Reformed Anglican Fellowship

Reformed Doctrine | Common Prayer

Reformed Doctrine | Common Prayer 

Contributors to the metrical psalter of 1562

Source

Contributors to the metrical psalter of 1562
 (act. c.1549–1562)
 can hardly, in a conventional sense, be described as forming a group at all. By the time of publication Thomas Sternhold, whose work provided a yardstick for psalms in English, had been dead for nearly fifteen years, while the presiding genius of English protestant printing, Edward Whitchurch, from whose press Sternhold's first efforts had issued, died shortly after the appearance of the 1562 volume. But the contributors were none the less united by their religious persuasion, and by the fact of their common involvement in a work whose impact on the English-speaking world has been second only to that of the Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible.

The metrical psalter proved to be one of the defining monuments to the Elizabethan religious settlement, but to an extraordinary degree it derived from the experiences and practices of English protestants who had gone into exile during the reign of Mary—their versions of the English metrical psalter, printed in Geneva, constituted the principal source for the London edition of 1562. The latter was thus not the first complete versified psalter to appear in English: as well as Genevan editions in 1557 and 1559, earlier versions had appeared in the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva Bibleof 1560, and in individual psalters by George Joye in 1530 and Miles Coverdale in 1540, while complete paraphrastic versions had been offered by Joye in 1534 and Coverdale in 1535. Nor was it the first complete psalter to be pointed or set to music: such versions had been published in 1548 and 1549 by Coverdale, by Robert Crowley in 1549, and in a Genevan edition of 1556. Moreover numerous smaller collections of psalms in English had been appearing at intervals since the reign of Henry VIII, by such poets as Thomas Wyatt and Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, and by court musicians like Thomas Sternhold and churchmen like Thomas Becon and John Knox. But the appearance of the metrical psalter of 1562 consolidated, defined, and dominated the genre at least until the end of the seventeenth century.

Most of the contributors to the psalter were linked directly to the household of Edward Seymour in the later 1540s, or to his court after 1547, when he became duke of Somerset and lord protector of the realm. Like him they were evangelicals, and most of them shared in the protestant exile that followed Mary's accession in 1553. As early as 1549 Thomas Sternhold had published nineteen metrical psalms in ballad metre, which he himself probably sang at court to the young Edward VI. He held royal appointments under both Henry VIII and his son, and was enough of a protestant sympathizer to be briefly imprisoned in 1543 under the Act of Six Articles. Enlarged collections set to popular ‘fourteener’ metre appeared as public tastes responded to the lead set by the royal household, and these became the core of the metrical psalter that English protestants took with them into exile. Although Sternhold's contribution (forty-four psalms) is not the largest, his initiative was clearly the most influential. The most substantial contribution (sixty-one) to the psalter of 1562 was that of John Hopkins, a Londoner associated with Sternhold's publisher Edward Whitchurch. There is no evidence that he knew Sternhold, but Hopkins contributed to the enlarged edition of Sternhold's collection that was published after the latter's death in 1549.

After Hopkins the largest contribution to the psalter was made by Thomas Norton (twenty-four psalms), a lawyer, dramatist, and Edward Seymour's amanuensis, who married the daughter of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (in 1556 Edward Whitchurch married Cranmer's widow, Margaret, and so became effectively Norton's father-in-law). In Seymour's service by 1550, Norton, like Hopkins, avoided exile, but his protestant sympathies were evident from his close association with Thomas Becon (Seymour's chaplain) and Robert Wisdom, both of whom resided in Seymour's court following their return from their first exile during the last years of Henry VIII. Another contributor, William Whittingham (eight psalms), seems while he was in exile in Geneva to have presided over the preparation of the precursors to the 1562 psalter that were made there. William Kethe (eight psalms) was also a Genevan exile, acting as Whittingham's chaplain and sharing his more puritan bent, before aligning himself with Ambrose Dudley in the 1560s. Lesser contributions were made by John Marckant (four psalms and various prayers), John Pulleyne (yet another exile at Geneva), who added one, and Robert Wisdom, who withdrew not to Switzerland but to Germany, and who supplied one psalm and a prayer.

