The “Great Awaking” had already been going for four years and the only type of music that was being used was that of psalmody. Jonathan Edwards, the inister under who’s ministry this revival had started had left his church for a short period. During his absence his congregation in Northampton, Massachusetts came under the influence of George Whitefield, the great Puritan revivalist from England. Whitefield introduced the congregation to the hymns of Isaac Watts and they stopped singing Psalms altogether. When Edwards returned, feeling that psalmody was the only mode of singing, arranged a compromise which included the use of both hymns and psalms. 1
This example of a congregations abandoning psalmody for hymnody is one of the few which are recorded. Yet the Northampton’s congregation sudden change is understandable in light of the situation in which psalmody was in during the 1700s in America. This combined with other factors produced this sudden change during the “great awaking”.
Before we begin the exploration of the transition from psalmody to hymnody, we need to define what each term. Psalmody is simply the singing of psalms from the Bible to music. Psalmody goes back to ancient Israel where temple singers would chant psalms in rhythm. Occasionally, the congregation would respond with a short refrain between verses. The practice continued into the Christian church with the whole congregation singing the verses. Hymnody on the other hand is much closer to what contemporary evangelical church’s sing in worship services. In this case, the words are composed, hopefully based on biblical truths. Either way, the words to the hymn are typically not straight out of the bible as it is for psalms singing.
One of the first problems with psalmody was the way it was used in worship at this time. A Mr. Burney, in his History of Music Volume l (dated 1776) stated that the psalmody was the most unmeaning and monotonous kind; without harmony, variety of accent, rhythm and most of the constituent parts of mere melody.”2 Even though the description may be a bit hard on them, yet it is considered to be fairly accurate. Psalmody in the early eighteenth century New England was, to put it in modern terms, was not “where it was at”.
But there was a time when psalmody was “where it was at”. In the early days of the Puritan movement, psalmody was a popular form of singing. However at some point it went bad.
Originally at the time of Calvin, the psalms were considered new, different and so bright in comparison to the music being used then “…that some people in derision called them ‘Geneva Jigs'”.3 This certainly is a different description than that of Mr. Burney, some two hundred years later! It is this difference in description which supports the idea that originally they were enjoyed by the congregation.
There is another point which leads us to believe that they were enjoyed and accepted by the people. In Calvin’s Geneva, people were punished for violation of the reformed law, so it would be easy for Calvin to have forced psalmody on the people. Yet they sang the psalms because they enjoyed them, because there is not a single instance of punishment of people who sang music (even worldly music).4 The people were free to choose their music and hence, chose psalmody because the pleasure it brought.
It is important to realize that Calvin did not call psalmody the only music and all others worldly. It was not that simple for him. It was how they were used that was bad. Percy Scholes says in Puritans and Music “A clear distinction is made in this sermon [by Calvin on Job] between a reasonable spirit of enjoyment and a mad one: ‘Some people can enjoy themselves without losing their self-control, but here (Job 21 ), Job tells us that the wicked turn to abuse the gifts and graces of God.5
It was not that music was absolutely wrong for Calvin, but that it is the use of the music that is what is wrong. Some people can handle it properly, but not all. In this light, Calvin then goes on to say, “The flute and tabor and similar things are not blameworthy in themselves, but only their abuse by men, who most commonly turn them to bad ends.”6 Scholes further adds, “Calvin pleads with his hearers to ‘use the good things that, God has made for us in such a way that we may not be led to cease to aspire to heaven”.7
The fear then for Calvin, was that music used improperly could distract one from the road to heaven. With this then in mind, Calvin felt that the best music to keep one on the right road was psalmody. The people who followed him were not lacking of musical sense, they would not have sung poor music and because of this, one can see psalmody was enjoyed.
However; before one thinks that all of those in Calvin’s Geneva were joyfully singing the psalm, it must be said that they were not. In the minutes of both Council and Consistory of Geneva “There is the austere individual who objects to psalm-singing and says the psalms give him a headache, and that they remind him of the singing of the priests of old-times, and who confesses that when psalm-singing is toward (sic) he never troubles to sing the words (Consistory, 14, September 1553). 8
But despite the few, the majority enjoyed the “Geneva Jigs”, and this paved the way for the singing of psalms for later generations. But it still remains unsolved, at which point psalmody went “bad”.
