1820 General Assembly committee report on uniformity in psalmody

Context

The dissertation describes a significant moment in the institutional history of the psalmody controversy. The Presbytery of Fayetteville, North Carolina, communicated to the General Assembly about “enlarging the system of Psalmody,” and a committee was appointed in 1819 to study the matter. This 1820 report summarizes all official actions on psalmody up to that point and proposes a path forward.

Extract

Psalmody has in all ages been considered a most important part of the worship of God. The Church, therefore, has ever been careful to preserve its purity for the edification of her members; whilst they who have departed from the faith once delivered to the saints, have availed themselves of it to accomplish their divisive plans with the best success. Mindful of their duty in this matter, the General Assembly have, from time to time, authorized the use of Rous’s version of the Book of Psalms, Watts’ imitation of the Psalms of David, with his three books of Hymns, Barlow’s alteration of, and additions to Watts’ imitation, and Dwight’s revision of Watts, with his additional versifications and collection of hymns, in the churches under their care.

Whilst the committee grant that each of these systems of Psalmody has its excellencies, they respectfully recommend that one uniform system of Psalmody be prepared under the direction of the Assembly, for the use of the churches under their care. They believe that the time has come when such a measure may be adopted without offending any of our churches, and with the prospect of complete success.

If they are correct in this belief, of which the Assembly must judge, it appears to them that uniformity in this matter will furnish a strong bond of peace and harmony between the different sections of our church.

The committee further recommends that this uniform system of Psalmody consist of two parts, viz.

I. A compilation of metrical versions of the Book of Psalms, adhering to the order and connexion of the same as far as practicable. In this compilation the preference ought to be given to the authorized versions now in use, so far as the poetry and conformity to the text allow. The committee, in recommending this compilation, disavows any design of committing the Assembly on the difference of opinion which exists about the Book of Psalms. They also wish it to be distinctly understood that they do not disapprove of Watts. But they think that a compilation, such as is recommended, if judiciously executed, will satisfy the friends of Dr. Watts’ imitation, and the advocates of the exclusive authority of the Book of Psalms.

II. A COPIOUS collection of hymns and spiritual songs from various authors, giving the preference to those now authorized, so far as good taste, sound sense, and enlightened piety admit.

Significance

This extract documents the General Assembly’s attempt to resolve the psalmody controversy through a compromise hymnal (eventually published in 1831):

1. Historical summary: The committee lists all officially authorized psalmody: Rous, Watts’ imitation, Watts’ hymns, Barlow’s Watts, and Dwight’s Watts
2. Divisiveness acknowledged: The reference to those who “availed themselves of it to accomplish their divisive plans” acknowledges the controversy had been used to split congregations
3. Uniformity as solution: The proposed solution is a “uniform system” that would create “a strong bond of peace and harmony between the different sections of our church”
4. Two-part structure: The proposed hymnal would have both Psalms (to satisfy “advocates of the exclusive authority of the Book of Psalms”) and a “copious collection of hymns”
5. Diplomatic language: The committee carefully “disavows any design of committing the Assembly on the difference of opinion” about exclusive psalmody

This represents the denomination’s official attempt to transcend the Rous-Watts divide, though it did not satisfy strict exclusive psalmists who objected to any hymns being authorized.