The metrical psalter of 1562 was published by John Day; its anonymous editor was probably William Whittingham, drawing on his experience at Geneva. The English churches in exile, adopting the practice of their host communities based on decades of communal singing, served as the midwife to the 1562 Sternhold and Hopkins psalter once their members returned home. But although the practice of psalm-singing had developed further among the exiles, in both the moderate Frankfurt community and the Calvinist Genevan church, the psalms that had been versified in the heady days of Edwardian protestantism were given added, and divisive, significance by the experience of Mary's reign, as the 1562 psalter itself showed. A number of contributions to the Genevan psalter were replaced when the Elizabethan edition appeared: Kethe's original twenty-five psalms were cut to eight, and Whittingham's eleven were also reduced to eight, with many of their efforts being replaced by versions from Hopkins. The latter's less strident psalms replace most of Kethe's more radical offerings and some of Whittingham's, and the overall effect of the psalter reverts to Sternhold's original intention of providing spiritual delight rather than ‘moral antidotes’ to popular ballads (Zim, 113).

Even after such alterations the psalter of 1562 is still heavily charged with the lamentation of a persecuted church, a church fallen into ‘the latter dayes’ of ‘these most perilous times’ (Booke of Psalmes, 397, 408), and thus bears an unmistakable resemblance to the Anglo-Genevan community in exile. Wisps of polemic cling to various songs, treatises, and prayers. An appendix to the ‘Athanasian’ table, listing various psalms for specific uses, details psalms against papists and the ungodly (ibid., sig. A.iii), and a closing song asks for deliverance from ‘turk and pope’ (ibid., 395). Given the fact that Whittingham's preface to the Genevan edition of 1556 was directed as much to the home church smarting under Mary's persecutions as it was to the community in exile, it is not surprising that there should be prayerful supplications for relief from ‘the burning heat of persecution’, in times when ‘our brethren in other countries [are] daily persecuted and cast into prison and daily condemned for the testimony of thy truth’ (ibid., 408).

The metrical psalter of 1562 was not only a public statement of evangelical belief, it was clearly intended to be an alternative to the still popular and widely available books of hours, which contained a number of psalms. Shorn of all embellishment, images, calendars, saints' days, and illustrations, it opens with a short treatise on how ‘without ayde or helpe of any other teacher’ (Booke of Psalmes, sig. +ii) it is possible to learn both to sing psalms and to lead others in singing them. This is followed by a series of hymns translated from Latin into English, including the Veni creator Spiritus, ‘Song of the Three Children’, the BenedictusMagnificat, and Nunc dimittis (possibly by Sternhold), the Athanasian creed (perhaps by Norton), the ‘Lamentation of a Sinner’ and the ‘Suit of a Sinner’ (Marckant), the Lord's prayer, and the ten commandments (Norton). Following the psalms, paraphrastic versions of the ten commandments (Whittingham) and the Lord's prayer (attributed to D. Coxe, almost certainly in error for Richard Cox) reappear, along with a metrical version of the creed and a series of prayers and songs appointed for both domestic and public worship.

The unprecedented success of the psalter owed as much to its music as to the traditional reverence for the psalms. Although the Genevan community had assigned a separate melody to each psalm (a practice abandoned by the London edition of 1562, which uses only sixty-five tunes), they had adopted a monodic arrangement in common or ballad metre without printed harmonies, which proved highly suitable for congregational use. The psalms were to be sung strophically, in unison, and without accompaniment. Shorn of the intricacies of Catholic liturgical music, which had effectively excluded all but the most highly trained voices from participation, the metrical psalter became ‘the secret weapon of the Reformation’ (MacCulloch, 298). While later commentators found this musically uninteresting, it was undoubtedly exceedingly popular. In 1563 a companion volume keyed to the 1562 edition provided four-part settings, largely by Thomas Causton, for congregations wanting greater musical sophistication.