In the quest to improve psalmody in the late 17th and early 18th century, men started to arrange them to be more enjoyable, which in turn created another problem. The vast number of Puritans at this time in New England, could not read music or even sing on pitch and as a result created poor sound. Things were fine in the early days, when psalms were sung to folk tunes (as in Calvin’s time) or simple melodies. But now as new Psalters (collections of psalms) and melodies were created through the use of various devices, the congregation was left behind.
This condition was not unnoticed in the early eighteenth century. The clergy, especially, became concerned with this. Two sides to the issue were created. One side felt the psalms should be sung using noted and rules of music (called regular singing) and the other side felt they should let the psalms come naturally.
Cotton Mather, the greatest of the Puritan preachers was one who supported “regular singing.” Early in his work at his second church, it’s singing started to concern him greatly. On March 13, 1721 he said to himself,
“‘Should not something be done towards mending the singing in our congregation?’ A singing school then in progress offed the most obvious means and on March 16th, he preached in the school-house to the young musicians from Revelation 14:3 -‘ no man could learn that song.’ Samuel Sweall (precentor) … wrote of the occasion, ‘House was full, and the singing extraordinary excellent, such as hardly been heard before in Boston …” Even with this impetus, however, Mather feared that the lessons were not coming home to his own congregation. On June 5, 1721, he confided in his diary, ‘I must of necessity do something that the exercise of singing the sacred psalm the flock may be made more beautiful.'”9
Within three years, Cotton Mather won the battle, not only in his own congregation, but also in the whole city. The only pocket of resistance was in a small town ten miles from Boston. Cotton Mather described that church as “sett upon their old howling in the public psalmody, that being rebuked for the disturbance, they made by the more numerous regular singers, they declared they would be for the Ch. of E. [Church of England] and would form a Little Assembly for that purpose.”10
When it came to hymnody, Cotton Mather went further than any of the preachers and allowed for the reading of Isaac Watt’s hymns in private devotions. Watt’s hymns as will be shown later, were ideally suited for acceptance by the Puritans in New England. Johnathan Edwards, on the other hand, would have never accepted the hymns of Watts, not at least publicly and when he did, it was only as a compromise.
It was these same singing schools, which were designed to improve psalmody that later helped hymns to be accepted. As will be shown , these singing schools helped people to read music and be able to learn the Watt’s hymns when they were introduced.11
Another problem with the psalmody of eighteenth century in America was that they were simply boring. This became obvious as one sees the devices which were used to improve them.
One of these devices was to embellish the melody line with 16th and 32nd notes. But this accentuated a problem already discussed, the music became too complicated and created a greater need of increased music skill.
Another tool was harmony. This had to be approached carefully, for Calvin was not in support of harmony. There where cases where chords were implied. When the congregation was singing a melody in tune, if individual singers either lagged or ran ahead of the rest of the congregation, they would create suttle harmony. The only problem with this is that these chords happened when they were singing badly and compounded the problems all ready mentioned.
One attempt by a Mr. Walter to introduce harmony was to persuade the opinion makers of Boston Congregationalism that three-part vocal harmonization’s such as he had published the year before in Grounds ought to be sung in public worship. His method was simple: he proved “that David’s psalms were sung thus in Biblical times. Whereas John Tufts in his 1721 Introduction dared publish only the tune. Walter began at once in 1721 (in his Psalter) with all three parts: cantus, medius, bassus.”12
It was all these problems with psalmody which help increase the use of hymns, and also set the stage for its acceptance in Edwards’s church during portions of the “Great Awaken”. Most of the effort put into psalmody and its improvement was before 1730, with the greatest effort in the singing schools before 1725.
So the stage was set for hymnody in the Congregational Church. It is important at this point to note that hymnody was not accepted in all Congregational Church’s like it was accepted in the Northampton Church at the time of Whitefield’s arrival in 1839.
There also seems to have been a counter-trend, for whereas hymn singing increased in Edwards church, in other churches psalmody was on the upswing. Robert Stevenson seems to believe this in his work, Protestant Music in America. He says that there was an upward swing of New England psalmody from 1714 to 1769, and gives reasons for it.13 The problem with saying this is that he had to leave out (and he did) any reference to the use of Watt’s hymns in “the great awaking”. Whether he includes Watt’s hymns in his definition of psalmody, it is not possible to say.
