 Cuthbert Sydenham:“我發現它們通常被用作大衛詩篇的標題,這三個詞的命名是混雜的。”49 艾薩克·安布羅斯(Isaac Ambrose):“基督徒是否可以合法地唱大衛詩或摩西詩?它會如何出現?肯定的回答:弗。 5.19,在這三個標題下,詩篇、讚美詩和精神歌曲,包含大衛詩篇。”50 最後,在 1673 年,為倫敦文具公司印刷了一個版本的蘇格蘭格律詩篇,其中包含一封介紹性的書信,其中有以下陳述:“對我們來說,大衛的詩篇似乎顯然是由詩篇、讚美詩和精神歌曲的這些術語所意圖的,使徒使用的,以弗所。 5.19,第 3.16 欄。”這封書信的訂閱者有:Thomas Manton, D.D., Henry Langley, D.D., John Owen, D.D., William Jenkyn, James Innes, Thomas Watson, Thomas Lye, Matthew Poole, John Milward, John Chester, George Cokayn, Matthew Meade, Robert Francklin,小托馬斯·杜,Thomas Vincent、Nathanael Vincent、John Ryther、William Tomson、Nicolas Blakie、Charles Morton、Edmund Calamy、51 William Carslake、James Janeway、John Hickes、John Baker 和 Richard Mayo.52 李約瑟先生在總結他的歷史考察時說:“我們所研究的幾乎所有改革宗評論家都未能將這些術語解釋為僅指大衛詩篇”(威斯敏斯特,283)。問題在於,他似乎沒有查閱足夠數量的材料,以得出一個公平的想法,即以弗所書 5.19 和歌羅西書 3.16 是如何被整個清教徒傳統理解的。 此外,他未能理解這樣一個事實,即他所引用的評論員並不一定認為這些經文中的條款規定了在公共敬拜中要唱詩歌的問題,而是更關心將道應用於敬虔的生活一般來說。 另一方面,這篇評論中引用的清教徒確實認為這些文本是對敬拜歌曲的規定,並表示他們確信使徒打算通過這些術語來指代大衛的詩篇。 因此,總的來說,必須得出結論,李約瑟先生並沒有真正代表清教徒傳統與唱詩職責有關的一般思想。 樂器 在評論的這一部分下幾乎不需要說什麼。作者毫不含糊地陳述了威斯敏斯特神職人員的立場:“顯然,威斯敏斯特神職人員不相信器樂崇拜的有效性”(威斯敏斯特,291)。這篇評論已經提到了塞繆爾吉布森在下議院的佈道,他在其中說:“我們仍然有主的歌曲,錫安的歌曲,由許多人在他們心中以優雅的方式演唱,為主譜寫旋律,儘管沒有器官”(吉布森,廢墟,25)。 Needham 先生引用了 1644 年 5 月 9 日頒布的議會法令,“為了迅速拆除所有機關”和“以後不再設立其他機關”(威斯敏斯特,291)。他指出,在為器樂崇拜辯護時,所有訴諸舊約的東西“都會在調節原則的礁石上破碎”(296),並證明在舊約崇拜中“噪音就是崇拜:一種音頻象徵性的召喚上帝的威嚴和榮耀……隨著主耶穌基督的到來而消逝,當‘在耶路撒冷’的敬拜轉變為‘用心靈和誠實’的敬拜時”(298)。 到目前為止,威斯敏斯特/清教徒的傳統得到了很好的保存。然而,讀者很快就被引入了一個微妙的區別:“但是,在新約之下,我們應該做些什麼——不是器樂崇拜——而是器樂伴奏呢?” (299)。結果表明,訴諸間接論證只能證明使用單一樂器來保持會眾歌唱的音調是合理的,而大型會眾並不真正需要這種伴奏。還澄清了樂器有接管崇拜服務的趨勢,必須防止這種濫用。不過,總而言之,作者認為“使用單一樂器,純粹是為了保持歌唱的時間和音調,可以被證明是一種敬拜的情況”(302)。 這當然是李約瑟先生自己的觀點,而且他沒有提供威斯敏斯特代表的支持。如前所述,議會下令拆除機關,並明確表示將來不再設立機關。因此,第二次宗教改革運動是否會接受器樂崇拜和伴奏之間的這種有點微妙的區別是值得懷疑的。 結論 威廉坎寧安的靈性洞察力可能有助於 抓住這次審查的基本關注點: 人以治愈缺陷和缺陷為幌子,依附於新約中擺在我們面前的教會安排,不斷地提出政府和敬拜的創新和改進。問題是,這些建議應該如何被接受?我們的回答是,有一個偉大的普遍的聖經原則將他們全部拒之門外。我們甚至拒絕考慮支持他們的指控。對我們來說,他們沒有聖經的正面認可就足夠了。 53 敬拜的規範性原則要求對作為特定敬拜行為獻給上帝的一切事物提供積極的聖經依據。李約瑟先生肯定了威斯敏斯特議會的堅持,即所有敬拜都必須由上帝親自設立,但他通過允許那些不受聖經禁止的事物而削弱了這一原則。 關於大會對唱詩的看法,李約瑟先生未能審查大會在為公眾敬拜的這一普通部分作出規定方面的工作;確定威斯敏斯特神職人員的初衷的主要焦點應該乞求如果不在這裡結束。他對“歷史-語境”背景的調查與更廣泛的清教徒傳統有關,在許多情況下,他將公共敬拜背景強加到他所引用的那些陳述中。只有遵循這個錯誤的過程,他才能將威斯敏斯特的公式解釋為允許聖經外歌曲。否則,就沒有理由不按照《懺悔錄》所說的“文字的普通常識”(第 22.4 章)來理解它們。蘇格蘭教會獨有的唱詩實踐、威斯敏斯特議會在準備詩篇的工作、1640 年代進行改革工作的環境、威斯敏斯特個別代表的證詞以及更廣泛的清教徒傳統都提供了良好的聲音將“詩篇”一詞作為舊約詩篇的參考的原因。 最後,李約瑟先生正確地指出,威斯敏斯特的神職人員不相信器樂崇拜的有效性,議會下令永久拆除所有器官。沒有提供任何證據表明大會可能考慮將其用作敬拜的一種情況,以保持歌唱的時間和音調。因此,機械儀器的間接論證必須被視為個人意見,在威斯敏斯特議會的工作和著作中沒有得到支持。 ■ |