Simple and easily memorable, the largely end-stopped rhymes of the psalter of 1562, set primarily to common fourteener metre and eschewing curious or subtle diction, served the English church for centuries. Regularly appended to editions of the Book of Common Prayer, in 1696 it was officially replaced by the New Version of the Psalms of David of Nicholas Brady and Nahum Tate, but nevertheless continued to appear in print regularly for over a century more.

Seymour Baker House

Sources  

T. Sternhold and others, eds., The whole booke of psalmes: collected into Englysh metre (1562) · R. Zim, English metrical psalms: poetry as praise and prayer, 1535–1601 (1987) · D. MacCulloch,The Reformation (2004) · J. N. King, English Reformation literature: the Tudor origins of the protestant tradition (1982) · C. H. Garrett, The Marian exiles: a study in the origins of Elizabethan puritanism (1938); repr. (1966) · New Grove · D. Wulstan, Tudor music (1986)

Dispute Resolution; Anglican Style

How do Anglicans resolve disputes?  Is it truly Anglican to search for common consent with no fixed principles or standards other than the desire to please the other side? 

No. This methodolgy called "Indaba" is NOT Anglican. Historically, Anglicanism takes the opposite point of view, that when we all subscribe to a fixed common confession, use a fixed common liturgy, and organize ourselves according to established standards and patterns, we're much more able to be united. This is our Anglican heritage, that we are well regulated, that we understand the proper use of authority and freedom.  Indeed, we are better equipped to resolve disputes than any other brand of Christianity. 

Six of the most difficult and common arguments in churches are about doctrine, the content of worship, the order of worship, the role of ministers, the design of organization, and of course sex and gender. 

In theory, Anglicans have very little to argue about because these issues are already decided.  The answers we have are intrinsic to what it is to be "Anglican."  Most churches don't provide any guidelines whatsoever; they leave all these matters up to congregations to decide, or even to individual persons. Other denominations have a confession to help them navigate contentious waters; usually addressing only the weighty matters of theology.  By contrast, the Anglican's confession addresses many issues in great detail.  It sets aside some issues to the rule of personal conscience, but it also suggests what ought to be good (bene esse) and declares what is essential (esse).

  1. Basic doctrine.
    • Anglicanism subscribes to what is taught in the Creeds, in the 39 Articles (1563), and in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (with Ordinal). We also receive, not by way of subscription but by way of clarification what is taught in the Homilies and in certain additional confessions of the early Reformation era, where the Church of England was ecumenically associated; the Lambeth Articles of 1598, the Irish Articles of 1615 and the Canons of Dordt (1625). As a result, in all the many issues addressed by these documents, there is no reason for Anglicans wonder how to resolve doctrinal disputes.
  2. Content of Worship.
    • Anglicanism worships according to the Book of Common Prayer, and not just something with that label but it must be consistent with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. We don't worship according to individual preference. Instead we have set prayers, songs, and rubrics for every phase of worship, and they have existed for hundreds or even thousands of years. We believe that maintaining them is both to honor the Lord and to honor our inheritance of faith. While certain components of worship are permitted to vary with the circumstances and culture of the gathered congregation, the essential content and style of worship must be within the established bounds of this specific prayer book.
  3. Order of Worship.
    • We also follow the order of worship established in this Book of Common Prayer. Although there are details that may be adjusted, here is the basic outline for both daily prayer and for Sunday worship.  All Anglican worship follows this general pattern.
      1. First we hear God's pronouncement upon our sins, which we then confess, and for which we then receive His forgiveness. 
      2. Then we read selections from the Psalms, the Law and the Prophets, the Gospels and the Epistles.  We publicly declare what we believe and we also hear the Word preached if a minister is available. 
      3. Then we direct our attention to the needs of the church and the concerns of our neighbors, by prayers of thanksgiving and petition and by taking up a collection.
      4. Then optionally, a minister will administer the Lord's sacraments as He commanded for those that are prepared to receive them, both Baptism and the Supper.
  4. Role of Ministers.
    • We follow what is prescribed in the 39 Articles and the Ordinal.  Our pastors and assistant pastors, which we call "presbyters" (or "priests") and "deacons" have specific duties to perform and well defined lines of authority, both within their ranks and between them and the laity,  for their assistance and for the sake of accountability. Our parishes are not owned by the clergy, nor are ministers autonomous. Bishops, Priests and Deacons are all serve subject to an election and call from "the congregation".  
  5. Design of Organization.
    • We use an "episcopal" form of government.  This means that at the head of our church, we have a "Bishop" whose duty is overseeing the operation of every part of every parish under his care.  It also means that every aspect of his diocese is subject to his rule, provided his actions remain within the bounds of our Formularies (39 Articles, Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal). It may be surprising to some, but Anglicanism's form of episcopal government has an elaborate system of checks and balances.
  6. Sex and Gender.
    • We have established rules here also. The Anglican liturgy called the "Solemnization of Matrimony" says emphatically that marriage is 1. a gift of God originally presented to Adam and Eve, 2. a public recognition of the joining of a man and a woman, 3. an institution for all men to honor, not just Christians.  Its purposes are also specific; to produce children, to remedy sin and to provide mutual help and comfort. Nothing could be more clear.