John Howard in Our American Music gives a different picture. he says “… it was George Whitefield, the English religious leader, who chiefly promoted the use of Watt’s Hymns and Psalms. Whitefield made his great evangelistic tour of the colonies from 1739 to 1741. He was a great believer in singing … In Virginia, the noted preacher, the Reverend Samuel Davies, who in 1753, at the age of thirty, succeeded Jonathan Edwards as President of the college of New Jersey (Princeton) was also an ardent advocate of Watts. From the middle of the century on, the use of Watt’s hymns and psalms spread rapidly, superseding the use of the Bay Psalm Book and of Sternheld and Hopkins, until 1800 Watts completely dominated the hymnody in most churches”14
The evidence was in favor of Mr. Howard, mainly because of the poor quality of the Psalms. Edwards’s church would not have abandoned the Psalms so fast if they were of any real quality or even meaning. But because they were so poor, the church gave up on them.
There is another point that comes into play. The Congregationalists had a history of being a counter-group. Calvin formed a counter-group to the Roman church (and even to Luther, for that matter). It was the Puritans who went against the norms in England and later Holland and motivated them to settle in the New World. Psalmody itself was a counter to the trend of its time, for why else would the worship music have been called “Jigs”. Now hymnody countered the trends of psalmody. What more, hymns became popular by the counter-group involved in the revival, for the “great awaking” brought about change and was directed at the apathy which had formed in the church.
Hymn singing became popular in the Congregational Churches not only because psalmody was so bad but also because hymns of Watts were so good.
Watts wrote hymns as an alternative to psalmody. The story is told of how young Watts was voicing his displeasure with the psalm-singing to his father who was the pastor. His reply to his complaint, “give us something better, young man.” His father would have said this too, for he was a dissenter to the established church having been, imprisoned twice for his beliefs. 15 Isaac continued in his father’s tradition by later pastoring an independent church.
Watts did not, however, give up on the scriptures altogether. This would be too much. He Christianized the old testament and paraphrased the new. In his preface to his second collection of hymns called Psalms of David (1719) he said that he had written the Psalms “” … in the language of the New testament and applied to the Christian state and worship”16 Because Watt’s hymns were based on scripture and can be recognized by the singer as being so, they were accepted by Edward’s church with ease. Why sing poorly written, dry psalms when one can sing better hymns? Thus the attraction which Watt’s hymns had on the Congregationalists. So strong was this attraction that Watts was able “to break the paralyzing reign of psalmody in the Reformed church which had continued uninterrupted since the days of Calvin.17
In summary, it is important to note the influences on the transition from psalmody to hymnody. They can be broken into two groups. The poorness of psalmody and the positive attraction of Watts’ hymns. These two combined with the setting of the stage by the singing schools, aided in the readiness of the acceptance of hymnody in Early New England and especially the church’s in the “Great Awaking.”
Notes
1. John Howard, Our American Music (New York: Thomas Y. Crowe!! Co., 1965), p.16.
2. Mr. Burney, History of Music Vol. l; cited by Percy A. Scholes, The Puritans and Music (London: Oxford, 1934) p. 332.
3. Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?(0ld Tappan; New Jersey, 1976) p.89.
4. Scholes, p. 341 .
5. Scholes, p.340.
6. Scholes, p.340.
7. Scholes, p.340.
8 Scholes, p.340.
9 Friedrick Blume in collaboration with Robert Stevenson and others, Protestant Church Music (New York: W.W. Norton and Co. ,Inc, l974)p.648-649.
10.Blume, p. 649.
11. Blume, p. 652.
12 Blume, p. 652.
12 Blume, p. 652.
14 Howard, p. 16.
15. E. E. Ryden, The Story of Christian Hymnody, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959) p. 269.
16. Ryden, p. 270. 17 Ryden, p. 269.
Biography
Blume, Friedrick, in collaboration with Ludwig Finscher and others. Protestant Church Music. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.,Inc.,1974.
Chase, Gilbert, America’s Music. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,Inc., 1955. Douglas, Winfred. Church Music in History & Practice. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1962.
Dowley, Dr. Ton, Ed. Eerdmans Handbook to The History of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977.
Howard, John Tasker. Our American Music. New York: Thomas Crowell Co., 1965.
Ryden, E.E. The Story of Christian Hymnody. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959. Schaeffer, Francis A. How Should We Then Live? Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1976.
Scholes, Percy A. The Puritans and Music. London: Oxford, 1934.
Starkey, Marion L. The Congregational lay, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1966.
Starkey, Marion L. The Congregational lay, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc.
Starkey, Marion L. The Congregational lay, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc.