A Sad Conclusion. Theory vs. Reality

So in theory Anglicans are well regulated and know how to resolve most of the disputes that a church might have. Ironically, Anglicans are famous for just the opposite, for having no reliable boundaries of behavior.  We have a reputation for being unregulated and undisciplined, following a private sense of what is 'normal' and 'right', and convinced of no principle higher than what can be determined by mutual consent.  For these reasons, everyday life in many modern Anglican parishes is less than idyllic.

There can be many reasons for Anglicanism's failure to produce one mind in Christ on even the simplest of matters, but having a lack of regulation is not one of them. Anglicans do not have the excuse of ignorance, of never having been informed.

 

Lord's Prayer: Answered.

"When ye pray, use no vain repetitions as the Heathen: for they think to be heard for their much babbling. Be ye not like them therefore: for your Father knoweth whereof ye have need, before ye ask of him. After this manner therefore pray ye, Our father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done even in earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors."  Matthew 6:7-12

The Lord's Prayer is the most well known and repeated Scripture text in the world.  But for the modern English speaker it is poorly understood because of difficulties in translating Greek verbs which are in the aorist tense, imperative mood, and middle voice.  I'll get to the details, but first let's look at some grammar.

Basic Grammar

Mood

In both Greek and  English, we have the imperative mood. When a verb is in the second person; the imperative a simple command or a wish for some action in the future; ("[you] go away!" or "[you] have a nice trip"). In the 1st and 3rd person imperative, English requires the helper verb "to let" as in "Let us pray", "Let me say", or "Let it be known". One needs to be cautious in English because of misunderstanding because the verb "to let" also means to "to permit" or "allow."  "Let him be executed" could be an imperative or not, and the consequence of not understanding the author's intent is significant.  So if we are describing a future (uncompleted) action, then "to let" is suitable way to express the imperative in the 3rd person... if we are careful. 

But what if we are trying to describe an imperative action that is completed?  

Tense 

In Greek, completed actions can use a past tense or an aorist tense.  The aorist is not simply a past tense.  It describes a completed action but it can be in the present or even in the future. When Scripture describes the events of Easter morning, it quotes the disciples saying "He has risen" or "He was raised" using a past tense to indicate that He was no longer there. Eventually Christians came to say "He is risen" (aorist tense) to indicate that the resurrection was completed in the past, is completed now, and will always be completed.    So that is how the Greek aorist gets translated into English when the mood is indicative; it uses a past participle of the verb "to rise" combined with the present tense of the verb "to be."

Voice

Note also that the above aorist construction is in the passive voice.  As such, the form "is risen" is sometimes known as a "divine passive" because it is reflexive.  There is theological significance here because using the passive voice indicates is that Jesus was not the maker of his own resurrection; his duty was subject to predestination under God's eternal plan.


The Lord's Prayer

We still have not answered the question; what if we are trying to describe an imperative action that is completed?  That is precisely the challenge in Lord's Prayer.  We have a long series of Greek verbs that are in the aorist imperative. In English, we don't have an aorist imperative, so we must use alternative verb forms to show action that is imperative, passive (reflexive), and completed.  We'll look at the Lord's Prayer into two sections:

Section 1

Here we have four instances of the aorist imperative.  In each case the verb is "to be" in the 3rd person.  We must treat them consistently.

  • Our Father ["to be"] in heaven
  • Thy thy name ["to be"] hallowed
  • Thy kingdom ["to be"] come
  • Thy will ["to be"] done on earth as in heaven

In the era of early modern English (1500-1800) we find that all Bible translators rendered the text with an archaic form of the verb "to be".  In the first instance it became "art" and in the latter three instances it became "be".  It was a good way of expressing the aorist imperative at that time;  a completed action that took place by imperative will of God.  The problem is that "art" and "be", which were common speech in the 16th century are not well understood in modern English.  In fact they are typically understood as being present tense indicative, and we don't want to leave that misunderstanding.

In modern English (after 1800), Bible translators, (if they dared tinker with tradition) did just that unfortunately.  They translated the first line as a simple present tense, "Our Father who is in heaven", making no effort to express either the aorist or the imperative. When they came to the next three lines, they used the imperative but they left the tense in the present.  The result was "Let (or may) thy name be hallowed", "Let (or may) thy kingdom come", "Let (or may) thy will be done".  There are two problems with this solution.  First, it doesn't indicate God's completed action but rather that God is yet to act.  Second and worse, it may be interpreted that "let/may" means that God acts in this world by permission rather than by the force of His own will.  So while the archaic English text was a good translation at that time, the English text of the Lord's Prayer found in modern Bibles is not.

What should the modern translators have done? What alternatives exist in modern English?  They might have said "Our Father, being in heaven, thy name being holy, thy kingdom being come, thy will being done in earth as in heaven..." It sounds more like modern English, but it also alters the meaning significantly.  An adverbial participle clause with "being" is a formal or literary style, like the original.  It indicates an established fact, as in, "Being slim I squeezed through the gate." Therefore, with respect to the Lord's Prayer, an adverbial participle clause paired with "being" passes the test of translating the aorist tense, the imperative mood, and the passive voice.  It is the same construction as the original, but now this section of the prayer is a series of subordinate clauses rather than independent sentences. Is this satisfactory? No. 

Section 2

Here we have four different verbs, each in the aorist imperative, but this time they are in the 2nd person rather than the third person.  As such they suggest an emphatic imperative, but with the same tense and voice as before. Both traditional and modern English texts are rendered the same way, and on the surface there is nothing wrong with them. They say

Give us this day our daily bread. Forgive us our trespasses as we do them that trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation. Deliver us from evil.

What is missing in these translations is the sense of the Greek aorist; that from God's eternal perspective, His giving, forgiving, leading, and delivering are completed actions. Because they are in the 2nd person there is unfortunately no choice but to render the text as the present imperative rather than the aorist imperative.

This is why it is so important that the aorist/imperative/passive context should be established in section 1.  Otherwise the opportunity for misunderstanding section 2 is large.

Summary

Despite all the inconveniences, the Lord's Prayer must use the traditional translation as found in the 1611 King James Bible and the 1599 Geneva Bible. If one tries to upgrade the Lord's Prayer to more modern English, bad choices abound and good choices are none.  Notwithstanding that early modern English is uncomfortable to the modern ear, there really is no alternative.

When we pray the Lord's Prayer, the Lord Jesus is telling us because He is in heaven, because He is holy, because He is coming again and because our future is as secure as His, that our prayers are already answered by God, and they are even uttered by our lips according to His eternal plan, from which there is no possible deviation.

Our Father, who art in heaven. Thy name be holy. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread. Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation. Deliver us from evil.

It is hard to use a form of English that is 500 years old, but in this case at any rate it is necessary.


Frequently Asked Questions about the Lord's Prayer

  • Does the Lord's Prayer have a section 3?  Yes, in Matthew 6, it continues with "Thine is the kingdom, power and glory for ever and ever."  This ending does not appear in Luke 11.  While Matthew's words are surely authentic to what Jesus actually said, I believe Luke does not record them because the verbs are in the present indicative rather than the aorist imperative.  This last section is not meant to be understood in the same way as the first two sections.
  • Can saying the Lord's Prayer every day become a vain repetition?  No.  It is impossible for the prayer to be vain precisely because it is written entirely in the aorist imperative, where the actions are completed, where God is the only actor, and where man has no power to override the imperative of God's will.  That being said, it most certainly is a vanity when men change the prayer to imply that God is who He is and does what He does as a result of our praying.  Most emphatically the Lord's Prayer teaches the opposite.  In fact, when Matthew introduces the Lord's Prayer, he says as much, "When ye pray, use no vain repetitions as the Heathen: for they think to be heard for their much babbling. Be ye not like them therefore: for your Father knoweth whereof ye have need, before ye ask of him." Jesus is telling us to pay attention to the aorist imperative, that our prayers are already answered by God when we pray them, and this is according to His eternal plan from which there is no possible deviation.
  • Must we pray "forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors" instead of using "trespasses"  and "trespass" instead?  No.  It is perfectly acceptable to use the word "trespasses."  Matthew in fact is quick to explain that this is precisely how we should understand Jesus when he said "debts";  "For if ye do forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye do not forgive men their trespasses, no more will your father forgive you your trespasses."
  • Must we use the early modern English words "thou", "thee",  "thine", "your" and "ye" instead of the fully modern "you", "you", "your", "your" and "you." No.  However, when we talk of modernizing the traditional idiom of the Book of Common Prayer and the Bibles of that era, we're NOT talking about going back two generations but rather only one generation; to the "golden age of English literature" and the dawning of modern civilization. This is the age of Shakespeare and so many others of whom our civilization cannot afford to lose the perspective. The English words thou, thee, thy, thine and ye are translated from emphatic Greek and Hebrew personal pronouns in order to distinguish the plural from the singular identity when just one person is being addressed (the 2nd person singular).  In modern English, there is no easy way to express this singularity except by making it even more formalized. For example, in modern English, can a person expressing love for another by say  "I love you alone"? Is this more understandable than "I love thee"? I think it's not. Is it silly to even discuss this? Well, if the intent is to communicate love for one to the exclusion of all others, then it's not. When we are translating from one language into another, should we not use the most accurate words available if our only reason to do otherwise is that they are anachronistic? Modern Christians, faced with endless attacks on the integrity of the Bible must be sure to guard every "jot and tittle" of God's word, and these personal pronouns are just that, jots and tittles. So even if it is possible maintain good doctrine with a poor translation, the Church is not permitted to choose colloquial speech over accurate speech when such an either/or choice presents itself.  If not here, then where is the Church required to separate itself from the world? It's especially true when addressing God. Our form of speech toward the Lord must be distinguishable from the prayers of the heathen when they call out to their multiple gods.  The 1st and 2nd Commandments are regulative with respect to how we address the God who says "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have none other gods before me...Thou shalt not bow down to them, neither serve them: for I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God" (Exodus 20:2-5)  More information

Reformed Doctrine | Common Prayer